NationStates Jolt Archive

He's told me he's voting for the American Communist Party

While I don't view communism as evil, we can already tell that some group like this will never win the Pres election. So what the heck is he doing?

He's told me he's voting for the American Communist Party

While I don't view communism as evil, we can already tell that some group like this will never win the Pres election. So what the heck is he doing?if hes gonna vote 3rd party tell him to vote for the Marijuana Reform Party insted

He's told me he's voting for the American Communist Party

While I don't view communism as evil, we can already tell that some group like this will never win the Pres election. So what the heck is he doing?

Exercising his right to vote. I loath communism, but if you believe in it, then vote for it.

He's not voting for Mr. Kerry. That is a good thing...

if hes gonna vote 3rd party tell him to vote for the Marijuana Reform Party insted

You know, TRA, this post alone explains a lot about you...

He's told me he's voting for the American Communist Party

While I don't view communism as evil, we can already tell that some group like this will never win the Pres election. So what the heck is he doing?

Exercising his right to vote. I loath communism, but if you believe in it, then vote for it.Yeah, I feel the same way. I'm one of the few Democrats who think Nader got a raw deal in 2000 when people blamed him for Gore's loss. The people who voted for Nader voted for the person they thought best suited for the job--I didn't agree, but that's the point behind democratic elections.

I look at it this way--at least he isn't voting for Bush, and that's good enough for me.

He's not voting for Mr. Kerry. That is a good thing...

He's not voting for Mr. Bush. That's a better thing. :D

He's not voting for Mr. Kerry. That is a good thing...

He's not voting for Mr. Bush. That's a better thing. :D

While that may be true, here's the rub...

A mainstream commie might consider voting for Kerry, just to vote against Bush...a noble cause. But a wacko commie will vote for Bill Berditzman, or whoever it is, and waste a vote just to make (a ridiculous) point.

He's not voting for Mr. Kerry. That is a good thing...

He's not voting for Mr. Bush. That's a better thing. :D

While that may be true, here's the rub...

A mainstream commie might consider voting for Kerry, just to vote against Bush...a noble cause. But a wacko commie will vote for Bill Berditzman, or whoever it is, and waste a vote just to make (a ridiculous) point.the only truly wasted vote is the one that was never cast

Hey man...he has a right to vote just as much as any other draft-primed 18 yr old does

He's not voting for Mr. Kerry. That is a good thing...

He's not voting for Mr. Bush. That's a better thing. :D

Hey hey now. NBush is the man. And to vote for the communist party in todays society is as good as a wasted vote.

He's told me he's voting for the American Communist Party

While I don't view communism as evil, we can already tell that some group like this will never win the Pres election. So what the heck is he doing?

while, you Grandpa is one of those mythical people who actually vote for the communist party. I've only heard of these people, never met one, you should get him to join this forum, so we can all get to know him. Maybe he can begin a revival of voting for communism, which probably hasn't been done since the depression.

the only truly wasted vote is the one that was never cast

Very poetic

He's not voting for Mr. Kerry. That is a good thing...

He's not voting for Mr. Bush. That's a better thing. :D

Hey hey now. NBush is the man. And to vote for the communist party in todays society is as good as a wasted vote.

No vote is a wasted vote. There is no rule that we are a 2 party system and the fact that there are other choices on the ballot means that we have the right to choose any of those candidates, regardless of their likelihood to win.

the only truly wasted vote is the one that was never cast

Very poeticthanks :lol:

He's not voting for Mr. Bush. That's a better thing. :D[/quote]

Hey hey now. NBush is the man. And to vote for the communist party in todays society is as good as a wasted vote.[/quote]

No vote is a wasted vote. There is no rule that we are a 2 party system and the fact that there are other choices on the ballot means that we have the right to choose any of those candidates, regardless of their likelihood to win.[/quote]And while the two major parties have a deathlock on statewide and national politics and have rigged the game so well that the emergence of smaller parties is nigh impossible, that shouldn't mean that people shouldn't vote their consciences or their hearts when it suits them.

