Wasting Your Vote

Discuss Presidential or Prime Minister elections for all countries here.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;937718 wrote: What we need is to not have to get on it in the first place...A runaway train that's already started...Those voting for the "lesser of two evils" are those trying to slow it down...The rest is irrelevant...


I'm irrelevant now. You really know how to make friends
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;937881 wrote: I'm irrelevant now. You really know how to make friends


No you're not irrelevant...Perhaps irrelevant was too strong of a word...You vote for those who you feel would make a better president...I admire you for it...What's needed are more people like you...Such isn't the case...Because it's not the case votes pertaining to third party candidates as well as votes to one of the "big two" candidates to whom were not voted in office are irrelevant...You know I'm one of the least likely persons on this board to offend...If you've taken offence I assure you I wasn't meaning to be offensive...

But the fact still remains that all votes from which goes to any candidate that does not win office is irrelevant in regards to what the President of the United States of America does in office...
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;937958 wrote: No you're not irrelevant...Perhaps irrelevant was too strong of a word...You vote for those who you feel would make a better president...I admire you for it...What's needed are more people like you...Such isn't the case...Because it's not the case votes pertaining to third party candidates as well as votes to one of the "big two" candidates to whom were not voted in office are irrelevant...You know I'm one of the least likely persons on this board to offend...If you've taken offence I assure you I wasn't meaning to be offensive...



But the fact still remains that all votes from which goes to any candidate that does not win office is irrelevant in regards to what the President of the United States of America does in office...
What's needed are more people like you... Such isn't the case...You could be like me in this regard if you wanted. Maybe you could convince some other to do the same.



But the fact still remains that all votes from which goes to any candidate that does not win office is irrelevant in regards to what the President of the United States of America does in office... You couldn't be more wrong, m'friend. Politicians look at margins of win & loss to see if they can claim a mandate, like Bryn says. When Dempublicrats see that they're losing the populace by larger and larger margins they will start changing their stripes. The most important thing for most of them is to stay in office. They can't do that if they don't have the vote. They don't want to lose their monopoly. So every vote comes in for them - regardless of which false choice it's for - is a signal that they're doing what we want them to do. Growing numbers of votes for other candidates will wake them up long before they start losing.



and ... no offense taken. I was just ribbing you for your poor choice of words.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;937985 wrote: What's needed are more people like you... Such isn't the case...You could be like me in this regard if you wanted. Maybe you could convince some other to do the same.


I understand where you're coming from...My emphasis is that my convincing people one at a time is not going to sway the numbers to make a substantial claim in representing the sentiment of the majority of the people in question...It just won't do it...I know that you say "if you did it too we could all do it and thus present the voice of our true interests" -- That's idealism...It's not realism...What's needed is a mass orchestration to rid people of rythmetic practice to the point of acceptance as opposed to demand...

Accountable;937985 wrote:

But the fact still remains that all votes from which goes to any candidate that does not win office is irrelevant in regards to what the President of the United States of America does in office... You couldn't be more wrong, m'friend. Politicians look at margins of win & loss to see if they can claim a mandate, like Bryn says. When Dempublicrats see that they're losing the populace by larger and larger margins they will start changing their stripes. The most important thing for most of them is to stay in office. They can't do that if they don't have the vote. They don't want to lose their monopoly. So every vote comes in for them - regardless of which false choice it's for - is a signal that they're doing what we want them to do. Growing numbers of votes for other candidates will wake them up long before they start losing.



and ... no offense taken. I was just ribbing you for your poor choice of words.


I wouldn't necessarily think that people within office allow the people to dictate how the office is run...Most politicians might be greedy but they're not stupid...It's what we have the Senate for...They know what the people want...They just can't give the people all in what they want because it means taking away from those who want it more...The people with the real power in this country...The same people who own the multi million dollar a year industries who own the news agency feeding the people what they want to tell them...
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;938034 wrote: I understand where you're coming from...My emphasis is that my convincing people one at a time is not going to sway the numbers to make a substantial claim in representing the sentiment of the majority of the people in question...It just won't do it...I know that you say "if you did it too we could all do it and thus present the voice of our true interests" -- That's idealism...It's not realism...What's needed is a mass orchestration to rid people of rythmetic practice to the point of acceptance as opposed to demand...Okay, this is getting nowhere. Here's an interview with Bob Barr. He addresses voting for the less of two evils within the first 3 minutes or so.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7256681550



K.Snyder wrote: I wouldn't necessarily think that people within office allow the people to dictate how the office is run...Most politicians might be greedy but they're not stupid...It's what we have the Senate for...They know what the people want...They just can't give the people all in what they want because it means taking away from those who want it more...The people with the real power in this country...The same people who own the multi million dollar a year industries who own the news agency feeding the people what they want to tell them...
I didn't make myself clear. Politicians say "a vote for me is a vote for 'X'" so when people cast their votes for that politician, they are in effect saying "I want X." If enough of the voters, say 60% or more, vote that way, the politician says "I have a mandate from The People. They want X and they want it now!" The politician is then freed to do all he/she can to make X happen.



