News Does Your Vote Really Matter in Presidential Elections?

[Benzoate]

He still would have lost, so according to you, your vote still wouldn't count.

Yes, but at least my vote would have counted. But in our current system, my vote doesn't count period because the electors basically ignored the minority vote.

 

[out of whack]

The only way that can make me enter a voting place, would only be for the sole purpose of changing the process by which we choose our representatives.

If it's your main issue, you could look for anyone who seems to support changes in this respect and vote for this person. It would be more progressive than not vote for any legislator at all, then complain to people who don't make legislation.

Its not about who wins the presidential election; its about your vote counting.

Your vote counts if you win. It doesn't count if you lose. You cannot know for sure if it counted or not until after all votes are in. The only sure thing is that votes not cast don't count.

I am not voting; I might just write the candidate of my choice in, but its not going to count.

By your own decision to abstain, you guarantee that your opinion will be ignored.

 

[castlegates]

Sure. If 20 % of americans votes for a candidate, then 20 %of the electors(or at least around 20 % of the electors) should vote for that candidate. Ross Perot received only 20 percent of the popular vote, but received absolutely no electoral votes. Thats 20 million votes that were not truly represent by their electors. And therefore , therefore 20 million americans did not have any influence on the way the elector would vote . There is no reason to vote in an election if the electors vote for the candidate who the majority of their district votes for.And its impossible for an elector to vote for the interests of the minority, if the interest of the minority conflict with the interests of the majority. Its just best to eliminate the electoral college entirely, and let the popular vote count. Its not about who wins the presidential election; its about your vote counting.

I am not voting; I might just write the candidate of my choice in, but its not going to count.

If it was done the way you suggest, your vote would still count the same. I thought the point you were making is that if 20% of people had an affiliation with a particular party, and other parties carried a higher percentile, you would have no representation in any level of government. Essentially your party would be totally muted, making you a non-existent entity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sure. If 20 % of americans votes for a candidate, then 20 %of the electors(or at least around 20 % of the electors) should vote for that candidate. Ross Perot received only 20 percent of the popular vote, but received absolutely no electoral votes. Thats 20 million votes that were not truly represent by their electors. And therefore , therefore 20 million americans did not have any influence on the way the elector would vote.

Yes, it is called "losing". But they had a chance to determine the outcome, which is all that the system is intended to offer.

There is no reason to vote in an election if the electors vote for the candidate who the majority of their district votes for.

Why? You are assuming that you will always be on the losing side. And you are effectively saying that elections results are preordained.

And its impossible for an elector to vote for the interests of the minority, if the interest of the minority conflict with the interests of the majority. Its just best to eliminate the electoral college entirely, and let the popular vote count. Its not about who wins the presidential election; its about your vote counting.

I am not voting; I might just write the candidate of my choice in, but its not going to count.

No, it is about who wins. Your are arguing semantics. That, or you are arguing against having one winner.

Why would someone who professeses a Libertarian philosophy wish to increase the significance of a national government over the States?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do you object to having only one winner?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I Yes. I am objecting to the winner take all system, because it does not represent to votes of the minority. Bush 41, didn't win the electoral vote, but his vote still counted. .

After looking back, I realized that I have no idea what you are saying here. I was thinking of the current Bush.

What do you mean his vote still counted?

 

[LowlyPion]

So Perot might have received - 20% of 537 votes, and the other guys split the rest - proportionally, and the third party still looses.

Except if no one wins a majority in the Electoral College it gets chucked to the House of Representatives. Any party with no representatives has no further vote in the matter it would seem.

Not providing proportional votes at the Electoral College looks to set a similar bias into the system.

 

[Benzoate]

Yes, it is called "losing". But they had a chance to determine the outcome, which is all that the system is intended to offer.



Why? You are assuming that you will always be on the losing side. And you are effectively saying that elections results are preordained.


No, it is about who wins. Your are arguing semantics. That, or you are arguing against having one winner.

Bush 41, lost the presidential election , but votes of Bush 41 still counted in the election, because a portion of electoral voters selected Bush.

This is the last time I will say this point I said many times already: I don't care who wins the election, I only care about the electors representing my vote. Since its impossible for the elector I elect to represent my vote accurately, I want to cast aside the vote of the elector entirely and have only my vote count.

