Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Does Your Vote Really Matter?

  1. Oct 6, 2008 #1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjUtYQ1dvuA

    As pointed out in this video, not really, but watch the whole video. He's echoing what I have viewed for awhile now. If you want to send a message and end the false political dichotomy that plagues this country, then vote for a third party candidate. Voting for either Mccain or Obama is just your stamp of approval on the status quo and will change nothing.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 11, 2008 #2
    I think in order for a third party candidate or presidential candidate who is not affiliated with any party, people are going to have to start voting for the candidate that truly represents their particular political principles , and stop voting for a candidate who represents a major political party that washed away the principles the party was originally found upon eons ago. The Republican party used to have a platform that was based on small government, and not warring with other countries that did not attack us. Now , mainly thanks to Bush, they are just a right wing version of the Democrat Party. People should who are real conservatives should stopped supporting the republican party now that it really doesn't represents conservative principles and values. But many republicans just blindly accept anybody nominated by the republican party, whether they are conservative or not. Therefore, they end up with the same status quo.
     
  4. Oct 11, 2008 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is too much at stake to play games with third party candidates who can't possibly win... unless you plan to vote Republican.

    If there was no way that I could support Obama, then I would definitely vote third party.
     
  5. Oct 11, 2008 #4
    and that the reason why 50 % of American does not vote, because they think they have two choices, and those 50 percent are delusional; Of course we have other choices. It just that people are sheeple in this country and they vote person is nominate by two of the major political parties. I'm tired of watching Gunsmoke and Dukes of Hazzard every presidential election year; time for a new tv show!
     
  6. Oct 11, 2008 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There are many choices. The people that choose not to vote do so because they either think their vote doesn't count or they don't care. Then there are those that just don't want to be bothered. It certainly isn't because there aren't a lot of choices. You are aware of the other choices? Of the other parties?

    If they aren't aware of other parties it's because they don't care to look. If they cared, they would easily find the other choices.

    Why are the other parties small and fringe? Because they cater to small fringe groups. Go figure.
     
  7. Oct 11, 2008 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It was argued not long ago that it doesn't make a difference who wins. And for a time this was probably true. But, if a person can't see that NOW there is a huge difference between the two parties, then I do suggest that you don't vote. Stay home.

    Same goes for the old "the President doesn't have any power" nonsense. If a person doesn't know better by now, then don't vote. Stay home.

    Those of us who pay attention to events and who donate time and money to this election, don't want the couch potatoes mucking things up through ignorance.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2008
  8. Oct 11, 2008 #7

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Does My Vote Really Matter?

    It does to me.
     
  9. Oct 11, 2008 #8
    Those of us who choose to vote third party or choose not to participate in the election are NOT the ones that are responsible for the corrupt politicians who get into office. The voters are the ignorant ones for investing money into the campaign of a politician when that politician fufills less than 25 percent of their campaign promises.

    And It is not true that most apathetic american voters don't pay attention to politicians. I paid attention to the two major candidates and I don't what either of the two candidates are bringing to the campaign table because its the same old pile of smelly...*grass*. Personally, I choose not to vote for either of those candidates and vote for the candidate that represents my interests. On the other hand, most americans who don't care for either politician choose not to vote at all .
     
  10. Oct 11, 2008 #9
    There not small and fringe because they cater to so-called anomalies of America. They don't have the money or other people investing in to there campaign , so it becomes harder to get their message across to the American public. Its all about marketing. Even though Beta-max was far superior to the VHS, the makers of VHS were able to market their product to the public, and therefore became mainstream. Fox news did a poll when they had there Republican debate earlier this year and the majority of people who were polled by FOX News said Ron Paul won most of those republican debates. But Ron paul had poor PR people , and was unable to spread his ideas about the proper way government should function to the primaries.
     
  11. Oct 11, 2008 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, Ron Paul had the media attention, but he lost it because his fans are a small and fringe group and he never appealed to the mainstream. Just proves that even if you have national coverage because of a fluke, if you're a fluke, you're going to disappear.
     
  12. Oct 11, 2008 #11
    Tell me why you think he is a fluke? This "fluke" is the only person who wants to follow the constitution. Most of the candidates don't want change our current fiat money system back to the gold/silver standard. The current monetary system we have in place is unconstitutional; our founding fathers wanted to have a monetary system where the currency is backed strictly by gold and silver.
    Most of the mainstream candidates don't want to remove all of our troops that are not only stationed in Iraq and Aghanistan , but all over the world and bring them back to American soil. Most of the candidates want fully acknowledge that it was our foreign policy in the middle east that evoked the 9/11 attacks .

    Look up Ron Paul on youtube and all the big news broadcast companies that ignored him before(especially FOX news) have brought him back to ask his financial advice on how politicians should handled the bailout.(especially Fox news)
     
  13. Oct 11, 2008 #12
    Yes, that's true. Paul got about as much attention as any other candidate who really had nothing to stand out with.