I look at third party votes as protest votes--and I've done it myself in the past.

the only truly wasted vote is the one that was never cast

Very poeticthanks :lol:

dude, tra is like f---ing zen man. F---ING ZEN!

Saying a vote is wasted is the day democracy dies.

the only vote wasted is one that IS cast. which wing of zog do you want to support, which face of the coin with land face up this time. who in their right mind would care.

I'm not too up on the US electoral system, but from my understanding, you don't have proportional representation, so minor parties have zero political power, right?

the only vote wasted is one that IS cast. which wing of zog do you want to support, which face of the coin with land face up this time. who in their right mind would care.

Do people like you never go away? :roll:

I'm not too up on the US electoral system, but from my understanding, you don't have proportional representation, so minor parties have zero political power, right?

yup, in each state winner takes all the electoral votes, and they are all that count.

I'm not too up on the US electoral system, but from my understanding, you don't have proportional representation, so minor parties have zero political power, right?

yup, in each state winner takes all the electoral votes, and they are all that count.

OK. I'm Australian, and we have two. In the senate, it's proportional, so minor parties have a chance of getting elected there, but in the House of Representatives, it's basically the same as the US.

the only vote wasted is one that IS cast. which wing of zog do you want to support, which face of the coin with land face up this time. who in their right mind would care.

Do people like you never go away? :roll:

nope, we are the plague of the internet, a vast funhouse where our fringe views can get disporportional attention, due to our obsessive posting, and the loudest voice in the playground rule. :roll: :P :shock: :roll:

the only vote wasted is one that IS cast. which wing of zog do you want to support, which face of the coin with land face up this time. who in their right mind would care.

Do people like you never go away? :roll:

nope, we are the plague of the internet, a vast funhouse where our fringe views can get disporportional attention, due to our obsessive posting, and the loudest voice in the playground rule. :roll: :P :shock: :roll:

Believe me, there was a time when I used to post on an ultra-right forum as the token leftist. I've heard it all, and I know all the little nazi codes they use. Ha.

I'm not too up on the US electoral system, but from my understanding, you don't have proportional representation, so minor parties have zero political power, right?

yup, in each state winner takes all the electoral votes, and they are all that count.

OK. I'm Australian, and we have two. In the senate, it's proportional, so minor parties have a chance of getting elected there, but in the House of Representatives, it's basically the same as the US.

the senators are elected in a staggered fashion from each state through a statewide vote, each representive is elected from their district within the state, in the us. the only time you might find porportional representation would be in local elections for such things are school boards or city councils.

I'm not too up on the US electoral system, but from my understanding, you don't have proportional representation, so minor parties have zero political power, right?

yup, in each state winner takes all the electoral votes, and they are all that count.

OK. I'm Australian, and we have two. In the senate, it's proportional, so minor parties have a chance of getting elected there, but in the House of Representatives, it's basically the same as the US.

the senators are elected in a staggered fashion from each state through a statewide vote, each representive is elected from their district within the state, in the us. the only time you might find porportional representation would be in local elections for such things are school boards or city councils.

Hmm. Well personally, I believe that if 5% of the population votes for one party, 5% of the senators should belong to that party. In the executive though, direct representation is probably better, because if the government in power only controls 40% of the seats, well, that causes problems.

Hmm. Well personally, I believe that if 5% of the population votes for one party, 5% of the senators should belong to that party. In the executive though, direct representation is probably better, because if the government in power only controls 40% of the seats, well, that causes problems.In the US, we don't vote for the party. In every election except the presidential one, we vote for the candidate. One member of the US Senate isn't even a member of a political party

if hes gonna vote 3rd party tell him to vote for the Marijuana Reform Party insted

You know, TRA, this post alone explains a lot about you...lol, and that doesn't happen often

Hmm. Well personally, I believe that if 5% of the population votes for one party, 5% of the senators should belong to that party. In the executive though, direct representation is probably better, because if the government in power only controls 40% of the seats, well, that causes problems.In the US, we don't vote for the party. In every election except the presidential one, we vote for the candidate. One member of the US Senate isn't even a member of a political party

Oh, come on. I know there would be plenty of people on this forum who wouldn't vote for your Democrat party if their lives depended on it, and plenty of diehard Democrats who would never vote for a Republican.