Why would someone who professeses a Libertarian philosophy wish to increase the significance of a national government over the States?

Um, how would eliminating the electoral college give the national government more power? Our current voting system allows the government to have more power than the individual , at least when it comes to voting. the votes of the delegates matter(the states) not the popular vote, ( the American people). In that regard, how am I professing a statist philosophy , when I argue that the individual voters should have the only say in who gets elected, not the delegates(the state)

 

[Cyrus]

Benzoate, you should take a field trip to a country like africa where they cut your hands off for voting for the wrong party.

People who don't vote are worthless.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...3A05754C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

''The idea of chopping someone's hands off allegedly came from rebels saying to people: We're going to cut your hands off so you can't vote.''

When you don't vote, you spit on the face of everyone around the world that is denied that right.

If you don't vote, you forfeit your right to complain.

A more serious point of view would be to vote for the best available option, and try to fix the system in concurrently while voting.

When you don't vote, you don't send a message to both parties. The only thing you show them is that they have to try less hard to win because you give up. In other words, they don't have to worry about you because you don't hurt nor harm them.

 

[LightbulbSun]

People who don't vote are worthless.

Not really. If there is not a good candidate running, then what's the sense in voting for the lesser of two evils? Seems like a wasted effort. This is why the general public needs to pay more attention to the primaries so we have better options on the table.

If you don't vote, you forfeit your right to complain.

Why are you creating a qualifier for free speech? This goes completely against the 1st Amendment.

A more serious point of view would be to vote for the best available option, and try to fix the system in concurrently while voting.

If there are two incompetent people running for office, what's the sense in voting for one over the other? You're still going to get incompetence. There is no best available option.

When you don't vote, you don't send a message to both parties.

I completely disagree. To use a sports analogy, if the people are fed up with a losing franchise and stop attending, they are sending a message. Now the downside to this analogy is that you can state the team would lose revenue and ultimately have to move the franchise, but the main point is a decrease in voter turnout will force them to select better candidates whom people will want to vote for.I'd like to also add that there should be a third party candidate. It's bad enough we have a false dichotomy in the American political arena of "you're either a liberal or a conservative" when that's simply not the case. That's trying to pigeonhole everyone's differing views.

 

[Benzoate]

Benzoate, you should take a field trip to a country like africa where they cut your hands off for voting for the wrong party.

People who don't vote are worthless.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...3A05754C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all




When you don't vote, you spit on the face of everyone around the world that is denied that right.

If you don't vote, you forfeit your right to complain.

No Cyrus, People who do vote are worthless; Neither of the two candidates are going to create a foreign policy based solely on free trade instead of "spreading democracy" to other country via dropping bombs on other countries and invading other countries, and giving money to countries in Africa, even when the US gives money to african countries, the warlords in Africa take the money for themselves and don't give the money to the people. ; Neither of the two current candidates , are going to addressed what's wrong with our current montary policy. And Most importantly , why should I bother to vote if neither of the two candidates are going to say that the americans work 4 months out of the year just to pay taxes.Although I am voting, I am not taking this election seriously because I basically have two choices: Pepsi and Coca cola. and I am NOT a fan of either of the two colas running. You see , a presidential election should be similar to the soda selection we have in this country ; I want to see Mr. Peebles, Sprite, Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper, Z-Up, Surge, and a whole myriad of different sodas on the ballot, not just pepsi and coke. A presidential election should have a whole array of politicians with different political philosophies that will worked best for the country. On the ballot box, there should be an infinite list of boxes of people to choose from, not two boxes. Instead, we get two candidates, who's platform doesn't differ very much from the opposing candidate. I am voting, but my vote is not going to count, even if a significant number of the population votes for the no-party or third party candidate

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush 41, lost the presidential election , but votes of Bush 41 still counted in the election, because a portion of electoral voters selected Bush.

Okay, I see your point. You are bothered by the fact that Perot got no votes from a State.

This is the last time I will say this point I said many times already: I don't care who wins the election, I only care about the electors representing my vote.

Why? Your vote gets counted in your State. It may be that you object winner take all voting, but your vote does get counted. You are objecting to WHEN it gets counted - at what level.

Since its impossible for the elector I elect to represent my vote accurately, I want to cast aside the vote of the elector entirely and have only my vote count.

