The 2011 presidential election poll

  • News
  • Thread starter moejoe15
  • Start date

vote for as many as you want and might actually vote for President

  • Obama

    Votes: 40 71.4%
  • Romney

    Votes: 12 21.4%
  • Santorum

    Votes: 8 14.3%
  • Gingrich

    Votes: 3 5.4%
  • Perry

    Votes: 7 12.5%
  • Paul

    Votes: 10 17.9%
  • Huntsman

    Votes: 5 8.9%

  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
  • #1
8
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Let's start the election early. Our system doesn't give us the opportunity to cast a no vote unfortunately so this poll essentially will. You can vote yes for as many candidates as you want that you think you could actually vote for. Obviously you may not be an Obama fan but you might vote for him depending on who was running against him, and verse vica.

I probably missed someone but I think I caught who the actual candidates will be. I threw a couple more dems in for heck of it.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
149
0
I voted for everyone except Obama.:wink:
 
  • #3
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
Dang, somehow it registered a Gore vote from me...totally unintentional, I would not vote for him.
 
  • #4
Evo
Mentor
23,127
2,577
What's the point of multiple votes? Selecting everyone doesn't show anything. Heck, I could add my dog, he might win.

Dang, somehow it registered a Gore vote from me...totally unintentional, I would not vote for him.
Fixed.

Why is Gore up there?
 
  • #5
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
Dang, somehow it registered a Gore vote from me...totally unintentional, I would not vote for him.
It's fitting in a way. I'm sure a lot of voters in Palm Beach, FL didn't really intend to vote for Pat Buchanon.

I'm sure Gore would consider winning an informal poll in PF a fair trade for losing FL in the 2000 election. :rofl:

In fact, I wish I'd read your post before I voted, because I would have tossed in a Gore vote, too, just to make him feel better.
 
  • #6
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
What's the point of multiple votes? Selecting everyone doesn't show anything. Heck, I could add my dog, he might win.

Fixed.

Why is Gore up there?
It's actually a valid voting system that provides a better chance of electing a candidate most voters like than the current system. Voting for only one candidate means your second choice for Pres receives no votes from you, and means he ties with the candidate you hate the most. It's possible to elect a candidate that a majority of voters despise if people split their vote among several candidates almost everyone likes.

In other words, 70% of voters could like candidates A, B, and C, while 70% of voters would vote for your dog before they vote for candidate D. Still, if A, B, and C split that 70%, the 30% that actually do like candidate D would win.

In fact, my district had a primary election like that, with 6 candidates. By time the low turnout for a primary election was split in a close 6-way election, an absolutely horrible candidate won the nomination with a little over 5,000 votes in a district where the Republican is virtually guaranteed to win, no matter how bad (of course, this particular candidate was so bad, he barely won out over the Democrat in a district where the Democratic Party is practically non-existent).

Religious conservatives were able to push him over the top, in spite of him being more qualified than only one candidate (the candidate who's main campaign slogan was that he was the brother of Paul Bremer, the guy that ran Iraq reconstruction immediately after the invasion).
 
Last edited:
  • #7
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
It's actually a valid voting system that provides a better chance of electing a candidate most voters like than the current system. Voting for only one candidate means your second choice for Pres receives no votes from you, and means he ties with the candidate you hate the most. It's possible to elect a candidate that a majority of voters despise if people split their vote among several candidates almost everyone likes.
So true, Bob. That's why we have "Governor" Paul LePage. The Tea Party candidate got in because people split between Libby Mitchell and Elliott Cutler (both acceptable choices, IMO).
 
  • #8
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
Fixed.

Why is Gore up there?[/QUOTE]

Election fraud!!! I demand a full investigation of this!!!
 
  • #9
149
0
Fixed.

Why is Gore up there?
Election fraud!!! I demand a full investigation of this!!![/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
  • #10
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
Pull down your grampy-glasses and pretend to inspect holes in punch-cards so that Scotus can appoint a new president. That's the stuff that third-world countries are made of.
 
  • #11
149
0
I don't believe for a second that Hillary wouldn't beat Obama in a PF election.
 
  • #12
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,191
255
no Bachmann, Romney, or Palin please.

Don't know enough about or don't care enough about the rest.

Can I write myself in?
 
  • #13
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,191
255
Since our country is silly enough to vote for Bush twice in a row, we might as well let Obama play in his sandbox more. I mean, this whole politics thing is a joke anyway.
 
  • #14
149
0
Since our country is silly enough to vote for Bush twice in a row, we might as well let Obama play in his sandbox more. I mean, this whole politics thing is a joke anyway.
I sincerely hope nobody agrees with you about letting Obama continue to play in his political sandbox.
 
