Just a poll, no commentary

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:04 pm

I would like this to be anonymous.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:33 am

I reject the premise of the question because there are other choices....

Jesus Freak · Post by **Jesus Freak** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:36 am

If your option isn't on there, then don't vote.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:10 am

Jesus Freak wrote:If your option isn't on there, then don't vote.

Spoken like a true Party faithful....

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:47 am

Will Robinson wrote:I reject the premise of the question because there are other choices....

My sentiments echoed.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:59 pm

I would argue that a vote for third-party is a vote for Obama.

Something that you hard-core third-party folks might ask yourself is: how can American elections be made more American? What the whole process essentially boils down to, right now, from what I can tell, is that 60-80% of either of the Big Two really ends up voting against the opposing party's candidate and not for theirs. If the elections are close, and they will be, since this is as much about the culture war as about the issues, that means that only 10%-30% (to be generous) of the country is 100% behind the winning candidate. Now I don't know why we started doing things this way, so I'll have to look into it some more, but it sure doesn't seem like the best way.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:22 pm

I don’t understand that logic, unless you were going to vote for McCain if you didn’t have another choice. That’s an assumption I would not make.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:00 pm

Just look at the primaries. Not all Republicans wanted McCain on the ticket, and not all Democrats wanted Obama, but the overwhelming majority of Democrats will side with Obama against the Republicans, and the reverse is true with Republicans. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we would end up with a very different election if all candidates were on the same footing, and I really wonder if there would be some positive effects in doing it that way:

-) More competition would demand more from a candidate. I can't say if it would condemn rhetoric altogether, but it would at least make it less viable.
-) I think it would change the way the media approaches an election, but I'm not sure that it wouldn't just end up being more varied in it's bias.
-) Third party candidates, no longer third-party candidates, would have an equal road to the presidency.
-) A serious change in course, when the country needed it, even on smaller issues, would be only an election away.
-) God help us because it might just destroy the country.

I'm sure someone somewhere must have said that liberty in the hands of fools is a dangerous thing.
-) ...

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:07 pm

I could be wrong, and I could be missing something important. I'm just thinking out loud...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:19 pm

In a sense if you don't vote at all, or vote for a candidate that has no chance to win, you are voting for whoever wins.
It is that chance to win window that you are trying to open up by voting for the third party. Assuming others join your effort and each cycle the third party gets more and more votes eventually they become viable and the one party disguised as two has to start paying attention to the agenda that has reduced their base. the simple tactics of less tax versus more abortion won't work! Lots of issues can be brought into the debate.

The other thing that would accomplish the same goal much quicker and even better regarding getting lots of issues in the candidates face is the weighted vote system.
In 92 Perot took enough Bush Sr. votes to give the win to Clinton.
In 2000 Nader took enough Gore votes to give the win to Bush (shrub).

If it had been a weighted system Perot voters would have listed Perot first, Bush Sr. second...
Bush Sr. would have won and both parties would have a breakdown of just how much support every candidate got and even from what parts of the country so they would know what issues they better deliver on or risk losing the vote next time.
Likewise in 2000 Nader voters could have listed Gore as their second choice (Ewww!) and Gore would have beat Shrub Bush....

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:22 pm

Will Robinson wrote:It is that chance to win window that you are trying to open up by voting for the third party. Assuming others join your effort and each cycle the third party gets more and more votes eventually they become viable and the one party disguised as two has to start listening to the agenda that has reduced their base.

I keep my fingers crossed that this will happen sooner or later.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:35 pm

Thanks for the responses, all good points.
I didn't include any of the 3rd party candidates because I wanted to see the split between O and M.
Maybe I should have used the weighted system Will spoke of, maybe that would have been more informative.
Only problem is, that is unrealistic IMO. Never gonna happen.

Now lets see what develops over the weekend.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:16 am

Only 23 votes?

*BUMP*

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:33 pm

VonVulcan wrote:Only 23 votes?

*BUMP*

Yes, the twelve was from one person using twelve laptops.

Bee

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:18 pm

Just a reminder.

*BUMP*

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:57 pm

I'm not much for poll dancing.

I can wait til Nov.

Neo · Post by **Neo** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:27 am

I'm just glad John Edwards isn't one of the options 9_9

Just a poll, no commentary

Who would you vote for if the election were today?

Just a poll, no commentary

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: