| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2006 06:32:48 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by MrEd:
Voting day is not supposed to be a Republican vs Democrat day. It's vote for the person you think will do the best job. If you vote for, let's just say Bush, ONLY because he's Republican....you have missed the point of voting and wasted your vote. |
Hmmm, well in an ideal world, I suppose you would be right. Unfortunately, the political system in the US is slanted toward those two parties and their generally opposing views. Making it not a choice of the ideal, "best for the job", but in reality, between the two parties.
Let's say you thought the "best" man for the job was a member of some third party and somehow they got elected. Unless they align themselves with the Republicans or the Democrats on issues, they would have little or no effect, it's unlikely they will be able to get any significant legislation passed or bring home much in Federal funds for the states/districts they represent. It's also unlikely they will be asked to sit on any committees, which is where the real congressional power lies.
The real truth is that, in most cases, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is really a vote for ineffective representation.
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 18:35:31. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:40:45 PM · #27 |
Voting will continue to be moot until (if) the electoral college is taken out of effect. It's an outdated system that helped in organizing vote tallies 200 years ago.
With electronic voting, there is no reason my vote should only count toward which way my state votes. Every vote should count for a candidate for national elections.
Kill the outdated system and voting might have some effect on the way our country is run.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:09:33 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by MrEd:
Voting day is not supposed to be a Republican vs Democrat day. It's vote for the person you think will do the best job. If you vote for, let's just say Bush, ONLY because he's Republican....you have missed the point of voting and wasted your vote. |
Hmmm, well in an ideal world, I suppose you would be right. Unfortunately, the political system in the US is slanted toward those two parties and their generally opposing views. Making it not a choice of the ideal, "best for the job", but in reality, between the two parties.
Let's say you thought the "best" man for the job was a member of some third party and somehow they got elected. Unless they align themselves with the Republicans or the Democrats on issues, they would have little or no effect, it's unlikely they will be able to get any significant legislation passed or bring home much in Federal funds for the states/districts they represent. It's also unlikely they will be asked to sit on any committees, which is where the real congressional power lies.
The real truth is that, in most cases, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is really a vote for ineffective representation. |
Voting for the 3rd party doesn't necessarily mean that person will win. Nor does it always mean you want that person to win. If in 2004 you didn't agree with Bush OR Kerrey, what would you have done? Voting the 3rd party shows the 2 major parties you didn't care for either one of their views.....not that you actually want them to win.
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Voting will continue to be moot until (if) the electoral college is taken out of effect. It's an outdated system that helped in organizing vote tallies 200 years ago.
With electronic voting, there is no reason my vote should only count toward which way my state votes. Every vote should count for a candidate for national elections.
Kill the outdated system and voting might have some effect on the way our country is run. |
YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:11:05 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Voting will continue to be moot until (if) the electoral college is taken out of effect. It's an outdated system that helped in organizing vote tallies 200 years ago.
With electronic voting, there is no reason my vote should only count toward which way my state votes. Every vote should count for a candidate for national elections.
Kill the outdated system and voting might have some effect on the way our country is run. |
I agree dude it is time in today's modern age to let the popular vote decide the elections. Thus making this a true democracy. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:14:45 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Voting will continue to be moot until (if) the electoral college is taken out of effect. It's an outdated system that helped in organizing vote tallies 200 years ago.
With electronic voting, there is no reason my vote should only count toward which way my state votes. Every vote should count for a candidate for national elections.
Kill the outdated system and voting might have some effect on the way our country is run. |
I agree dude it is time in today's modern age to let the popular vote decide the elections. Thus making this a true democracy. |
I think everyone with the exception of the politicians feel this way!
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:15:05 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I agree dude it is time in today's modern age to let the popular vote decide the elections. Thus making this a true democracy. |
Corporations and their lobbyists are what keep this system from being a true democracy. While I don't disagree with the point about the popular vote, the reality is money is what drives and controls this government, at it always will be. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:23:30 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Voting will continue to be moot until (if) the electoral college is taken out of effect. It's an outdated system that helped in organizing vote tallies 200 years ago.
With electronic voting, there is no reason my vote should only count toward which way my state votes. Every vote should count for a candidate for national elections.