If the politician wins by a slim margin, the signal from the voters is "X is okay, but we want other things too." So the politician treads a little more carefully ... a little.



Since our *snicker* two parties are offering X and x respectively, which are virtually synonymous, voting for the lesser of the "two" evils is still voting for X. Imagine if one of the evils wins with only 40% of the vote. The signal is clear that maybe the people don't want X at all. Maybe we need to look at a different letter.
User avatar
YZGI
Posts: 11518
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:24 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by YZGI »

KS, the idea of the Boston tea party had to be thought up originaly by a single person. Luckily the idea grew and a revolution began.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;938052 wrote: Okay, this is getting nowhere. Here's an interview with Bob Barr. He addresses voting for the less of two evils within the first 3 minutes or so.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7256681550



I didn't make myself clear. Politicians say "a vote for me is a vote for 'X'" so when people cast their votes for that politician, they are in effect saying "I want X." If enough of the voters, say 60% or more, vote that way, the politician says "I have a mandate from The People. They want X and they want it now!" The politician is then freed to do all he/she can to make X happen.



If the politician wins by a slim margin, the signal from the voters is "X is okay, but we want other things too." So the politician treads a little more carefully ... a little.



Since our *snicker* two parties are offering X and x respectively, which are virtually synonymous, voting for the lesser of the "two" evils is still voting for X. Imagine if one of the evils wins with only 40% of the vote. The signal is clear that maybe the people don't want X at all. Maybe we need to look at a different letter.


Out of all of the people who read this forum, hypothetically speaking, if all to whom read this thread and were convinced voting for a third party candidate would be in their best interest, those numbers would equate to what my estimation would be about 16.02% of the old 16% of those opposed to vote Democrat or Republican...

When the numbers increase to around 40% respectively then I would find it worth my time in taking into consideration what it is that particular candidate has to say, specifically, in regards to their potential in becoming the next President of the United States...The problem lies in getting to that 40%...And my mentality pertaining to this is what you're saying is the hold up from which the ideal solution would be to change that logic, not my logic specifically but the entire logic...The answer is in swaying everyone...In order to sway everyone in order for those people to benefit from it would be a mass orchestration of diverted logic...Swaying everyone one at a time will only help their great grandchildren and that's being completely optimistic...Not any use to those to whom have voted...
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

YZGI;938053 wrote: KS, the idea of the Boston tea party had to be thought up originaly by a single person. Luckily the idea grew and a revolution began.


I wouldn't hold the complete pandemonium of a revolution the same as a lulled sense of familiarity...

If you'd remember the colonies were construed from the 1500's...That's 250+ years respectively...

The problem is that people will not be alive in 250+ years...Therefore they vote on behalf of themselves because it's their livelihood...The problem lies in how to change that...
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;938104 wrote: Out of all of the people who read this forum, hypothetically speaking, if all to whom read this thread and were convinced voting for a third party candidate would be in their best interest, those numbers would equate to what my estimation would be about 16.02% of the old 16% of those opposed to vote Democrat or Republican...



When the numbers increase to around 40% respectively then I would find it worth my time in taking into consideration what it is that particular candidate has to say, specifically, in regards to their potential in becoming the next President of the United States...The problem lies in getting to that 40%...And my mentality pertaining to this is what you're saying is the hold up from which the ideal solution would be to change that logic, not my logic specifically but the entire logic...The answer is in swaying everyone...In order to sway everyone in order for those people to benefit from it would be a mass orchestration of diverted logic...Swaying everyone one at a time will only help their great grandchildren and that's being completely optimistic...Not any use to those to whom have voted...
You've just defined yourself as a follower. Forgive me K, but you're making yourself irrelevant by voting with the majority simply because that's the way the majority is voting.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;938118 wrote: You've just defined yourself as a follower. Forgive me K, but you're making yourself irrelevant by voting with the majority simply because that's the way the majority is voting.