So you want a national popular vote. Okay. Perhaps you can address all of the problems that the current system was designed to address, as has been discussed.

Um, how would eliminating the electoral college give the national government more power?

The winner-take-all system results from States' autonomy. The two concepts are fundamentally linked. If you go to a national popular vote, you lessen the significance - the power - of the individual States.

 

[Cyrus]

Not really. If there is not a good candidate running, then what's the sense in voting for the lesser of two evils? Seems like a wasted effort. This is why the general public needs to pay more attention to the primaries so we have better options on the table.

Think back to the other thread and what I said. The American public likes one-liners from politicians that don't really mean anything and they never back it up. That's why you have a poor selection pool for candidates. The point of picking the lesser of two evils is that when I vote for Obama, I know at least some of what he's going to do is what I want to see done. (I.e., He's not like palin who is a fundamental christian nut). That is to say, he has some sides that I am not in line with. I am Pro Guns. Most democrats are anti-gun. But I have to live with that. By fundamentally, there are things that are so bad with the other party, that I have to make sure they stay out of power.

Why are you creating a qualifier for free speech? This goes completely against the 1st Amendment.

While one can express their view by not voting, its hypocritical. If you complain and do nothing about, that's pretty worthless by any measure.

If there are two incompetent people running for office, what's the sense in voting for one ove the other? You're still going to get incompetence. There is no best available option.

I think you have boiled it down too simply. You have to weigh the +'s and -'s of each candidate in terms of what you personally feel. Also, I would't say they are all 'incompetent'. Thats too much of a simplification.

I completely disagree. To use a sports analogy, if the people are fed up with a losing franchise and stop attending, they are sending a message. Now the downside to this analogy is that you can state the team would lose revenue and ultimately have to move the franchise, but the main point is a decrease in voter turnout will force them to select better candidates whom people will want to vote for.

If I am running for office and I know you Lightbulbsun are not voting, that's great. I don't have to work for your vote. In fact, I don't even have to care about the fact that you're not going to vote. Because you're not voting for the other guy, so you're not helping him. At the same time, you're not hurting me either. I have no reason to even give you 5 mins of my time to hear why you're not going to vote.

I'd like to also add that there should be a third party candidate. It's bad enough we have a false dichotomy in the American political arena of "you're either a liberal or a conservative" when that's simply not the case. That's trying to pigeonhole everyone's differing views.

It should just be let the best person win. Sadly that's not the case. But together, we can change. (Like how I worked that in there Ivan? )

 

[Cyrus]

No Cyrus, People who do vote are worthless; Neither of the two candidates are going to create a foreign policy based solely on free trade instead of "spreading democracy" to other country via dropping bombs on other countries and invading other countries, and giving money to countries in Africa, even when the US gives money to african countries, the warlords in Africa take the money for themselves and don't give the money to the people. ; Neither of the two current candidates , are going to addressed what's wrong with our current montary policy. And Most importantly , why should I bother to vote if neither of the two candidates are going to say that the americans work 4 months out of the year just to pay taxes.Although I am voting, I am not taking this election seriously because I basically have two choices: Pepsi and Coca cola. and I am NOT a fan of either of the two colas running. You see , a presidential election should be similar to the soda selection we have in this country ; I want to see Mr. Peebles, Sprite, Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper, Z-Up, Surge, and a whole myriad of different sodas on the ballot, not just pepsi and coke. A presidential election should have a whole array of politicians with different political philosophies that will worked best for the country. On the ballot box, there should be an infinite list of boxes of people to choose from, not two boxes. Instead, we get two candidates, who's platform doesn't differ very much from the opposing candidate. I am voting, but my vote is not going to count, even if a significant number of the population votes for the no-party or third party candidate

I don't disagree with you on your points. I disagree with you on your methods. Chosing not to vote is NOT the method you should go about implementing more choice.

 

[Benzoate]

I don't disagree with you on your points. I disagree with you on your methods.

What methods? I am voting. But I am only voting to protest the two party system. Otherwise, I am NOT taking this election seriously because my vote will not be represented by the electoral college.

 

[Evo]

I am NOT taking this election seriously because my vote will not be represented by the electoral college.

And what exactly do you think is the difference if you lose?

