Who is getting your vote in the presidential election?
Page 1 of 1

Author:  PassiveMan [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Who is getting your vote in the presidential election?

Okay I know there is another post about this but it has completely gone off course. Please vote and (optional) give reason(s) why?

Author:  DryFire [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

where is nader?

If i was 18 I"d vote nader.

Author:  PassiveMan [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Eh, I see your point but Nader is just a wasted vote, no? :)

Author:  DryFire [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

Could you say a vote for someone who does not win is a wasted vote?

Then come election day %50 of the voters will waste their vote.

Author:  PassiveMan [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

DryFire wrote:
Could you say a vote for someone who does not win is a wasted vote?

Then come election day %50 of the voters will waste their vote.

Ehh, someone who does not have a chance I call a wasted vote.

Anyway I wanted to keep the pole simple as possible without too many options. At first I only had 2 options but decided against it, as the US vote is what counts. I would also like to see opinions from rest of the world.

Author:  frosty [ Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:55 am ]
Post subject: 

I decided to not vote Kerry is not an option and will not vote for Dubya again.

Author:  Ralf Hutter [ Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:37 am ]
Post subject: 

I can't vote in your poll. I won't vote for either Kerry or Bush so according to your criteria, my vote is wasted...

Author:  rbsteffes [ Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:08 am ]
Post subject: 

As a side note, your vote is certainly not wasted if you vote for an independent for 2 reasons.

1) Both main parties desporately want your vote. You think Kerry really gives a crap about *Picking random, easily demonstrated example* organic growing methods? He clearly hasn't cared enough to get his wife to influence how Heinz grows THEIR tomotoes one way or the other. However, because the third party vote is so crucial, they'll court your oppinion. It could easily be argued people willing to vote third party are more influential than people who are hardline either way. NO ONE really gives a flip about the middle ground, because the middle ground doesn't vote. Third party votes are still votes, and both sides want the votes of unhappy people who demonstrate THEY WILL VOTE.

2) Money and time on the ballot. Look at the difficulty Nader had getting on the ballot. While I personally feel the reason is because Nader is a frightening idiot, it wouldn't have taken many more people voting for him before the Green party got a default slot and federal dollars. Remember, for a third party candidate, the magic number isn't 50%, it's 5%. At 5% whole new worlds in what's "possible" open up. At 5% you get invited to debates, get federal grants for campaign finances, and get to be on the ballot without the legal hassle. While I think the third party front runner this election is a fool, there are some third party candidates I wouldn't mind seeing get a seat at the table. It'd certainly make things more interesting.

** Note for the uneducate Americans and for the foreign readers: The 5% number is simplified, but largely accurate. See: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/featu ... rties.html for more, granted highly biased, information. **

Author:  DryFire [ Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

right rbsteffes that's exactly what i'd want to do. I don't really want nader to win , but I want an independant to be in teh debate (actually a real debate would be an nice start, I'll leave that for later).

For a while independants have served to bring up issues that the major parties would not touch the with a 10m pole.

And nader is the most well know independant.

Author:  PassiveMan [ Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Point accepted. :oops:

Shame I can't edit my poll.

Author:  snutten [ Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Bush actually got 2 non-US votes!? I wouldn't be surprised if he was polled the most disliked person in the entire world.

Author:  MikeC [ Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

disliked is a very kind word. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Author:  Bluefront [ Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:27 am ]
Post subject: 

When you defend yourself these days, you'll likely get sued, or at the very least, "disliked".

Of course if you don't defend yourself, you'll be attacked again, beaten up on again, or worse. It's the rock/hard-place thing. Strong presidents of the USA will always be disliked. Weak presidents like Carter for instance, didn't defend the country, invited more attacks, but were very "likeable".

Author:  snutten [ Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

You are absolutely right, Bluefront.
But unfortunately this is not the reason for disliking him.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group