Absolutely not...

I just said I vote on what is in the best interests of myself...There's nothing "follower" about it...I know what the end result it therefore I vote to represent what's in the best interests of myself...

If voting for a third party candidate from which it were possible for them to win the Presidency by the least little bit then and only then I would be a follower...

Voting for a third party candidate is, and from my own observation will be for the remainder of my life, a complete and utter unrealistic endeavor...

It just won't happen...It's the truth...
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;938129 wrote: Absolutely not...



I just said I vote on what is in the best interests of myself...There's nothing "follower" about it...I know what the end result it therefore I vote to represent what's in the best interests of myself...



If voting for a third party candidate from which it were possible for them to when the Presidency by the least little bit then and only then I would be a follower...



Voting for a third party candidate is, and from my own observation will be for the remainder of my life, a complete and utter unrealistic endeavor...



It just won't happen...It's the truth...
But when the only "realistic endeavor" is against your interests and a "third party candidate" aligns with your interests, how do you vote?
User avatar
sunny104
Posts: 11986
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:25 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by sunny104 »

RedGlitter;933279 wrote: I've commented to some people recently when asked who I would vote for, that I would be voting for neither Obama or McCain. I will select a different candidate because I don't believe in doing that "lesser of two evils" thing. I also don't believe that by voting for a different candidate that I am "throwing my vote away." Rather I believe I'm exercising my right to vote as I see fit, and I'm also sending a message that I'm not happy with the choice given me.

I've noticed for some reason, this is something that can make the most mild-mannered person flip out. Some take it as a personal affront.

Why?

"You're just wasting your vote!"

"If you do that your vote's gonna go to (candidate's name) and the Democrats/Republicans will win!"

"If you don't vote for _____ or ____ then you have no right to complain!"

I always thought voting was a personal right and that a person should vote for who they think will do the best job. Not "which candidate sucks less."

I've always thought that if you didn't follow the program, study up on the candidates and issues, that you had no business voting.

I know people with the intelligence of a lima bean and they're voting- probably stupidly- and yet no one's upset about that.

Maybe if more people "threw their vote away" by voting for who they wanted instead of who they were given to choose from, we could truly "rock the vote.":thinking:


Red said it best in the first post. :-6
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;938148 wrote: But when the only "realistic endeavor" is against your interests and a "third party candidate" aligns with your interests, how do you vote?


Well I would vote for whomever would be presenting the majority of plans coinciding with my best interests from one of the two that will win...Obviously if I felt that both candidates from which I know will win are stressing the continuing of issues that I disagree with vehemently, I will vote for a third party candidate from which I know will not win because of my lack of knowledge associated with the third party candidates' stature as I would never vote on anyone from which I were uneducated about knowing that they had a legitimate chance at winning the Presidency at the same time voicing my disapproval of the abysmal propositions presented by the "big two" candidates...

If I were in vehement disagreement with both one of the "big two" at the same time could not constructively reconcile with the third party candidate I would sincerely think about moving to Canada...Minutes from the Border of Alaska to be exact...
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;938170 wrote: Well I would vote for whomever would be presenting the majority of plans coinciding with my best interests from one of the two that will win...Obviously if I felt that both candidates from which I know will win are stressing the continuing of issues that I disagree with vehemently, I will vote for a third party candidate from which I know will not win because of my lack of knowledge associated with the third party candidates' stature as I would never vote on anyone from which I were uneducated about knowing that they had a legitimate chance at winning the Presidency at the same time voicing my disapproval of the abysmal propositions associated with the "big two" candidates...



If I were in vehement disagreement with both one of the "big two" at the same time could not constructively reconcile with the third party candidate I would sincerely think about moving to Canada...Minutes from the Border of Alaska to be exact...
I completely lost you on that blue part, and hope that I got your answer without it. Sorry.



So if I understand you, you now have one of the two candidates that you believe represents your best interests. Since you think I'm wasting my vote, please tell me what interests are served by voting for your guy.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;938197 wrote: I completely lost you on that blue part, and hope that I got your answer without it. Sorry.



So if I understand you, you now have one of the two candidates that you believe represents your best interests. Since you think I'm wasting my vote, please tell me what interests are served by voting for your guy.


As of yet I'm undecided...

I've never even said I were voting in this upcoming election...

Well...That's not exactly true...I will be voting on the local elections...