 

[Cyrus]

What methods? I am voting. But I am only voting to protest the two party system. Otherwise, I am NOT taking this election seriously because my vote will not be represented by the electoral college.

In the first page of this thread you stated you were not voting. Now you're voting to protest the two party system.

Here is a better thought. Reserach both candidates. See which one you like best and vote for them. Then join a reform group to add more parties to the system and volunteer for them. And when you do, more power to you. We need it.

But right now, you're just sitting back and complaining and I don't see you actually doing anything about it other than making a mockery out of the voting process.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Think back to the other thread and what I said. The American public likes one-liners from politicians that don't really mean anything and they never back it up. That's why you have a poor selection pool for candidates. The point of picking the lesser of two evils is that when I vote for Obama, I know at least some of what he's going to do is what I want to see done. (I.e., He's not like palin who is a fundamental christian nut). That is to say, he has some sides that I am not in line with. I am Pro Guns. Most democrats are anti-gun. But I have to live with that. By fundamentally, there are things that are so bad with the other party, that I have to make sure they stay out of power.

I agree, but there's a difference between doing some of what you want to see him do, and him doing most of what you want to see him do. That's the point I am making. If the candidates are only going to do the minimal, then I'm not going to waste my time voting for either one of them.

While one can express their view by not voting, its hypocritical. If you complain and do nothing about, that's pretty worthless by any measure.

It's not hypocritical to set a personal standard when it comes to politics.

I think you have boiled it down too simply. You have to weigh the +'s and -'s of each candidate in terms of what you personally feel. Also, I would't say they are all 'incompetent'. Thats too much of a simplification.

I oversimplified to make my point. Obviously, not all are incompetent. At the same time, I will not vote for people who are only going to do the minimal.

If I am running for office and I know you Lightbulbsun are not voting, that's great. I don't have to work for your vote. In fact, I don't even have to care about the fact that you're not going to vote. Because you're not voting for the other guy, so you're not helping him. At the same time, you're not hurting me either. I have no reason to even give you 5 mins of my time to hear why you're not going to vote.

You are reducing this down to one person. What happens if 300,000 choose not to vote for either candidate because both of them are not people they would vote for? Will they simply ignore it?

 

[Evo]

What happens if 300,000 choose not to vote for either candidate because both of them are not people they would vote for? Will they simply ignore it?

Yes, because you basicaly don't exist. There have been many elections where there has been low voter turnout. These peple didn't vote and lost their voice. No vote means nothing.

 

[Benzoate]

In the first page of this thread you stated you were not voting. Now you're voting to protest the two party system.

Here is a better thought. Reserach both candidates. See which one you like best and vote for them. Then join a reform group to add more parties to the system and volunteer for them. And when you do, more power to you. We need it.

But right now, you're just sitting back and complaining and I don't see you actually doing anything about it other than making a mockery out of the voting process.

I did research both candidates. Both candidates want to continue to run the american empire around the world. Both obama and Mccain want to aid Georgia , in helping them fight against Russia, when Russia virtually poses no threat to Russia. And the candidates who do get a elected abused their powers and ignored the constitution . Did you know that even though Congress hasn't officially declared war since 1941 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States, we had over but we had over a hundred wars with other countries since the declaration of war made by congress with Japan in 1941. Of course, they will be called 'conflicts' but in the eyes of those countries the US military is attacking, those are wars to them.

 

[castlegates]

Bush 41, lost the presidential election , but votes of Bush 41 still counted in the election, because a portion of electoral voters selected Bush.

Only if he wins a state.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Yes, because you basicaly don't exist. There have been many elections where there has been low voter turnout. These peple didn't vote and lost their voice. No vote means nothing.

Well I still stand by my personal standard: either a candidate does most of what I want him to do or I don't vote at all. Call that futile, but I uphold that standard.

 

[Evo]

Well I still stand by my personal standard: either a candidate does most of what I want him to do or I don't vote at all. Call that futile, but I uphold that standard.

Someone is going to win, someone is going to run the country. If you don't care for either, then at least vote against the one that you think is the worst and try to keep them out of office. Even if it is one small issue that one candidate has right as you see it, then you have voted for that one thing. I'm voting for the candidate that I feel will not take away my personal freedoms, that's Obama. Doesn't mean I think Obama is the best candidate we could have chosen to run, but that he's the one that will make the decisions I can live with. If you're waiting for a perfect candidate (in your opinion), one that you think will do everything you want, then I guess you'll never vote, but then don't come on here complaining.

