Who is getting your vote in the presidential election?

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply

Who is getting your vote in the presidential elections?

Bush (U.S)
10
22%
Kerry (U.S)
14
31%
Bush (non U.S)
2
4%
Kerry (non U.S)
19
42%
 
Total votes: 45

PassiveMan
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 4:48 pm
Location: London, UK

Who is getting your vote in the presidential election?

Post by PassiveMan » Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:54 pm

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

DryFire
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 8:29 am
Location: USA

Post by DryFire » Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:02 pm

where is nader?

If i was 18 I"d vote nader.

PassiveMan
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 4:48 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by PassiveMan » Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:04 pm

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

DryFire
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 8:29 am
Location: USA

Post by DryFire » Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:08 pm

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.

PassiveMan
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 4:48 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by PassiveMan » Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:21 pm

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.

frosty
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 9:40 am
Location: USA

Post by frosty » Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:55 am

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

Ralf Hutter
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 8636
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:33 am
Location: Sunny SoCal

Post by Ralf Hutter » Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:37 am

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...

rbsteffes
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:35 pm

Post by rbsteffes » Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:08 am

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. **

DryFire
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 8:29 am
Location: USA

Post by DryFire » Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:07 pm

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.

PassiveMan
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 4:48 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by PassiveMan » Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:57 pm

Point accepted. :oops:

Shame I can't edit my poll.

snutten
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:27 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by snutten » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:12 pm

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

MikeC
Site Admin
Posts: 12285
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Contact:

Post by MikeC » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:34 pm

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

Bluefront
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA

Post by Bluefront » Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:27 am

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".

snutten
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 1:27 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by snutten » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:58 pm

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

Post Reply