But what we're after here is logic...Not specifics...I hold this same logic upon all elections as does those to whom you're in direct disagreement with...
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;938197 wrote: I completely lost you on that blue part, and hope that I got your answer without it. Sorry.




I would only vote for a third party candidate to voice my disapproval of the "big two" knowing that the third party candidate would not win...

If I had agreed with the third party candidate then I would vote for that person regardless if I did know that the third party candidate in question had a legitimate shot at winning the Presidency as that person would be, hypothetically speaking, representing my beliefs and opinions from which would ultimately be in my best interests...Obviously if I did not agree with the third party candidates' propositions I would then contemplate moving to Canada...Minutes from the border of Alaska to be exact...
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;937958 wrote: No you're not irrelevant...Perhaps irrelevant was too strong of a word...You vote for those who you feel would make a better president...I admire you for it...What's needed are more people like you...Such isn't the case...Because it's not the case votes pertaining to third party candidates as well as votes to one of the "big two" candidates to whom were not voted in office are irrelevant...You know I'm one of the least likely persons on this board to offend...If you've taken offence I assure you I wasn't meaning to be offensive...

But the fact still remains that all votes from which goes to any candidate that does not win office is irrelevant in regards to what the President of the United States of America does in office...


I cannot possibly agree with that.

You appear to be suggesting that anyone who voted for a loosing candidate has wasted his vote because it instantly becomes irrelevant.

Politicians set great store by the mandate given to their policies by the electorate (even if they're quite happy to go against it if it suits them). It makes a big difference between them saying "75% of the electorate support my policies" and having to say "35% of the electorate supported my policies" after three candidates fought it out and other voters refused to vote for any of the candidates.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;940506 wrote: I cannot possibly agree with that.

You appear to be suggesting that anyone who voted for a loosing candidate has wasted his vote because it instantly becomes irrelevant.

Politicians set great store by the mandate given to their policies by the electorate (even if they're quite happy to go against it if it suits them). It makes a big difference between them saying "75% of the electorate support my policies" and having to say "35% of the electorate supported my policies" after three candidates fought it out and other voters refused to vote for any of the candidates.


I would say both are correct to various degrees...

What's influential is the urgency of those politicians representing the electorate to whom rely on the success of that vary same endeavor so as to keep their jobs...It's much more ideal for policies to be known and mutually agreed upon but I suppose pleasing the people so as to remain content will have to do in the meantime...

If this were the case entirely though there wouldn't be a need for more than one candidate...
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;940544 wrote: I would say both are correct to various degrees...

What's influential is the urgency of those politicians representing the electorate to whom rely on the success of that vary same endeavor so as to keep their jobs...It's much more ideal for policies to be known and mutually agreed upon but I suppose pleasing the people so as to remain content will have to do in the meantime...

If this were the case entirely though there wouldn't be a need for more than one candidate...


Unless we put pressure on the politicians to take note of the wishes of the electorate (and the only real time we can do that is during the election) then there is no urgency for them to stick to their agreed policies.

It is our obligation as an enfranchised electorate to make our wishes know as accurately as possible by voting for those with whom we agree and against those whose policies we disagree with.

They will take every opportunity to pull power unto themselves at the expense of the will of the people - we *must* fight every step of the way to retain the rights we have won over the past thousand years.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;940562 wrote: Unless we put pressure on the politicians to take note of the wishes of the electorate (and the only real time we can do that is during the election) then there is no urgency for them to stick to their agreed policies.

It is our obligation as an enfranchised electorate to make our wishes know as accurately as possible by voting for those with whom we agree and against those whose policies we disagree with.

They will take every opportunity to pull power unto themselves at the expense of the will of the people - we *must* fight every step of the way to retain the rights we have won over the past thousand years.


Sure...

You feel that 18% of individuals to whom vote against the one of "the big two" is more efficient in achieving this than that of 17% opposed in the same right?...

I personally feel that 18% is not enough to sway much of anything except 18% effort...
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;940567 wrote: Sure...

You feel that 18% of individuals to whom vote against the one of "the big two" is more efficient in achieving this than that of 17% opposed in the same right?...

I personally feel that 18% is not enough to sway much of anything except 18% effort...


Try it - you might be surprised.

Certainly, for as long as you exclusively vote for one of the big two you'll never find out.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;940582 wrote: Try it - you might be surprised.

Certainly, for as long as you exclusively vote for one of the big two you'll never find out.