    Now you just have to ask "Why didn't Ron Paul appeal to the mainstream?" I say it's because he didn't have a gimmick. Just some regular guy with no-BS answers (i.e. actually answering questions) and nothing to draw in the common idiot. No "I'd be the first woman/black president!" No "I saved the day on 9/11!" No "God picked me and I play bass guitar!" etc. You actually had to listen to what he had to say instead of hearing a catchy sound bite on the news.

    And he said a lot of things that was against the "Republican" status quo, so nobody really listened.
     
  14. Oct 11, 2008 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You mean the nutty stuff like opposing vaccinations that have saved millions of lives and removed these threats from the public? Like the US quitting the UN and becoming isolationist? Like approving assualt weapons for personal use? Like the youtube video where he's asked about Global Warming and he says he's not sure what that is, but he's heard about it? I could go on and on, but I don't want this to become a discussion of Paul.
     
  15. Oct 11, 2008 #14
    He has some pretty insane positions, I know, (you forgot the part about wanting to go back to the gold standard and no more student loans), but those weren't brought up unless people wanted to find out more about him. What people were exposed to were things like getting out of Iraq and closing down all foreign military bases instead of saber rattling, opposing the Patriot Act, and letting abortion be a State's Rights issue.

    I can't find anything about him and vaccines, though. As a former physician I can't imagine him being against vaccines.

    Note: Assault weapons are already approved for personal use.
     
  16. Oct 11, 2008 #15
    Sorry Evo , but to compared to the hundreds of millions of people we killed over the years through unnecessary wars and invasions of other countries , providing a few vaccinations to other countries makes that problem look like a glitch on my radar screen. Besides, we provided enough free services to the rest of the world, its time to take care of our own people. We just gave 50 billion dollars to Africa and Obama wants to double the funding for foreign aid and we are drowning in debt. China is a growing superpower, let them provide medical services to the rest of the world Global warming has been occurring since the existence of this planet. Ron Paul isn't quick to assume that mankind is causing all the Global warming like Al gore is. Al Gore likes to paint a false picture showing that scientists unanimously agree that mankind is the main contributor to global warming. And half the people on the IPCC panel are not even scientists , let alone global scientists, but merely environmental activists There is no reason to have the UN; They failed to keep World peace. Therefore , the UN are obsolete. Non-interventionism and and isolationism are NOT the same thing. Ron Paul wants to based a foreign policy off of free-trade and nothing more. We have no business being entangled in the internal affairs of other countries unless they directly attacked us . Heck we have killed nearly a million Iraq by "helping them " overthrowing a dictator and we will probably replaced the old dictator with a new dictator.

    Its not unconstitutional to have a personal assault weapon . We all agree that its insane to let people carry a nuclear weapon,since a nuclear weapons threatens the life of everyone and solely not the person who threatens your life; but why am I not allowed to carry an assault weapon? There is no section in an article of the constitution that says I am not allowed to have an assault weapon. The 2nd amendment doesn't banned assault weapons, why should people not be allowed to have them?
     
  17. Oct 11, 2008 #16
    Your telling me that you would rather have a currency where the dollar is worth almost nothing now compared to a currency commodity that has remain relatively stable over the last 500 years? The Founding fathers did not want our dollar to be backed by credit , the wanted to be backed metals that held real value, specifically gold and/or silver; its states as clear as daylight in article 1, section 10 , first section of 10. I won't bother repasted because I pasted it in one of my other posts. The current monetary system we have in placed now is unconstitutional and its killing the Middle class.
     
  18. Oct 11, 2008 #17
    Sorry Evo , but to compared to the hundreds of millions of people we killed over the years through unnecessary wars and invasions of other countries , providing a few vaccinations to other countries makes that problem look like a glitch on my radar screen. Besides, we provided enough free services to the rest of the world, its time to take care of our own people. We just gave 50 billion dollars to Africa and Obama wants to double the funding for foreign aid and we are drowning in debt. China is a growing superpower, let them provide medical services to the rest of the world Global warming has been occurring since the existence of this planet. Ron Paul isn't quick to assume that mankind is causing all the Global warming like Al gore is. Al Gore likes to paint a false picture showing that scientists unanimously agree that mankind is the main contributor to global warming. And half the people on the IPCC panel are not even scientists , let alone global scientists, but merely environmental activists There is no reason to have the UN; They failed to keep World peace. Therefore , the UN are obsolete. Non-interventionism and and isolationism are NOT the same thing. Ron Paul wants to based a foreign policy off of free-trade and nothing more. We have no business being entangled in the internal affairs of other countries unless they directly attacked us . Heck we have killed nearly a million Iraq by "helping them " overthrowing a dictator and we will probably replaced the old dictator with a new dictator.

    Its not unconstitutional to have a personal assault weapon . We all agree that its insane to let people carry a nuclear weapon,since a nuclear weapons threatens the life of everyone and solely not the person who threatens your life; but why am I not allowed to carry an assault weapon? There is no section in an article of the constitution that says I am not allowed to have an assault weapon. The 2nd amendment doesn't banned assault weapons, why should people not be allowed to have them?
     