And independent senators are quite common here too.

Wait... if in your system you vote for some party instead of voting for individuals, how do non-party affiliated politicians get into office?

Btw, screw the parliamentary system, the U.S. is about individualism, not socialist piffle.

As independents. And if they have enough support, they end up forming parties in their own right.

Again, they have to form or join a party. Fuck that. I care about individuals, not about parties.

Yeah, I can agree to some level. Often parties tend to drum out any form of creative thinking.

How would voting for Bush (say) be less of a wasted vote? If you vote for Bush he will either win by one more or lose by one less. Either way your vote made sod all difference.

How would voting for Bush (say) be less of a wasted vote? If you vote for Bush he will either win by one more or lose by one less. Either way your vote made sod all difference.
Yup. Now if they gave you a dollar if you picked the winner...

Anyway, here is some good Libertarian Party of Canada propaganda to illustrate the point. :)

http://www.adamdesaulniers.com/.inc/img/lpc/libertarian.campaign.card.useless.screwed.irrelevant.gif

The only wasted vote, is the one that is not cast.

The only wasted vote, is the one that is not cast.

Or a vote that is for a completely insignificant party. I guess it depends how you view the word 'wasted'.

The only wasted vote, is the one that is not cast.

Or a vote that is for a completely insignificant party. I guess it depends how you view the word 'wasted'.

Nonsense.

Voting is about casting your vote, from your conscience.
Who you believe will make a difference.

If thats Nader....then its Nader, but in the name of all you hold sacred, GET OUT AND VOTE.

If thats Nader....then its Nader, but in the name of all you hold sacred, GET OUT AND VOTE.
Why? So you can try to enforce your will on other people?

If thats Nader....then its Nader, but in the name of all you hold sacred, GET OUT AND VOTE.
Why? So you can try to enforce your will on other people?

No.

So you can have a say in the government that will inevitably make decisions for you.
So that you say, that when the time came to decide who wil lead the most powerful nation on Earth, that YOU made your voice heard.

If thats Nader....then its Nader, but in the name of all you hold sacred, GET OUT AND VOTE.
Why? So you can try to enforce your will on other people?

No.

So you can have a say in the government that will inevitably make decisions for you.
So that you say, that when the time came to decide who wil lead the most powerful nation on Earth, that YOU made your voice heard.
Translation: "No,.....er.....yes."

If thats Nader....then its Nader, but in the name of all you hold sacred, GET OUT AND VOTE.
Why? So you can try to enforce your will on other people?

No.

So you can have a say in the government that will inevitably make decisions for you.
So that you say, that when the time came to decide who wil lead the most powerful nation on Earth, that YOU made your voice heard.
Translation: "No,.....er.....yes."

Hey quick!

Look up!

Its the point!

You missed it.

Hmm. Well personally, I believe that if 5% of the population votes for one party, 5% of the senators should belong to that party. In the executive though, direct representation is probably better, because if the government in power only controls 40% of the seats, well, that causes problems.

I think the simpliest way would be a direct election where every single vote is casted and who ever gets most votes is the next president. There is no need to have all these representatives and whatsoevers. You give your vote to who ever you think is the best candidate and that's it. That way smaller parties and candidates would have a fair deal too.
And this works in many countries.

Hmm. Well personally, I believe that if 5% of the population votes for one party, 5% of the senators should belong to that party. In the executive though, direct representation is probably better, because if the government in power only controls 40% of the seats, well, that causes problems.

I think the simpliest way would be a direct election where every single vote is casted and who ever gets most votes is the next president. There is no need to have all these representatives and whatsoevers. You give your vote to who ever you think is the best candidate and that's it. That way smaller parties and candidates would have a fair deal too.
And this works in many countries.
And then one could have an election system where you have two rounds. On the first election there can be for example 9 canditates and if none of them gets 50% of the votes, a second election will be organized. Then you can choose between those two canditates who got most votes in the first election. Now people can still take a side and quite often they end up voting the least annoying as their own favorite is not in the race anymore. But at least they can vote their favorite during the first round and not the only possible rival against someone who they really hate.