I'll probably never benefit from it though neither...

Certainly not as much as I would benefit from even a few issues in my favor if I were to vote for one of the "big two" to whom I know has 99.99% more of a chance than any third party candidate within what I speculate the next 100 years...
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;940595 wrote: I'll probably never benefit from it though neither...I thought you were all about making society better. Forget your own self interest and try to improve society.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;1045992 wrote: I thought you were all about making society better. Forget your own self interest and try to improve society.


If I don't benefit from it the majority don't benefit from it. I've readily voiced how I'm for the interests of the majority from which I find to be ethical and worthy of improvement. You just haven't been paying attention. Try doing that sometime before you say things like "Forget your own self interest and try to improve society." from which is completely uneducated. You'll make more sense.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Accountable »

K.Snyder;1046144 wrote: If I don't benefit from it the majority don't benefit from it. I've readily voiced how I'm for the interests of the majority from which I find to be ethical and worthy of improvement. You just haven't been paying attention. Try doing that sometime before you say things like "Forget your own self interest and try to improve society." from which is completely uneducated. You'll make more sense.
:wah: Yeh okay.
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by mikeinie »

140 million people can’t be wrong.

People lining up for hours and hours to cast a vote that people gave their lives for in the past just to have a right to do.

Democracy is not a spectator sport, it is about participating. Not voting is an insult to every life lost for freedom, it is an insult to the suffragettes who marched in the streets for the Woman’s right to vote, it is an insult to the civil rights movement who marched for equality and the right to vote for all people.

Apathy is the road to disillusionment.

Today, America showed the world what they are about, today democracy and the right to vote was exercised by all who stood up and said ‘I can make a difference’.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Accountable »

mikeinie;1046374 wrote: 140 million people can’t be wrong.



People lining up for hours and hours to cast a vote that people gave their lives for in the past just to have a right to do.



Democracy is not a spectator sport, it is about participating. Not voting is an insult to every life lost for freedom, it is an insult to the suffragettes who marched in the streets for the Woman’s right to vote, it is an insult to the civil rights movement who marched for equality and the right to vote for all people.



Apathy is the road to disillusionment.



Today, America showed the world what they are about, today democracy and the right to vote was exercised by all who stood up and said ‘I can make a difference’.
:yh_clap Absolutely spot on! (except that first sentence. :p)
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Bryn Mawr »

mikeinie;1046374 wrote: 140 million people can’t be wrong.

People lining up for hours and hours to cast a vote that people gave their lives for in the past just to have a right to do.

Democracy is not a spectator sport, it is about participating. Not voting is an insult to every life lost for freedom, it is an insult to the suffragettes who marched in the streets for the Woman’s right to vote, it is an insult to the civil rights movement who marched for equality and the right to vote for all people.

Apathy is the road to disillusionment.

Today, America showed the world what they are about, today democracy and the right to vote was exercised by all who stood up and said ‘I can make a difference’.


Why do you equate a refusal to vote for a candidate who's policies you cannot support to apathy and see it as an insult?

Where there is no acceptable candidate a spoilt paper is a positive statement.
southern yankee
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by southern yankee »

the :-3stockmarket is not happy today:confused:
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Bryn Mawr »

southern yankee;1047047 wrote: the :-3stockmarket is not happy today:confused:


It's been relatively stable on the FTSE - down marginally but no fireworks on the way.
southern yankee
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by southern yankee »

Bryn Mawr;1047091 wrote: It's been relatively stable on the FTSE - down marginally but no fireworks on the way. nearly 500 points here

:(
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Bryn Mawr »

southern yankee;1047096 wrote: nearly 500 points here

:(


Ouch - I wasn't watching the Dow, too busy watching my own poor darlings trying to crawl their way out of the bottomless pit.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Accountable;1046366 wrote: :wah: Yeh okay.


I won't vote for anyone that is not in the best interests of the majority of the ethical regardless of my own wants.

I don't believe I'm going to have to say that again.
User avatar
minks
Posts: 26281
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:58 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by minks »

Jester;933598 wrote: oh boy here we go....

if I vote for osama then I help osama, if I vote for mccain then I hlep mcain... if I vote for niether and I would have voted for osama then I help mccain, if I vote for neither and I would have voted for mccain then I help osama...

the 'niether' major party vote cannot win, hence the waste of vote verbage.

So... I have come up with a new startegy:

Vote for whoever you want in the presidential race... just dont vote for any incumbant in any other race.