  19. Oct 12, 2008 #18
    The founding fathers can suck it. They were men in a time that has long passed and could not foresee current events (such as machine guns). More importantly, they were just men and created a faulty system like any man is bound to. Most of the messes we get into are because they couldn't decide what was a State's Rights issue and what was a Federal issue, so they just left that part blank and hoped people would figure it out later. Lame.

    The gold standard has no meaning in our society. A wafer of pure silicon will sell for more than an equal amount of pure gold. Maybe we should back up our currency with silicon instead? :rolleyes:
     
  20. Oct 12, 2008 #19
    The amount that the US has killed through failed intervention is a bit high. The amount the US has killed is actually in the tens-of-millions, not in the hundreds of millions. Russia killed about 20 million through incompetence in the twentieth century, everybody knows the figures for Germany during WWII; as for the US, according to John Stockwell, an ex- high ranking CIA official, about 6 million people lost their lives in the "third world wars" the US was fighting during the cold war in Latin America, another 2-3 million in Vietnam and perhaps a million more in Indochina. So this is barely approaching ten million. The amount killed indirectly, through failed governments the US propped up, is about ten million according to estimates I've seen, so far less than one-hundred million and even less than 20 million killed through economic incompetence during Russia.

    That said, I do applaud and even somewhat admire Paul for speaking up about US aggression, and the aid the US has sent to dictators around the world that has turned the minds of so many moderate Muslims, Middle-Easterners, Arabs, etc. against the US. It probably takes more courage to speak up against these things an "outsider" in your party than it does when you have a support group and a lot of like minded people around you.

    Paul took a ton of flak from his own party and had some of the more brilliant moments in the Republican debates. That is admirable. Some of his statements were a bit misleading, referring to Bush/neo-con foreign policy as "Wilsonian foreign policy" or something similar, and claiming Nixon was elected to stop the Vietnam War. Nixon never wanted to stop the Vietnam War and he actually expanded it to two countries: Laos and Cambodia. He also wrote an op-ed years later condemning the pull out. However, I don't fault Paul for this and his heart is in the right place (although, learning about history should probably be done through academics who are a bit better at research and logical speaking and clarity). Paul was on constitutional grounds with these claims and many of the founders did not want the US engaged in things like "nation-building" or big armies around the world.

    However, I was also concerned about some of the things Evo mentioned - positions that seemed to be going backwards in history. He's granted several interviews to conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and seems to be speaking the same language as Jones' nuttiness. He believes in "austrian economics," which is more like a cult and a pseudo-science than a sound doctrine of economics. His idea of letting the corporations run everything is pretty sickening, and he does want to go backwards on a lot of issues, perhaps vaccinations but also a lot of other stuff. As Obama pointed out in the second debate, we've tried these conservative free-market ideals and they don't work.

    You could probably estimate how many lives would be saved if the US had a more sane and moral foreign policy versus how many lives would be lost if the US cut all aid to foreign countries, and compare them, but why take the chance? I'd just rather vote for someone who's better on those issues rather than going backwards on one or the other.

    This idea of letting the "market" deal with people who can be cured for a couple of cents on the dollar is absolutely sickening, a type of morality on par with maybe Nazi doctors. This is especially true when markets are not even constructed by consumer choices anyway, but have always had a large, government hand in them. This is well known in the social sciences and certainly is known by many libertarians, yet they are absolutely furious and fumigating over foreign aid and social welfare, attacking first and foremost social programs - the kind of programs that actually build up an economy by stimulating weak demand.

    The way some of Paul's fanatics prostrated themselves and worshipped the founding fathers is also interesting and ahistorical. These people refer to FDR as a "fascist" and I believe WhoWee or someone similar linked to a heavily biased, revisionist account of fascism from a von Mises type web page (who's references were all well known revisionists like Jim Powell for instance, most of whom are not historians). FDR was far less "fascist" than the founders, who held racist beliefs, and Reagan, an out and out corporatist, yet these are the heroes of the libertarians.

    So, they lose me there as well. And as for the gold standard, I agree, might as well use silicon or something else. That's another non-applicable issue Paul supporters go on and on about, and may things worse in several regards such as incompatible currencies etc...
     
  21. Oct 12, 2008 #20
    gold has no meaning in our society!?!? Try buying a $ 60K mercedes with a 60 wafers of pure silicon vs. 60 coins of gold and then try to tell me that an ounce of gold is about as valuable as silicon wafer. An ounce of gold is worth $1000 dollars right now. If you look at history, civilizations have ended under a monetary fiat system and in US history, we tried using a paper currency , specifically during times of war since it was just easier to print more bills to pay back the debt that accumulated during wartime;, and ended up switching back to a commodity currency to prevent credit from growing after we paid back the debt. The more money we print, the more credit we build .

    Our founding fathers did not want the US government to spend excessively on certain things because they didn't want the unnecessary inflation. The value of a fiat dollar is based on confidence , and when you lose confidence in the dollars, its value will decrease.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?