Does Your Vote Really Matter in Presidential Elections?

[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.

 

[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.