Its the incumbants that have screwed EVERYTHING up to date. VOTE THEM ALL OUT.

That will be my campaign that I will launch in CA to oust both senators and representative, I have marches planned, billboards, bumper stickers, and flyers being made.

Oust All Incumbants! Bye-Bye Boxer, Pelosi, and the other freak.

So I really dont care who gets in as president. I'm not satisfied with either choice, ones a full socialist the other is a closet socialist. And I wont help either one. I may just write myself in, but I know in the end I'll do th elessor of two evils cuz Osama is a faster change towards hanging out hiney out to get shot off again.


Well don't that just take away your so called freedom to vote, freedom of choice, rights to choose....and every other free choice your fellow americans go to war for.... Jester you disappoint me.

RED!!! I applaud you. Bravo for making your vote your choice. Never is a vote a waste.... crikey come to Canada if you want to see waste, we have such a laxidazical attitude towards voting it is appauling... makes me very sad to hear people could care less about voting. It is dam disturbing to hear... "oh my vote won't count for anything anyways" :-5

I also hear that stupid line about voting the lesser of the evils.... give me a break, no one ruler of any given country is going to be loved 100%. But you can't be proud of yourself when you b1tch you voted for the lesser of the 2 evils, or that you did not vote. Hell you should have your right to b1tch taken away if you didn't vote.

Jester are you sure you are not Canadaian (:wah:)
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�

― Mae West
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

minks;1047322 wrote: Well don't that just take away your so called freedom to vote, freedom of choice, rights to choose....and every other free choice your fellow americans go to war for.... Jester you disappoint me.

RED!!! I applaud you. Bravo for making your vote your choice. Never is a vote a waste.... crikey come to Canada if you want to see waste, we have such a laxidazical attitude towards voting it is appauling... makes me very sad to hear people could care less about voting. It is dam disturbing to hear... "oh my vote won't count for anything anyways" :-5

I also hear that stupid line about voting the lesser of the evils.... give me a break, no one ruler of any given country is going to be loved 100%. But you can't be proud of yourself when you b1tch you voted for the lesser of the 2 evils, or that you did not vote. Hell you should have your right to b1tch taken away if you didn't vote.

Jester are you sure you are not Canadaian (:wah:)


I'll agree on all that you've said except for the "You don't have the right to b*tch if you don't vote"...

When a government does not allow me to govern myself by my own laws as I see fit then and only then do I not have the right to b*tch about said government regardless of whether or not I voted. This is my opinion and I hold it as an undeniable truth.

But I'm sure others will disagree...
southern yankee
Posts: 3906
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 7:38 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by southern yankee »

well today is a new day. I hope this is not a deadly chess-game with Russia,:thinking::confused:
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;935914 wrote: Only by putting pressure on those parties can the people make them work for the electorate and keep their promises.


Sure that will work but only if the Republican/Democratic candidate that lost had less potential to win office than any third party candidate or more...

Obviously the level of effect would be in direct correlation with the number of "parties" relative to them all being equally supported by the public

The fact remains that third party candidates, within the USA, are no where close to even a curved percentage that would entail any change whatsoever let alone a significant one
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;1275416 wrote: Sure that will work but only if the Republican/Democratic candidate that lost had less potential to win office than any third party candidate or more...

Obviously the level of effect would be in direct correlation with the number of "parties" relative to them all being equally supported by the public

The fact remains that third party candidates, within the USA, are no where close to even a curved percentage that would entail any change whatsoever let alone a significant one


If you will not vote for anyone other than the likely winner you will always be trapped in a two party system where the two parties available to you are different sides of the same coin.

It is only by voting for the person who you believe will best represent you and promote your views that third parties will gain a voice. I does not happen overnight - if you want to be represented you have to make the effort to get that representation because, if you don't, they'll just laugh at you.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;1275451 wrote: If you will not vote for anyone other than the likely winner you will always be trapped in a two party system where the two parties available to you are different sides of the same coin.

It is only by voting for the person who you believe will best represent you and promote your views that third parties will gain a voice. I does not happen overnight - if you want to be represented you have to make the effort to get that representation because, if you don't, they'll just laugh at you.


Sure I certainly understand the logic but this could only be an ethical decision in my mind if the third party candidate is a better choice, speaking in divination of course.

If I didn't care for one of "the big two" yet felt any other candidate was less qualified to be the winner then voting for the third party candidate would be immoral.

