News Does Your Vote Really Matter in Presidential Elections?

[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.

 

[Benzoate]

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.

Hey at least with magazines and sodas, the american people have more of a choice in there magazine and soda selections, than just pepsi and coke , or time and Newsweek

IF you think the two-party system is a joke , why bother investing in the two party-system by casting your vote to one of the candidates nominated by the two parties. IF you continued to vote for candidates that are members of either two parties, you are giving are preserving the two party system. You are saying you are fine with the two party system , and no alternative political views are necessary for your vote. The only way to destroyed a candidate or write in a third party candidate. Either way, your contribution to destroying the two party system will mean nothing.

 

[Evo]

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

By voting for neither, you have ok'd both. If you vote for one, then you have a 50-50 chance for having voted for the most qualified, according to your line of thought. If a "bad" President won and you voted against them, then you could say that you are not responsible. If this "bad" President gets elected, then you are as responsible by not voting as if you had voted for them.

Basically by not choosing one, you have said either is ok because one of them WILL be elected and you don't care which it is.

 

[LightbulbSun]

By voting for neither, you have ok'd both. If you vote for one, then you have a 50-50 chance for having voted for the most qualified, according to your line of thought. If a "bad" President won and you voted against them, then you could say that you are not responsible. If this "bad" President gets elected, then you are as responsible by not voting as if you had voted for them.

Your logic does not follow. You're essentially saying:

X or Y
P didn't vote for either X or Y
X or Y turns out to be bad
Therefore, P is responsible

I don't think that's sound logic on your part. So now if I don't support either candidate and don't vote, then suddenly I have supported both. What?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Basically by not choosing one, you have said either is ok because one of them WILL be elected and you don't care which it is.

Actually by voting for one of the two parties you're essentially saying that you're content with the status quo, therefore making you part of the problem.

 

[Evo]

So now if I don't support either candidate and don't vote, then suddenly I have supported both. What?

I didn't say that you "supported" them. If you say you don't care who gets elected, and you do absolutely nothing, you have basically agreed that either will do. That's not the same as active support.

By voting for one of the two people that are going to be elected, you have at least tried to get the best possible person in control.

I don't care if there are 10 equally strong parties, if all 10 candidates are bad, what have you accomplished by adding to the number? I guess then you can not vote for all ten. Then the next election there are 20 that are not "good" choices, then you can avoid voting for 20.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I didn't say that you "supported" them. If you say you don't care who gets elected, and you do absolutely nothing, you have basically agreed that either will do. That's not the same as active support.

Except I do care, and by not voting I am expressing my malcontent for the two party system. By resigning yourself to vote for one of the candidates in the two party system you are expressing approval of the current system, just like a fanbase continuing to sell out the place despite an incompetent front office giving them a **** product year after year. You think going with the lesser of two evils is going to change the current system? I highly doubt that.

I don't care if there are 10 equally strong parties, if all 10 candidates are bad, what have you accomplished by adding to the number? I guess then you can not vote for all ten. Then the next election there are 20 that are not "good" choices, then you can avoid voting for 20.

My point about a third party being in the race is that it will rid ourselves of the false dichotomy that so many people have fallen for. People have vast political views that pigeonholing them down to either a "liberal" or a "conservative" is oversimplifying everything. The point is there should be more options.

 

[russ_watters]

Evo is right about the scoring. It's like in baseball: If you win a game, the standings report it as having gained a half a game on the competition, except for the team you beat, which you gain a game on. By voting for neither, neither gets the benefit of your vote, but also, neither gets the penalty of not getting your vote. The penalty only happens if you voted for the other candidate. So voting for neither works the same as giving half of your vote to each candidate.

 

[castlegates]

I would prefer to see just one party that includes all people.
Purdy simple really.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Evo is right about the scoring. It's like in baseball: If you win a game, the standings report it as having gained a half a game on the competition, except for the team you beat, which you gain a game on. By voting for neither, neither gets the benefit of your vote, but also, neither gets the penalty of not getting your vote. The penalty only happens if you voted for the other candidate. So voting for neither works the same as giving half of your vote to each candidate.

I see your point (I love baseball analogies), but like I've stated, continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils because people think it's preordained that it will end up being a Democratic candidate vs a Republican one is only expressing approval of the current system. Just like a fanbase continuing to sell out a place despite an incompetent front office giving them a poor product on the field year after year. To say that continuing the course in your voting is going to change the current system is being pollyanna.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I would prefer to see just one party that includes all people.
Purdy simple really.

Except the world isn't that simple.

 

[castlegates]

Except the world isn't that simple.

But it can be.

 

[LightbulbSun]

But it can be.

No, it really can't. The world and the universe are so complex. It's time to embrace the complexity and to stop oversimplifying things.

 

[castlegates]

No, it really can't. The world and the universe are so complex. It's time to embrace the complexity and to stop oversimplifying things.

If a system of government follows logical principles, simplicity shall rule the day. The current US system is not logical.

 

[cristo]

The current US system is not logical.

What would you replace it with?

 

[castlegates]

What would you replace it with?

A one party system that includes all people.

 

[LowlyPion]

It seems to me that there must be some natural tendency toward a two party system. Parties in power create a coalescence in opposition, because the majority in power can only in a majority rule situation be turned from power by a subsequent majority.

That seems to imply that a more stable configuration to absorb, and or facilitate, oscillations of power would be between just 2 mostly equal factions. That 3 mostly equal factions result in a situation that likely results in the majority being more or less twice the minority, and the greater the majority the more likely the tendency to coalesce a greater opposition that would serve to end the majority in power to bring things more in balance again.

 

[cristo]

A one party system that includes all people.

I don't understand: this sounds like a contradiction in terms. Do you mean you just want a free-for-all, and anyone can run for president, under the heading of some "one party"? Or would you rather have a party, that puts up a couple of candidates that you then vote for? That is just a glorified dictatorship.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea run/ran one-party systems and it seems to work well for them. The election season isn't all that exciting, though, since there is very little argument about policy.

 

[castlegates]

I don't understand: this sounds like a contradiction in terms. Do you mean you just want a free-for-all, and anyone can run for president, under the heading of some "one party"? Or would you rather have a party, that puts up a couple of candidates that you then vote for? That is just a glorified dictatorship.

Dictatorships work from the top down. I'm talking about a pure democracy here (bottom up), at least at the outset, it must be a pure democracy. From that point the system can morf into whatever the people want, because it would in fact be the peoples choice. I worked on a system of this nature back in the day, because I cared enough not to vote anymore. :-)

Here is my preamble to it.

We as a people
In sincere effort to demonstrate moral fortitude
Do hereby offer
What is within our acceptance
The thoughts that impel greater good
Let us manifest verity in the concept
Through embrace of a foundation
Wherein public service is maintained
To a loyal reflection of the total exemplary
Earning it's principled authority from a concent of the faithful whole
So as to essentially function
For the will of it's people
We therein pledge allegiance to our conscience
Vowing a solemn attempt to further establish the strength of soul
As we perpetuate a God given spirit
It is then in general agreement of this constitution
We express a devotion to ourselves and our posterity.



The word God in this preamble could certainly be stricken, but this is my preamble, and what I say goes, at least in this version. All that is needed here as far as a constitution is to stay within the boundries of this preamble.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well, the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea run/ran one-party systems and it seems to work well for them. The election season isn't all that exciting, though, since there is very little argument about policy.

I suppose they constitute majority rule countries then, though I might argue that they were a degenerate case - singularities as it were.