Kill the outdated system and voting might have some effect on the way our country is run. |
I agree dude it is time in today's modern age to let the popular vote decide the elections. Thus making this a true democracy. |
I think everyone with the exception of the politicians feel this way! |
Yeah, because now they only have to worry about the views of voters in swing states. Alabama is a Rebuplican state, so, it really doesn't matter how I vote. I'd be jerking my own chain and wasting my time by going to the polls, no matter who I voted for.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:26:29 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by heathen:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I agree dude it is time in today's modern age to let the popular vote decide the elections. Thus making this a true democracy. |
Corporations and their lobbyists are what keep this system from being a true democracy. While I don't disagree with the point about the popular vote, the reality is money is what drives and controls this government, at it always will be. |
I won't argue that. This is after all a capitalist society. We could however elect the most honest liars to office. :-P |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:35:21 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Voting will continue to be moot until (if) the electoral college is taken out of effect. It's an outdated system that helped in organizing vote tallies 200 years ago.
With electronic voting, there is no reason my vote should only count toward which way my state votes. Every vote should count for a candidate for national elections.
Kill the outdated system and voting might have some effect on the way our country is run. |
I agree dude it is time in today's modern age to let the popular vote decide the elections. Thus making this a true democracy. |
I think everyone with the exception of the politicians feel this way! |
Yeah, because now they only have to worry about the views of voters in swing states. Alabama is a Republican state, so, it really doesn't matter how I vote. I'd be jerking my own chain and wasting my time by going to the polls, no matter who I voted for. |
Dude I understand the feeling that's why I vote partisan every year as I am a *Waits for the laughter* a Libertarian. I vote the party ticket every year. As mentioned earlier in the thread about the 2 party system, it is the main problem in my eyes so I vote for the 3rd party. Throwing away my vote maybe but at least I participate and I vote my conscience. For me it is a win win. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:37:06 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Alabama is a Rebuplican state, so, it really doesn't matter how I vote. I'd be jerking my own chain and wasting my time by going to the polls, no matter who I voted for. |
Actually, you never know when that 1 single vote could have made the difference. I'm in a Democratic state... yet they are calling it a close race this time. I always vote, regardless of what they say. If all of one party stays home because they think they don't have a chance, then obviously, they won't have a chance.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 07:54:35 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Dude I understand the feeling that's why I vote partisan every year as I am a *Waits for the laughter* a Libertarian. I vote the party ticket every year. As mentioned earlier in the thread about the 2 party system, it is the main problem in my eyes so I vote for the 3rd party. Throwing away my vote maybe but at least I participate and I vote my conscience. For me it is a win win. |
I don't think you're throwing away your vote at all. I think the individuals who vote solely R or D are throwing theirs away. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown their "abilities" so why not punish them and vote Libertarian? It seems like so many people have no problem just giving up on the idea of a third party and are obviously too blinded by the current system to see that a strong 3rd choice would only make the other 2 work hard for us......and our votes. You would think that a site full of "artists" would have the ability to look outside the box we've been stuck in for decades wouldnt you?
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 08:11:26 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
I don't think you're throwing away your vote at all. I think the individuals who vote solely R or D are throwing theirs away. Both Democrats and Republicans have shown their "abilities" so why not punish them and vote Libertarian? It seems like so many people have no problem just giving up on the idea of a third party and are obviously too blinded by the current system to see that a strong 3rd choice would only make the other 2 work hard for us......and our votes. You would think that a site full of "artists" would have the ability to look outside the box we've been stuck in for decades wouldnt you? |
I remeber that happening here back in 1998. While the R and D launched attacks ads against each other, an independant came in an won the vote. Wouldn't really say he was any better than the others, but Ventura sure made it interesting:)
Personally I could give a flying truck what the terrorists would even want, let alone in decideding for who I vote for. 25 years ago some reporter/writer could have said the same thing citing vote republican because the "Russians" wouldn't want that. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 08:16:18 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
25 years ago some reporter/writer could have said the same thing citing vote republican because the "Russians" wouldn't want that. |
LOL, I'm not sure they've changed thier minds ... hehe
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 08:16:47 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
That article has so many flaws it would down DPC trying to post them all at once. |
I notice you avoided discussing the CIA analysis, which was the reason I posted the link: |
First, NIE's aren't written by the CIA, they are put together by all the intelligence services. What you've quoted here is not CIA analysis, it is the opinion of one guy who works (worked?) for the agency.
Second, if you were simply seeking to inform the public then why not link directly to the 2006 NIE rather than link to an article that is 99% opinion passed off as fact.
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 20:19:39. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 08:28:37 PM · #40 |
The topic of throwing votes away came up when we were voting the other day. I've never bought the throwing votes away argument. I vote for who has the policies/ideas I agree with and not just against a candidate I dislike. This means I'll frequently vote Libertarian.
