View Full Version : who ya gonna vote for?
Yekhefah
11-26-2007, 08:01 AM
We would have viable third parties if people would vote for them. I don't understand why people keep voting for a party that isn't representing them when there is another one that will. We haven't had Democrats vs. Republicans forever; when one party ceases to represent its constituency, another party rises to the top. But that can't happen unless you actually vote for them!
I voted Libertarian in the last two presidential elections. I've been accused of "wasting" my vote. In my opinion, wasting your vote is throwing it away on some two-faced liar you don't actually support.
If everyone who wished for a third party actually voted for one, we'd be adequately represented again in a heartbeat.
TheSexKitten
11-26-2007, 11:58 AM
I voted Libertarian in the last two presidential elections. I've been accused of "wasting" my vote. In my opinion, wasting your vote is throwing it away on some two-faced liar you don't actually support.
If everyone who wished for a third party actually voted for one, we'd be adequately represented again in a heartbeat.
Agreed! I also think you're "wasting" a vote because "politicians are all corrupt and it won't make a difference anyway".
How downhill we've gone, enthusiasm-wise, from the 60's.
Melonie
11-26-2007, 04:23 PM
We would have viable third parties if people would vote for them. I don't understand why people keep voting for a party that isn't representing them when there is another one that will. We haven't had Democrats vs. Republicans forever; when one party ceases to represent its constituency, another party rises to the top. But that can't happen unless you actually vote for them!
I voted Libertarian in the last two presidential elections. I've been accused of "wasting" my vote. In my opinion, wasting your vote is throwing it away on some two-faced liar you don't actually support.
If everyone who wished for a third party actually voted for one, we'd be adequately represented again in a heartbeat.
^^^ this would only be true if the third party candidate were able to obtain a plurality of the votes cast in each state ! Thanks (or no thanks) to our Electoral college system, on a state by state basis the popular vote might be (example) 40% democrat 35% republican 25% third party, but the Electoral Vote will be 100% democrat times the census population of that state. Thus if a third party candidate happens to be someone like Ron Paul, who has quite a few attributes that would normally appeal to republican voters, the 60% of the popular vote that would probably have leaned republican has split the percentage 35% + 25%. Had the third party candidate not been present to 'steal' votes from the republican candidate in that particular state, the Electoral College vote would probably have been 100% republican instead of 100% democrat. Therefore unless a third party candidate can be absolutely assured of obtaining a majority vote, which is arguably impossible due to the vested interests and 'solid block' of voters who seem to unconditionally support other parties no matter who their candidate, an individual vote for a third party candidate actually serves to increase the probability that another candidate whose philosophy is as far removed as possible from the third party candidate will actually be elected.
Eric Stoner
11-26-2007, 04:44 PM
^^^ this would only be true if the third party candidate were able to obtain a plurality of the votes cast in each state ! Thanks (or no thanks) to our Electoral college system, on a state by state basis the popular vote might be (example) 40% democrat 35% republican 25% third party, but the Electoral Vote will be 100% democrat times the census population of that state. Thus if a third party candidate happens to be someone like Ron Paul, who has quite a few attributes that would normally appeal to republican voters, the 60% of the popular vote that would probably have leaned republican has split the percentage 35% + 25%. Had the third party candidate not been present to 'steal' votes from the republican candidate in that particular state, the Electoral College vote would probably have been 100% republican instead of 100% democrat. Therefore unless a third party candidate can be absolutely assured of obtaining a majority vote, which is arguably impossible due to the vested interests and 'solid block' of voters who seem to unconditionally support other parties no matter who their candidate, an individual vote for a third party candidate actually serves to increase the probability that another candidate whose philosophy is as far removed as possible from the third party candidate will actually be elected.
Which is exactly how and why we got Wilson in 1912; Nixon in '68 and Der Slickmeister TWICE ! Thanks to Perot, Clinton won with less than 50% of the popular vote.
flickad
11-26-2007, 06:20 PM
I always thought the electoral college system was anti-democratic.
Yekhefah
11-26-2007, 06:28 PM
^^^ It is, but that's rather the point. It's a vestige from the time when only educated wealthy white male landowners were qualified to vote. I'd be all over getting rid of it, but the two current major parties wouldn't let that happen in a million years because it's the only reason they still exist.
Sophia_Starina
11-26-2007, 06:31 PM
The Electoral College is so lame. One person, one vote. That is all.
Eric Stoner
11-27-2007, 09:09 AM
The Electoral College is so lame. One person, one vote. That is all.