 

[turbo]

Someone is going to win, someone is going to run the country. If you don't care for either, then at least vote against the one that you think is the worst and try to keep them out of office. Even if it is one small issue that one candidate has right as you see it, then you have voted for that one thing. I'm voting for the candidate that I feel will not take away my personal freedoms, that's Obama. Doesn't mean I think Obama is the best candidate we could have chosen to run, but that he's the one that will make the decisions I can live with. If you're waiting for a perfect candidate (in your opinion), one that you think will do everything you want, then I guess you'll never vote, but then don't come on here complaining.

It's hard to argue with someone who will not vote because no candidate is good enough. Vote for the lesser of two evils, and work for change. Anything less is supine surrender to the status-quo. PLEASE register as an Independent if that is allowed in your state, and PLEASE be willing to swap parties when you see primary contests that you want to influence. I have been registered as Democrat and Republican off-and-on again so that I could support candidates of either party in the primaries. Voting matters. Yeah, you won't be able to swing the country, the state, or maybe even your district, but local activism counts, and you can make a difference.

 

[Benzoate]

Someone is going to win, someone is going to run the country. If you don't care for either, then at least vote against the one that you think is the worst and try to keep them out of office. Even if it is one small issue that one candidate has right as you see it, then you have voted for that one thing. I'm voting for the candidate that I feel will not take away my personal freedoms, that's Obama. Doesn't mean I think Obama is the best candidate we could have chosen to run, but that he's the one that will make the decisions I can live with. If you're waiting for a perfect candidate (in your opinion), one that you think will do everything you want, then I guess you'll never vote, but then don't come on here complaining.

In other words, vote for the lesser of the two evils. Yep , the system works perfectly and needs no repairs(sarcasm). How do you know Obama is telling the truth?. Politicians lie . And its not the exception . Its the norm . President Bush said he would reduced spending , yet we have a trillion dollar debt, we owe money to china and we just nationalized two major private home loaners, and historians say gov't the largest bureaucracy in US history. HE voted for the patriot act And he is for net neutrality , and you have said that the telecom companies that provides internet services to millions of consumers and that the government has no right to force telecom companies to favored certain servers over other servers.

 

[LowlyPion]

... then I guess you'll never vote, but then don't come on here complaining.

The beauty of voting is that it frees people to complain.

Whatever the problem, if it is attributable to any elected official that you could have voted against, but didn't vote, then you are part of the problem as well.

 

[Evo]

In other words, vote for the lesser of the two evils.

Better than allowing the more evil one to win.

How do you know Obama is telling the truth?.

Do some research on what he's done in the past.

he is for net neutrality, and you have said that the telecom companies that provides internet services to millions of consumers and that the government has no right to force telecom companies to favored certain servers over other servers.

Like I said, he's not perfect, it's all hype, people don't understand it, it's really a non-issue that people have trumped up out of ignorance. And you got what I said wrong. I said that the internet is privately owned except for some countries where communications are government owned and that anyone can buy better services based on how much they are willing to pay. That's the way it is. The nonsense about only big company websites will be the only ones that anyone can view is total nonsense. This isn't some future scenario, higher bandwidth and class of service are long standing options.

 

[turbo]

In other words, vote for the lesser of the two evils. Yep , the system works perfectly and needs no repairs(sarcasm). How do you know Obama is telling the truth?. Politicians lie . And its not the exception . Its the norm . President Bush said he would reduced spending , yet we have a trillion dollar debt, we owe money to china and we just nationalized two major private home loaners, and historians say gov't the largest bureaucracy in US history. HE voted for the patriot act And he is for net neutrality , and you have said that the telecom companies that provides internet services to millions of consumers and that the government has no right to force telecom companies to favored certain servers over other servers.

Vote for the least repulsive (to you) candidate, and try to foster activism to reform our electoral system. If you want to portray yourself as a disenfranchised voter, you should be willing to help change that, instead of rolling over and accepting your pathetic fate. Start agitating for a national popular vote if that's what you want, and be prepared to fight the entrenched two-party system for years and decades to make it happen. Or else quit complaining.