Unfortunately, for many offices, Libertarians field candidates with little or no qualifications. There were only a few Libertarians on this ballot that I felt could do the job for which they are running. Doesn't help when they can't file a competent candidate statement. They're basically shooting themselves in the foot.
The only time you're really throwing your vote away is when you don't vote or when you vote like my SO. She votes for candidates who have policies she doesn't like but think can win as a vote against a candidate whose policies she really doesn't like. She won't consider other parties besides the big two even though she completely agrees with another party's beliefs. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 08:51:01 PM · #41 |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 08:55:13 PM · #42 |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 08:59:20 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
That article has so many flaws it would down DPC trying to post them all at once. |
I notice you avoided discussing the CIA analysis, which was the reason I posted the link:
On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, bin Laden took the personal risk of breaking nearly a year of silence to release a videotape denouncing Bush. Right-wing pundits immediately spun the videotape into bin Ladenâs âendorsementâ of Democrat John Kerry. Polls registered an immediate bump of about five points for Bush.
However, inside CIA headquarters, senior intelligence analysts reached the remarkable conclusion that bin Ladenâs real intent was to help Bush win a second term.
âBin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President,â said deputy CIA director John McLaughlin in opening a meeting to review secret âstrategic analysisâ after the videotape had dominated the dayâs news, according to Ron Suskindâs The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders.
Suskind wrote that CIA analysts had spent years âparsing each expressed word of the al-Qaeda leader and his deputy, Zawahiri. What theyâd learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons. ⦠Todayâs conclusion: bin Ladenâs message was clearly designed to assist the Presidentâs reelection.â
Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, expressed the consensus view that bin Laden recognized how Bushâs heavy-handed policies â such as the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal and the war in Iraq â were serving al-Qaedaâs strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.
âCertainly,â Miscik said, âhe would want Bush to keep doing what heâs doing for a few more years.â
As their internal assessment sank in, the CIA analysts were troubled by the implications of their own conclusions. âAn ocean of hard truths before them â such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin Laden would want Bush reelected â remained untouched,â Suskind wrote. |
"Not according to the CIA"? Don't you mean not according to that obscure website? Anyway, when did the CIA become a beacon for accurate intelligence? Even if the dialog in the article is accurate those "troubling conclusions" should be expected. Of course Bush's policies made it easier for Bin Laden to recruit. Bush agreed to go to war with him unlike previous administrations which is what Bin Laden wanted. It's a lot harder to recruit when the need isn't great because your soliders are not being attacked unless you count those janitors killed when that aspirin factory was destroyed back in the nineties.
Anyway, clearly Bush made things even more easier going into Iraq however based on that article I don't see how one can conclude Bin Laden wanted Bush to get re-elected. Last I checked Kerry also ran so the timing of it isn't conclusive that it's a move to help Bush. Besides, neither candidate was running to end the "war on terror". So what if Kerry had won and pulled the troops out of Iraq? Bin Laden doesn't care about Iraq he just cares that we are over there in general and no president was going to remove our presence (not to mention our influence) out of the middle east altogether which is what he wants.
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 21:02:29. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 09:43:11 PM · #44 |
| Reminds me of a lightbulb joke. How may Liberals does it take to change a lightbulb... None.....because they don't know they are in the dark... SRT for me... :) |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 09:56:52 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Reminds me of a lightbulb joke. How may Liberals does it take to change a lightbulb... None.....because they don't know they are in the dark... SRT for me... :) |
Reminds me of another joke. How does a Republican screw in a light bulb... They just hold their hand up with the bulb, because the world is supposed to revolve around them... ;) |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 10:12:25 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by ddpNikon:
The terrorists want the US to vote democrat, because it will ensure a victory for them.
I think the rest of the world bags on America so much because they view us as a threat...they want to wear us down and make us hate our government so that we will vote in a way that gives them the oppurtunity to be more powerful.
Anwyay, do your part...vote republican.
//www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747 |
You almost had me;) I was about to vote Republican across the board just to show those "terrists" that we "'Mercans" can't be so easily outsmarted. Then I started to wonder. "Wait...what if the terrorists really want us to vote Republican and they are using reverse psycology? After all, they seem to be controlling us so well.
After giving it more thought, I have decided to do my Patriotic duty and vote for only for the candidates who are most likely to restore our Constitution. Sadly, I don't have much hope that there is anyone powerful enough to do that; Republican or Democrat.
Edit to add: Please note that first paragraph is laced with much sarcasm.
Message edited by author 2006-11-09 18:39:36. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 10:17:39 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Reminds me of a lightbulb joke. How may Liberals does it take to change a lightbulb... None.....because they don't know they are in the dark... SRT for me... :) |
Reminds me of another joke. How does a Republican screw in a light bulb... They just hold their hand up with the bulb, because the world is supposed to revolve around them... ;) |
How does a Republican screw in a light bulb?