  • #15
turbo
Gold Member
3,077
45
I sincerely hope nobody agrees with you about letting Obama continue to play in his political sandbox.
Would you prefer Bachmann, Perry, or Romney? If so why? There isn't a single GOP candidate that has a plan (even a clue!) that passes the straight-face test, IMO. When party politics trumps common sense, we all lose.
 
  • #16
149
0
Would you prefer Bachmann, Perry, or Romney? If so why? There isn't a single GOP candidate that has a plan (even a clue!) that passes the straight-face test, IMO. When party politics trumps common sense, we all lose.
Why don't you enlighten us - compare Romney to Obama - background, experience, accomplishments, ideology - please?

Btw turbo - did you miss this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-to-unveil-plan-for-jobs-economy/2011/09/06/gIQAMUWl6J_story.html

"The far-reaching economic plan that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney put forward on Tuesday relies heavily on the premise that reviving the economy depends on getting the government out of the way of corporations.

Romney’s prescription for the country’s ailing economy includes overhauling federal tax, regulatory, trade and energy policies. His is a collection of business-friendly ideas that fit neatly within the mainstream of the Republican Party, with a few innovative proposals sprinkled throughout, namely tougher stances on China and labor unions."
 
  • #17
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
  • #18
ginru
The Anybody-But-Obama crowd is vocal but honestly most of the Republican candidates don't fill me with any optimism whatsoever. Ron Paul is the only one I'd consider voting for over Obama since he seems genuine in his beliefs (not just a typical politician pandering for votes like Romney) and he seems willing to really shake things up. Potentially destructive, I know, but I'm in favor of that rather than business as usual.
 
  • #19
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,191
255
WhoWee said:
I sincerely hope nobody agrees with you about letting Obama continue to play in his political sandbox.
I really don't care one way or the other; everybody that gets to presidency has to pat the back's of people who helped him get there. A second term president stands more of a chance of having been freed from those binds, having had longer to repay their creditors; not that I'd vote on that basis... I won't ever vote again honestly.

I don't think "Anybody but Obama" is a particularly rational stance. No matter how many statistics you dig up and interpret. It's too easy to draw your own conclusions while talking social science. And that's the point... none of us know what we're talking about unless we're actually in the scene. I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks they know n candidates so well that n is always better than a single candidate. It's just statistically unlikely, especially as n grows.

And if someone is "in the scene" then they're no doubt going to be vying for the people they have good relationships with and vying against the ones they don't, so I would trust them even less.
 
  • #20
149
0
I really don't care one way or the other; everybody that gets to presidency has to pat the back's of people who helped him get there. A second term president stands more of a chance of having been freed from those binds, having had longer to repay their creditors; not that I'd vote on that basis... I won't ever vote again honestly.

I don't think "Anybody but Obama" is a particularly rational stance. No matter how many statistics you dig up and interpret. It's too easy to draw your own conclusions while talking social science. And that's the point... none of us know what we're talking about unless we're actually in the scene. I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks they know n candidates so well that n is always better than a single candidate. It's just statistically unlikely, especially as n grows.

And if someone is "in the scene" then they're no doubt going to be vying for the people they have good relationships with and vying against the ones they don't, so I would trust them even less.
If you were seeking a solution to a specific problem and the first experiment was implemented exactly as planned and failed - would you repeat the failed experiment or try something different?
 
  • #21
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,191
255
If you were seeking a solution to a specific problem and the first experiment was implemented exactly as planned and failed - would you repeat the failed experiment or try something different?
There lies your fallacies: that a social experiment can even be duplicated in the first place, or that social systems aren't exponentially sensitive to perturbations. Or that presidency is a closed system.
 
  • #22
8
0
Paul would legalize pot, gets my vote :biggrin:

Seriously, I consider prohibition a major problem and money pit. Legalization would be a quick fix and net the country a lot of money.
 
  • #23
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,204
13
Looks to me like Obama's really taking the lead.
 
  • #24
8
0
Who really knows if the right or the left has the correct ideas? Neither party will let the other implement them when they are in power. I wish they would let the majority party implement their ideas so we can see if they work or not. It seems like both parties are afraid the other might be right.
 
  • #25
8
0
Election fraud!!! I demand a full investigation of this!!!
:rofl:[/QUOTE]

This is why electronic voting sucks. I should have asked for paper ballots (without chads). Can you add my name to the list with a few hundred votes? Maybe I can use this poll to start a valid campaign like Cain's.
 

Related Threads on The 2011 presidential election poll

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
50
Replies
1K
Views
86K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
78
Views
9K
Top