 

[castlegates]

But right now, you're just sitting back and complaining and I don't see you actually doing anything about it other than making a mockery out of the voting process

There is plenty to mock about the process. Complaining about it is the first step to changing it.

 

[LightbulbSun]

If you're waiting for a perfect candidate (in your opinion), one that you think will do everything you want, then I guess you'll never vote, but then don't come on here complaining.

I never said I'm waiting for the "perfect candidate." If I wanted 10 things to be seen done and a candidate is going to do 5 of those things, I'd go out and vote for that candidate. If he is only going to do 1, then I won't vote because it's not worth it. See what I am saying?

 

[Evo]

I never said I'm waiting for the "perfect candidate." If I wanted 10 things to be seen done and a candidate is going to do 5 of those things, I'd go out and vote for that candidate. If he only is going to do 1, then I won't vote because it's not worth it. See what I am saying?

You're saying you don't want to be bothered. So don't vote and be ignored. That's what millions of people do. And they have no right to complain. Just don't pretend that doing nothing is getting anyone's attention, it's not.

 

[turbo]

I never said I'm waiting for the "perfect candidate." If I wanted 10 things to be seen done and a candidate is going to do 5 of those things, I'd go out and vote for that candidate. If he is only going to do 1, then I won't vote because it's not worth it. See what I am saying?

If one of those things is re-regulating banks so that they cannot gamble with our money, that's enough to vote for. If one of those things is limiting the amount of money that a lobbyist can give a candidate, that's enough to vote for.

Nihilism sucks. Cynicism sucks. If you want to engage in this crap to the point at which you refuse to vote, the system wins. What part of that do you not get?

 

[LightbulbSun]

You're saying you don't want to be bothered. So don't vote and be ignored. That's what millions of people do. And they have no right to complain. Just don't pretend that doing nothing is getting anyone's attention, it's not.

I never said I wouldn't vote. What part of that don't you understand? I'm not explaining myself all over again.

If one of those things is re-regulating banks so that they cannot gamble with our money, that's enough to vote for. If one of those things is limiting the amount of money that a lobbyist can give a candidate, that's enough to vote for.

Nihilism sucks. Cynicism sucks. If you want to engage in this crap to the point at which you refuse to vote, the system wins. What part of that do you not get?

I don't engage in nihilism or cynicism. It's called personal standards. What part of that do you not get?

 

[Evo]

I never said I wouldn't vote. What part of that don't you understand? I'm not explaining myself all over again.

thought I hadn't read your first post eh?

When a Liberatarian is actually in the Presidential Race, that's when I'll cast a vote. My non-vote is my message to the Democratic and Republican parties.

Don't try to tell tales here.

 

[castlegates]

I never said I'm waiting for the "perfect candidate." If I wanted 10 things to be seen done and a candidate is going to do 5 of those things, I'd go out and vote for that candidate. If he is only going to do 1, then I won't vote because it's not worth it. See what I am saying?

There is no way of knowing what any particular candidate is going to do, because they have to be all things to all people. They are going to tell you what you want to hear, whether they agree with it or not. It's a con job like a beauty contest, fake boobs and masking tape.

 

[Benzoate]

Better than allowing the more evil one to win.

Evil is evil period.

Do some research on what he's done in the past.

I think you should do more research on him. He has flip-flopped on a couple of issues. He said in one video clip that Iran isn't a big threat and in other video clip he has said Iran is a graved threat to US security. He also has flipped flopped on the brady bill. His list of flip flops aren't as extensive as Romney, but he has still flip-flopped.
.[/QUOTE]

 

[turbo]

thought I hadn't read your first post eh?

Don't try to tell tales here.

it's funny when posters pretend that their past posts aren't available for others to see. It's way beyond funny when politicians pretend that there are no video-cameras running whenever they open their pie-holes.

 

[LightbulbSun]

thought I hadn't read your first post eh?

Don't try to tell tales here.

Yeah, I said that because I want to end this false dichotomy we all seem to be trapped in. As if the Democratic and Republican parties are the only two parties who could ever hold office in the United States. There are actually five parties and I would like to see at least one of the other three get into the final race sometime soon.