They appropriate 300millon from the budget and hire Halliburton to install it.
:-P
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 22:23:07.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 10:44:39 PM · #48 |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 01:02:17 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Voting will continue to be moot until (if) the electoral college is taken out of effect. It's an outdated system that helped in organizing vote tallies 200 years ago.
With electronic voting, there is no reason my vote should only count toward which way my state votes. Every vote should count for a candidate for national elections.
Kill the outdated system and voting might have some effect on the way our country is run. |
I agree dude it is time in today's modern age to let the popular vote decide the elections. Thus making this a true democracy. |
A true democracy is exactly what the founding fathers did NOT want. The Electoral College system was enacted to insure that rural states had an equal voice with more industrialized ( and more heavily populated ) states in the federal government. Otherwise, the more heavily populated states would end up controlling the federal government, and by virtue of over-representation, could act in a way that neglected the needs of their rural cousins. With the Electoral College, a half-dozen rural states with simple majorities toward one candidate can effectively offset one large state with an overwhelming majority toward another candidate. It's kind of like NFL Football. A team in a heavily populated area like New York has a much larger fan base than one in a less populated area like Charlotte, and could, therefore, afford a much larger payroll - but there are rules that level the playing field by imposing salary caps to each team so that no one team can buy up ALL of the top players and dominate the league. The Electoral College is like that Salary Cap - it insures that no one state can dominate many others by virtue of a lopsided popular vote.
And, consider that in a true democracy, the only states candidates would visit would be those where the difference in votes has the potential to be LARGE - hoping to INCREASE the difference in their favor, or to DECREASE it in their opponent's favor. That means states like New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Jersey ( large Democratic surpluses ) and Texas ( large Republican surplus ) - the rest of the states wouldn't matter at all, since it would take nearly ALL of them combined to overcome large difference in just those 6 states.
For example, in the 2000 Presidential Election the voters in New York cast 1,704,323 more Democratic votes than they did Republican votes. That Democratic surplus in the popular vote would have effectively eliminated the Republican vote surpluses of Alaska, Arizona , Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming PLUS half of Nebraska - COMBINED. It is apparent that many rural Republican states would effectively have NO representation because New York's Democratic surplus would negate their Republican surplus - that is, if popular votes were the rule.
On the other hand, it only took two Republican states, Florida, and Arizona to match New York's 33 Electoral votes, giving the rest of the 19 states named above equal footing with other states in the Electoral vote race.
Why would any candidate, Republican or Democrat, spend any time in Florida ( where the Republican surplus was a mere 537 votes ) or New Mexico ( where the Democratic surplus was only 366 votes ), when he/she could spend time in New York, California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, which together could completely eliminate ALL other states combined if a Democrat could just garner an additional 200,000 Democratic votes in each of those states with a little more attention, or the Republican could decrease the vote by 200 or 300,000 votes - enough to offset the votes of 9 or 10 moderate Democratic surplus states?
As it was, the surplus of Democratic votes in just two states, New York and California was enough to overcome Republican surpluses in TWENTY-TWO Republican states on a popular vote basis. BUT on an Electoral vote basis, they were matched by just 4 states, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas. As pointed out earlier, that leaves the remaining states on an equal footing with other states in the Electoral vote process.
A true Democracy only lasts until a simple majority discovers that they have the power to vote themselves money from the public treasury. Our founding fathers knew that; that's why we do NOT have a true Democracy. Rather, we have a Democratic Republic WITH the Electoral College as a part of it. A process by which small, rural states have equal footing with large, urban states.
And the Carolina Panthers can compete with the New York Giants. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 01:56:17 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by RonB:
...A true Democracy only lasts until a simple majority discovers that they have the power to vote themselves money from the public treasury. Our founding fathers knew that; that's why we do NOT have a true Democracy. Rather, we have a Democratic Republic WITH the Electoral College as a part of it. A process by which small, rural states have equal footing with large, urban states.
And the Carolina Panthers can compete with the New York Giants. |
Thanks for the capsule lesson, Ron. It's not often I can say this, but I'm in complete agreement with you. I wish more people understood how the Electoral College works and why we have it in the first place. I cringe every time I hear someone saying "we should go by the popular vote".
We are not a democracy. As you point out, we are a Republic with a modified democratic voting system. "And to the republic for which it stands..." I don't think the current generations are learning the difference, frankly :-(
R. |
|