Hypothetically speaking if any third party candidate were a better choice, either by ones perspective, or proved divinely by virtue of true intelligence, you feel that any percentage above zero of that persons chances of winning is well worth voting for them.

I not only understand but I agree.

Where we differentiate? Sure,..sure...We differentiate in that any percentage below a 50% chance of that third party candidate winning is any given percentage above 0%. In my mind it's any percentage below 0%. Quintessentially, any third party candidate, as defined by their particular supporters, is not a candidate at all.

This means that by your logic, among others, voting for Boo Boo Bear, whom is not on the ticket, is well worth voting for.

I'm not voting for Boo Boo Bear.

Boo Boo Bear among other third party "candidates" are not candidates at all
Pinky
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:12 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Pinky »

Well, these ideas of voting for the two most likely ppl to win are generated by someone: most likely the media - everyone reads it, believes it and votes for either one because they're told that.

It's a shame few people bother to read the parties' policies and make their own choices. For instance, I know I'm on a losing streak every year because I vote for the Green party, because the would be voters think it's wasted unless they vote Tory or Labour (poss Lib Dem). But really, if everyone just voted for what they believed, it may be a different matter altogether.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

Pinky;1275884 wrote: Well, these ideas of voting for the two most likely ppl to win are generated by someone: most likely the media - everyone reads it, believes it and votes for either one because they're told that.

It's a shame few people bother to read the parties' policies and make their own choices. For instance, I know I'm on a losing streak every year because I vote for the Green party, because the would be voters think it's wasted unless they vote Tory or Labour (poss Lib Dem). But really, if everyone just voted for what they believed, it may be a different matter altogether.


I believe(Welcome back by the way!) that any candidate that can truly be considered a "candidate" by definition is anyone with at the very least, yet most:yh_wink, of having a 50% chance of winning an election(If every candidate on the ballot does not have a 50% chance of winning then the voting system considering itself a true epitome of a democracy is false).

My definition, in this context, of 50% is the public's definition of "a candidates potential to win" yet not exceeding 50%, lest I'm not voting within a state claimimg to be a republic, obviously within the logic of their own voting philosophy, WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MIGHT BE :yh_eyerol!

This proves, in my mind, that a third party candidate has to achieve the public's definition of "plausibility" related to the chances of this candidate being elected by any number above 40%. Which defines, in my mind, to be a candidate, quintessentially. The difference being our definitions of "a candidates potential to win".

The question is "How do we get an orchestrated number of people to vote for any candidate on a ticket who expresses the same ideals as those that vote for them?"

The evidence already shows that an orchestration is needed, not a "one-at-a-time" philosophy.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15897
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Pinky;1275884 wrote: Well, these ideas of voting for the two most likely ppl to win are generated by someone: most likely the media - everyone reads it, believes it and votes for either one because they're told that.

It's a shame few people bother to read the parties' policies and make their own choices. For instance, I know I'm on a losing streak every year because I vote for the Green party, because the would be voters think it's wasted unless they vote Tory or Labour (poss Lib Dem). But really, if everyone just voted for what they believed, it may be a different matter altogether.


Hayyyyy - welcome back :-6
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by littleCJelkton »

As I said before on another post it is my opinion that this country is ran by the top 10% or the worlds wealthiest people. I don't see that changing without a massive and quickly spreading moral and revalutionary upheaval of those in power and the system that is set in place to keep them there. I don't think this process can happen one person at a time because if it happens that slow those who are in power are going to stamp those who are not following the status quo out quick. With that said I don't care who is in any federal office. I do however think we can have control of local governments up to Mayors after that the corruption and the smell of the money from those top 10% is just to much and draws away any reason and morality of those who are in office. I also think that even if there was the slightest chance that a 3rd party canidate got elected president you know those top 10% allowed it to be so. So unless it is a local election what i do is I have a big wheel with Democrat, Republican, Independent and Write in, I write down on a list all the positions up for election on my ballot and spin the wheel what it lands on is who I vote for. Now for all the bantering I hear out there about how H.W Bush, or Clinton, or G. W Bush , or Obama is ruining this country I see very little if any ideas of how to change things around. I am going to throw one out there it's not much and it wont change the world or anything, but in my view the internet is the one place where people really do have free speech and so much so some overbearing international governments restrict internet acsess.

