Does Your Vote Really Matter in Presidential Elections?

[Benzoate]

DING! We have a winner. It is all about fairness and balance. However, again, we are talking about the winner-take-all system. If the electoral college cast their votes based on proportional representation, this would not be the case.

Okay let's say 20 % of voters within every district voted for a thirdparty candidate. Then the elector vote on the candidate that represents the majority of their votes within the district they represent. That an example of mob rule.The elector can't possibly represent all their constituents, so the vote based on the majority. Minority rights are not being protected. As a minority voter, I would not want an elector voting for me, because I know that an elector would vote for the interests of either there political party or vote based on how the majority votes. Its not unreasonably for an elector based on who the american public votes for. A republic was formed instead of a real democracy to make sure the majority would not ruled the country and the the rights of the minority were protected. In our presidential election, its is a 'winner take all' system, it is not a true representative democracy , because if it were, the votes of the minority would count. Sure , minority votes count when you look at the popular vote. But the electors vote based on how the majority votes, and virtually ignore the minority vote. ITs impossible for the elector to represent everybody's vote. So its just best to get rid of the middle man, and let the votes of the minority and the majority determined who wins the presidential election, not so called representatives of a district.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay let's say 20 % of voters within every district voted for a thirdparty candidate. Then the elector vote on the candidate that represents the majority of their votes within the district they represent. That an example of mob rule.The elector can't possibly represent all their constituents, so the vote based on the majority. Minority rights are not being protected.

You are confusing minority rights with a minority vote. If a candidate only gets 20% of the vote, then that candidate isn't going to win. How does the winner-take-all change this? Your vote was counted when you voted. What you really seem to be objecting to is that you lost.

As a minority voter, I would not want an elector voting for me, because I know that an elector would vote for the interests of either there political party or vote based on how the majority votes.

With rare and inconsequential exceptions, they don't vote based on motive, they vote based on the popular vote - ie the winner of the popular vote in that State.

Its not unreasonably for an elector based on who the american public votes for. A republic was formed instead of a real democracy to make sure the majority would not ruled the country and the the rights of the minority were protected. In our presidential election, its is a 'winner take all' system, it is not a true representative democracy , because if it were, the votes of the minority would count. Sure , minority votes count when you look at the popular vote. But the electors vote based on how the majority votes, and virtually ignore the minority vote. ITs impossible for the elector to represent everybody's vote. So its just best to get rid of the middle man, and let the votes of the minority and the majority determined who wins the presidential election, not so called representatives of a district.

Are you objecting to electors or the winner-take-all system? You keep mixing the two. And you are right: States rights were a key concern when the Constitution was written, and they didn't want to lose their rights by yielding to a National "supreme" Government. As a consequence, the States each act as an individual entity, which means that each State casts one vote. If you object to States' rights, then you aren't a Libertarian.

Your vote was counted in your State. Then your State voted.

 

[LowlyPion]

But the electors vote based on how the majority votes, and virtually ignore the minority vote. ITs impossible for the elector to represent everybody's vote.

Maybe your confusion lies in the fact that when you vote for President you are voting for Electors that are bound to vote for the candidate you are selecting. You are voting for a slate of electors to represent your interests.

It's not their job to represent everyone's vote. It's their task to vote for the candidate their slate is elected to vote for. Their prerogatives are limited.

 

[Benzoate]

Ivan Seeking;1871880]You are confusing minority rights with a minority vote. If a candidate only gets 20% of the vote, then that candidate isn't going to win. How does the winner-take-all change this? Your vote was counted when you voted. What you really seem to be objecting to is that you lost.

I don't care if Ross Perot didn't win the election. George Bush received some of the electoral vote. But he didn't win the election .I knew ross perot wasn't going to win, that doesn't mean that his vote shouldn't count in the electoral college. What I mainly care about is that his votes were represented, and they were not; therefore the electoral college is a flawed system.

Are you objecting to electors or the winner-take-all system? You keep mixing the two. And you are right: States rights were a key concern when the Constitution was written, and they didn't want to lose their rights by yielding to a National "supreme" Government. As a consequence, the States each act as an individual entity, which means that each State casts one vote. If you object to States' rights, then you aren't a Libertarian.

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. When did I ever say I was a Libertarian? I adhere to some of the Libertarian philosophies, but I am not going to vote for a candidate for the simple fact that he is a Libertarian. I vote based my vote on the political philosophies and principles of a presidential candidate, not the party that candidate is affiliated with.

And you are wrong. Libertarians would value the liberty of an individual over the liberty of a US state, since the state is technically seen through the eyes of a libertarian as a collective body of people. So they would object to the electoral college. Now the Constitution party might valued the states powers more so than the libertarian party , because the constitution grants states certain powers.

 

[out of whack]

I am objecting to the winner take all system, because it does not represent to votes of the minority.

But, but, but... There is only one (1) presidential position to fill! The only votes that count are the votes of the majority. All other votes are ignored and the wishes of those who cast them have to remain unfulfilled. Do you expect a minority to pick the winner?

 

[Benzoate]

But, but, but... There is only one (1) presidential position to fill! The only votes that count are the votes of the majority. All other votes are ignored and the wishes of those who cast them have to remain unfulfilled. Do you expect a minority to pick the winner?