Our Founders feared "democracy" run amok ; tyranny of the majority etc. Secondly, they were cobbling a country together out of 13 separate states with strong and profound regional differences- slave-holding vs. free ; agrarian vs. mercantile ;secular or tolerant vs. more religious.
The Electoral College was designed and has served to assure that an elected President has broad support across the country and not just in a few highly populated regions. It helps smaller; less populated states maintain a degree of relevance politically. Without their 3 or 4 Electoral votes- Alaska; Rhode Island; Delaware; both Dakotas and a bunch of other states could be safely ignored totally by presidential candidates.
The same "one man-one vote" argument for abolishing the Electoral College also argues for re-apportioning the Senate on the basis of population.
Melonie
11-27-2007, 05:45 PM
(snip)"No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "factions," groups of citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. In today's discourse the term special interest often carries the same connotation. Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics—for instance, the individual states."(snip)
In a context that is 'closer to home', a pure democracy could result in such majority votes as ...
- all strip clubs should be outlawed
- all people with incomes higher than $50,000 per year should have their additional incomes taxed at a 50% rate, with the proceeds being used to pay for a refundable tax credit for those earning less than $50,000 per year
- all homeless people should be placed in 'supervised camps' in the interest of neighborhood security.
flickad
11-27-2007, 08:41 PM
^
Yeah, that sounds rather like a tyranny of the majority.
Sophia_Starina
11-27-2007, 09:18 PM
I think the Electoral College = Tyranny. Well... not really, but still. Fuck em!
I might not be so erudite but I do not appreciate my vote vanishing between the cracks.
Eric Stoner
11-28-2007, 12:15 PM
I think the Electoral College = Tyranny. Well... not really, but still. Fuck em!
I might not be so erudite but I do not appreciate my vote vanishing between the cracks.
You may want to re-think that. Inter alia , the Electoral College give legitimacy to Presidents who did not get a majority of the popular vote but did get a majority of the Electoral votes. From Lincoln through Clinton (twice) to G.W. Bush's first term. There's nothing "tyranical" about it.
We have a Republic which is an INDIRECT form of democracy. To abolish the E.C.requires amending the Constitution which ain't gonna happen so get used to it.
Sophia_Starina
11-28-2007, 03:59 PM
Meh... it still makes me feel like my votes don't count.
SarahSynn
11-28-2007, 05:14 PM
I'm voting for Stephen Colbert; this election is a joke anyway.
BalletBaby
11-28-2007, 10:01 PM
^That makes two of us:D
SarahSynn
11-29-2007, 11:35 AM
^That makes two of us:D
LoL Hell yeah, BalletBaby! ;D
TheSexKitten
11-29-2007, 03:38 PM
Did he actually become a candidate?
SarahSynn
11-29-2007, 03:41 PM
Did he actually become a candidate?
He tried to, but South Carolina denied his application! lol Colbert was trying to get Doritos to sponser him by eating their chips on his show. John Edwards said Colbert would make a terrible presidential candidate because his campaign is "stained with corporate corruption and nacho cheese." ;D
I will be writing him in though.
Sophia_Starina
11-29-2007, 10:33 PM
Has a president ever won an election on write-in votes alone? Just curious... I'm down to write the guy in!
Melonie
11-30-2007, 07:57 AM
^^^ no chance of this as long as the two major political parties, between them, can garner a 51% majority of the vote.
Eric Stoner
11-30-2007, 09:46 AM
Has a president ever won an election on write-in votes alone? Just curious... I'm down to write the guy in!
Nope.
SarahSynn
11-30-2007, 12:42 PM
Has a president ever won an election on write-in votes alone? Just curious... I'm down to write the guy in!
Never. Most people vote along party lines. I'm still voting for Colbert nonetheless.
Jay Zeno
11-30-2007, 03:31 PM
In a manner of speaking, the early votes were write-ins. The electors wrote down the names of two candidates without designating president or vice president. This system blew up in 1800 when Jefferson and Burr each received 36 votes. Although Hamilton didn't agree with Jefferson, he felt that Jefferson would be the better president, so he threw his influence there, and Jefferson was elected president. Then Burr killed Hamilton.
So went the early system.
Besides trying to ensure power of the individual states, the Electoral College was designed to try to keep corruption out of the voting process. Like other ideas at the time that seemed good, it didn't work out that way.
"...by apportioning, limiting, and confining the Electors within their respective States, and by the guarded manner of giving and transmitting the ballots of the Electors to the Seat of Government...intrigue, combination, and corruption would be effectually shut out, and a free and pure election of the President of the United States made perpetual." The Records of the General Convention
"The best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men gang aft agley." Robert Burns