 

[LightbulbSun]

And stop putting a qualifier on free speech. So now the only people who can speak are the ones who vote in every single election? Way to wipe your *** with the Bill of Rights.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, I said that because I want to end this false dichotomy we all seem to be trapped in. As if the Democratic and Republican parties are the only two parties who could ever hold office in the United States. There are actually five parties and I would like to see at least one of the other three get into the final race sometime soon.

The two-party system is a joke, and the differences between them are no more significant than the differences between Time and Newsweek or Coke and Pepsi. It's all marketing. If you throw up your hands, and refuse to participate, will that make things better? You choose.

 

[LightbulbSun]

The two-party system is a joke, and the differences between them are no more significant than the differences between Time and Newsweek or Coke and Pepsi. It's all marketing. If you throw up your hands, and refuse to participate, will that make things better? You choose.

I'm not throwing my hands up. I'm trying to become active in getting a Libertarian (I know a lot of people disagree with its political philosophy) into the final presidential race and have a significant chance at winning the presidency. When have we ever had a three party presidential race?

 

[LowlyPion]

It's a con job like a beauty contest, fake boobs and masking tape.

What? You mean they do that?

But to the point of the candidates, I note you support the con job of the Right Wing. You're ok with those misrepresentations?

 

[turbo]

I'm not throwing my hands up. I'm trying to become active in getting a Libertarian (I know a lot of people disagree with its political philosophy) into the final presidential race and have a significant chance at winning the presidency. When have we ever had a three party presidential race?

Work to disable the winner-take-all presidential elections, state-by-state. Work to establish a popular vote for presidential elections. If you don't want to do these things, you can resign yourself to whining about how your vote is worthless EVERY 4 YEARS. Duh!

 

[castlegates]

And stop putting a qualifier on free speech. So now the only people who can speak are the ones who vote in every single election? Way to wipe your *** with the Bill of Rights.

Yes it does get sullied on a regular basis, but it is more than just a piece of paper. :-)

 

[LowlyPion]

And stop putting a qualifier on free speech. So now the only people who can speak are the ones who vote in every single election? Way to wipe your *** with the Bill of Rights.

What qualifier? You don't have to vote. That is permitted speech. Just as making the observation that in abdicating your right to vote in a particular election, people might consequently observe that you are likewise part of the problem initiated by those who were elected, in however small a way that might be.

 

[Evo]

I'm not throwing my hands up. I'm trying to become active in getting a Libertarian (I know a lot of people disagree with its political philosophy) into the final presidential race and have a significant chance at winning the presidency. When have we ever had a three party presidential race?

Do you have any idea how many political parties there are and how many run for President?

If enough people wanted to support a candidate outside the two dominant parties, they would be noticed. You just notice the top few parties, apparently, like most people. I have never found an Independant I thought was sane enough to vote for, personally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

 

[LightbulbSun]

What qualifier? You don't have to vote. That is permitted speech. Just as making the observation that in abdicating your right to vote in a particular election, people might consequently observe that you are likewise part of the problem initiated by those who were elected, in however small a way that might be.

Actually if I don't vote for either of the two candidates and whoever gets voted turns out to be a real problem, then it's not on me. I didn't vote for either of them. The problem is that too many people force themselves to resign to either voting Democrat or Republican. It's a false dichotomy that needs to end soon.

 

[Evo]

Actually if I don't vote for either of the two candidates and whoever gets voted turns out to be a real problem, then it's not on me. I didn't vote for either of them. The problem is that too many people force themselves to resign to either voting Democrat or Republican. It's a false dichotomy that needs to end soon.

By note voting you ARE responsible for both, as opposed to if you voted for one, you'd only be responsible for one. You're afraid to vote because you don't feel competant enough?

Perhaps you are right and you shouldn't vote.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Do you have any idea how many political parties there are and how many run for President?

If enough people wanted to support a candidate outside the two dominant parties, they would be noticed. You just notice the top few parties, apparently, like most people. I have never found an Independant I thought was sane enough to vote for, personally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

There are a gazillion parties, but there are only five prominent ones: Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, and Green.

The reason people only support Democratic and Republican candidates is because they've fallen for the false dichotomy in American politics.

 

[LightbulbSun]

By note voting you ARE responsible for both, as opposed to if you voted for one, you'd only be responsible for one. You're afraid to vote because you don't feel competant enough?

How would I be responsible for both? I didn't vote for either one. I didn't support any of them.