It doesn't matter. THe votes of the minority should count. The purpose of this thread was to show that your vote really doesn't matter, especially if you are voting for someone other than any of the two major candidates. You proved my point well. Your vote doesn't count. Thats why half this country doesn't vote. They don't like either of the candidates, and even if they vote for an alternative candidate, they're vote will not count. So they don't participate in the presidential election . And I don't blamed them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't care if Ross Perot didn't win the election. George Bush received some of the electoral vote. But he didn't win the election .I knew ross perot wasn't going to win, that doesn't mean that his vote shouldn't count in the electoral college. What I mainly care about is that his votes were represented, and they were not; therefore the electoral college is a flawed system.

Okay, if you feel that way, then you have made your point. But this also suggests that you dont' believe in States autonomy.

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.

Ah, is this the burr in your saddle? Well, you won't find many people who despise Bush more than I do, so I can certainly relate, but I believe in the system even if I don't always get my way. What I object to is the fraud that almost certainly threw the election - the voting machine fraud. That is a much more serious issue, and without this, Bush would have lost. What is even more objectionable is that the people and our elected representitives have failed the system by allowing what we have seen over the last eight years.

When did I ever say I was a Libertarian? I adhere to some of the Libertarian philosophies, but I am not going to vote for a candidate for the simple fact that he is a Libertarian.

I was talking about the philosophy.

I vote based my vote on the political philosophies and principles of a presidential candidate, not the party that candidate is affiliated with.

And you are wrong. Libertarians would value the liberty of an individual over the liberty of a US state, since the state is technically seen through the eyes of a libertarian as a collective body of people. So they would object to the electoral college. Now the Constitution might valued the states powers more so than the libertarian party , because the constitution grants states certain powers.

Okay, it is fair to say that there are many sects of Libertarians, but I adhere to the view that strong States rights help to protect individual liberty: The State must recognize the rights recognized by the National Government, and the National Government must recognize the rigths recognized by State governments. The idea that we can get rid of "the State" altogether is unrealistic.

 

[Evo]

It doesn't matter. THe votes of the minority should count. The purpose of this thread was to show that your vote really doesn't matter, especially if you are voting for someone other than any of the two major candidates. You proved my point well. Your vote doesn't count. Thats why half this country doesn't vote. They don't like either of the candidates, and even if they vote for an alternative candidate, they're vote will not count. So they don't participate in the presidential election . And I don't blamed them.

So you're saying a candidate that gets the smallest percentage of votes should win? It's not like people are voting for those candidates and their votes aren't being counted, it's that not enough people vote for them.

 

[out of whack]

THe votes of the minority should count.

How should the minority count in selecting a president?

The purpose of this thread was to show that your vote really doesn't matter, especially if you are voting for someone other than any of the two major candidates. You proved my point well.

Can you formulate that proof that you say I gave you?

Your vote doesn't count.

What makes you think I won't vote for the winner?

Please don't vote.

 

[Benzoate]

So you're saying a candidate that gets the smallest percentage of votes should win? It's not like people are voting for those candidates and their votes aren't being counted, it's that not enough people vote for them.

I already said many times that it doesn't matter if the candidate wins or not. I only want the minority vote to be represented. That might persuade the remaining portion of americans who don't vote to get out and vote , a presidential candidate who is unaffiliated with any political party receives a significant portion of the popular vote like Ross perot did back in the 1992 election. I am disgusted with the winner take all system, which the electoral college is based on. I think if the electoral college is to continued to exist in this country, then the electoral vote should be directly proportional to the popular vote . Otherwise, the popular vote should only determined the election.

 

[Evo]

I already said many times that it doesn't matter if the candidate wins or not. I only want the minority vote to be represented. That might persuade the remaining portion of americans who don't vote to get out and vote , a presidential candidate who is unaffiliated with any political party receives a significant portion of the popular vote like Ross perot did back in the 1992 election. I am disgusted with the winner take all system, which the electoral college is based on. I think if the electoral college is to continued to exist in this country, then the electoral vote should be directly proportional to the popular vote . Otherwise, the popular vote should only determined the election.

Explain what you mean by the "minority vote represented". What, you want someone that got 20% of the votes to be President 20% of the time?

 

[castlegates]

I already said many times that it doesn't matter if the candidate wins or not. I only want the minority vote to be represented. That might persuade the remaining portion of americans who don't vote to get out and vote , a presidential candidate who is unaffiliated with any political party receives a significant portion of the popular vote like Ross perot did back in the 1992 election. I am disgusted with the winner take all system, which the electoral college is based on. I think if the electoral college is to continued to exist in this country, then the electoral vote should be directly proportional to the popular vote . Otherwise, the popular vote should only determined the election.

I know where your coming from. You will never have representation as long as the current system remains in place, or you must beat out all others, by which those others lose their chance for representation. The current system will remain in place, at least until the sheet hits the fan, by which the system will be replaced by something worse, or something better. 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.

 

[Benzoate]

Explain what you mean by the "minority vote represented". What, you want someone that got 20% of the votes to be President 20% of the time?

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.

 

[Astronuc]

I already said many times that it doesn't matter if the candidate wins or not. I only want the minority vote to be represented. That might persuade the remaining portion of americans who don't vote to get out and vote , a presidential candidate who is unaffiliated with any political party receives a significant portion of the popular vote like Ross perot did back in the 1992 election. I am disgusted with the winner take all system, which the electoral college is based on. I think if the electoral college is to continued to exist in this country, then the electoral vote should be directly proportional to the popular vote . Otherwise, the popular vote should only determined the election.

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

If one feels strongly about an alternative to the 2-party system, then either support an alternative (and preferably viable) candidate or run for office oneself. There's a guy (more of an independent, but ran as a long-shot Dem in predominantly Rep district) who did that locally and beat an incumbent - much to everyone's shock and surprise.

 

[Evo]

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.

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

 

[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.