Anyway here it is and this Idea might already be out there and implemented I just done know about it. Start a forum like this one and others that is specifically designated for government that of course will require the time and effort to lay out the issues which include every thing that current governments U.S. and abroad have control over such as taxes, immigration, foreign policy, international trade, the war on terror, the war on drugs, and the millions of other categories and sub categories there are. Once the categories are set members can then discuss using Logic and facts the best possible way to implement laws or whatever to ensure that a government is providing the best possible outcome for the people it governs for what ever issue is being discussed. Once a policy is agreed upon it can be added to the sites official constitution or what have you. If this continues then maybe a whole piece can be made in to a document. Now once it is agreed upon how a government should work then we can go about making a plan on how to implement it. Of course this is a rough and general Idea but I feel i was specified enough to point out it's intent and I currently do not have the time or know how to invest in such an idea but I am sure if enough people get together it can be done, but if for a cause for the greater good of society I don't know.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

I'd be curious as to how anyone could say Bill Clinton "ruined" this country but on that we're talking about a country that threw a juicy lipped woman in front of a mans face expecting he wouldn't fumble only to cry like school children about the fact the man put money in the working class' pockets but surely wasn't good enough for those wealthy pigs as you seem to equate, but none the less...

littleCJelkton;1326028 wrote: Anyway here it is and this Idea might already be out there and implemented I just done know about it. Start a forum like this one and others that is specifically designated for government that of course will require the time and effort to lay out the issues which include every thing that current governments U.S. and abroad have control over such as taxes, immigration, foreign policy, international trade, the war on terror, the war on drugs, and the millions of other categories and sub categories there are. Once the categories are set members can then discuss using Logic and facts the best possible way to implement laws or whatever to ensure that a government is providing the best possible outcome for the people it governs for what ever issue is being discussed. Once a policy is agreed upon it can be added to the sites official constitution or what have you. If this continues then maybe a whole piece can be made in to a document. Now once it is agreed upon how a government should work then we can go about making a plan on how to implement it. Of course this is a rough and general Idea but I feel i was specified enough to point out it's intent and I currently do not have the time or know how to invest in such an idea but I am sure if enough people get together it can be done, but if for a cause for the greater good of society I don't know.


On that I think more than half of the citizens in any given country does not own the internet and what's left after that is a very large degree of media being owned by the aformentioned pigglets you speak of leading to not only misguided information but misguided information upon the masses 100 fold. Placing red hot coals into a fire to put it out is not generally productive in my mind.

No, what's needed is education but not only that unbiased education with an extreme emphasis to rid schools of biased sentiment such as religion, corn field ethics, religion, and John Deer tractors. Had I mentioned Duelly pick up trucks?
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by littleCJelkton »

K.Snyder;1326146 wrote: I'd be curious as to how anyone could say Bill Clinton "ruined" this country but on that we're talking about a country that threw a juicy lipped woman in front of a mans face expecting he wouldn't fumble only to cry like school children about the fact the man put money in the working class' pockets but surely wasn't good enough for those wealthy pigs as you seem to equate, but none the less...





On that I think more than half of the citizens in any given country does not own the internet and what's left after that is a very large degree of media being owned by the aformentioned pigglets you speak of leading to not only misguided information but misguided information upon the masses 100 fold. Placing red hot coals into a fire to put it out is not generally productive in my mind.

No, what's needed is education but not only that unbiased education with an extreme emphasis to rid schools of biased sentiment such as religion, corn field ethics, religion, and John Deer tractors. Had I mentioned Duelly pick up trucks?


I suspect the references to "john deer tractors" and "pick up trucks" already have u based in a biased education, but I totaly agree with you that Liberal, Progressive, conservitave, Democrat, republican, are all terms that should be tossed. Issues should be debated on facts and to get thouse facts I agree we must be educated on them.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Wasting Your Vote

Post by K.Snyder »

littleCJelkton;1326153 wrote: I suspect the references to "john deer tractors" and "pick up trucks" already have u based in a biased education, but I totaly agree with you that Liberal, Progressive, conservitave, Democrat, republican, are all terms that should be tossed. Issues should be debated on facts and to get thouse facts I agree we must be educated on them.


No not pick up trucks, I own a pick up truck, I'm talking about the Duelly's and 50 inch wheels that renders these unfortunates with 8 miles to the gallon. I suppose cooling down by jumping in a bed of water is very euphoric but not in a manner I'd personally feel comfortable. It's the flag waving right wingers I personally dislike but I suppose the only point is to strees education

Return to “Presidential Elections Campaigns”