Where I live we have no political parties, every candidate is independent. I knew of one candidate who affiliated herself with New Labour but there is no party politics as such.

Hmm. Well personally, I believe that if 5% of the population votes for one party, 5% of the senators should belong to that party. In the executive though, direct representation is probably better, because if the government in power only controls 40% of the seats, well, that causes problems.

I think the simpliest way would be a direct election where every single vote is casted and who ever gets most votes is the next president. There is no need to have all these representatives and whatsoevers. You give your vote to who ever you think is the best candidate and that's it. That way smaller parties and candidates would have a fair deal too.
And this works in many countries.
And then one could have an election system where you have two rounds. On the first election there can be for example 9 canditates and if none of them gets 50% of the votes, a second election will be organized. Then you can choose between those two canditates who got most votes in the first election. Now people can still take a side and quite often they end up voting the least annoying as their own favorite is not in the race anymore. But at least they can vote their favorite during the first round and not the only possible rival against someone who they really hate.

The first method you described, is technically very likely to turn into a dictatorship of the majority. Say, if the whole nation wants a uranium mine smack bang in the middle of a populated area, and the people living in this area dont want it, well, tough biscuits, because theres nothing they can do about it because everyone else wanted it, and there is nobody to represent them in government. Minorities will be treated unfairly, as happened in post colonial african states.

The second system you described is similar to the system we currently have in Australia, preferential voting, whereby we will state our preferences, and if our number one preference comes last and is eliminated, then your first vote is removed and your second preference vote comes next. The downside to this, is that your vote ends up going to one of the two major parties anyway.

If thats Nader....then its Nader, but in the name of all you hold sacred, GET OUT AND VOTE.
Why? So you can try to enforce your will on other people?

No.

So you can have a say in the government that will inevitably make decisions for you.
So that you say, that when the time came to decide who wil lead the most powerful nation on Earth, that YOU made your voice heard.
Translation: "No,.....er.....yes."

Hey quick!

Look up!

Its the point!

You missed it.
Tomorrow there will be an election to decide who runs "The Genocide Society". The Genocide Society is an extremely powerful non-profit organisation dedicated to murdering large numbers of people. The key election issues are "who will we kill", and "how will we kill them". This organisation inevitably makes decisions for you. Don't you want to say that when the time came to decide who runs the most powerful organisation on earth YOU made your voice heard.

How does this become less rediculous when you're voting for the leader of the "Robbery/Enslavement/Behaviour Regulation Society"?

One vote not for Bush, not a waste :P

I think the simpliest way would be a direct election where every single vote is casted and who ever gets most votes is the next president. There is no need to have all these representatives and whatsoevers. You give your vote to who ever you think is the best candidate and that's it. That way smaller parties and candidates would have a fair deal too.
And this works in many countries.
And then one could have an election system where you have two rounds. On the first election there can be for example 9 canditates and if none of them gets 50% of the votes, a second election will be organized. Then you can choose between those two canditates who got most votes in the first election. Now people can still take a side and quite often they end up voting the least annoying as their own favorite is not in the race anymore. But at least they can vote their favorite during the first round and not the only possible rival against someone who they really hate.

The first method you described, is technically very likely to turn into a dictatorship of the majority. Say, if the whole nation wants a uranium mine smack bang in the middle of a populated area, and the people living in this area dont want it, well, tough biscuits, because theres nothing they can do about it because everyone else wanted it, and there is nobody to represent them in government. Minorities will be treated unfairly, as happened in post colonial african states.

The second system you described is similar to the system we currently have in Australia, preferential voting, whereby we will state our preferences, and if our number one preference comes last and is eliminated, then your first vote is removed and your second preference vote comes next. The downside to this, is that your vote ends up going to one of the two major parties anyway.[/quote]

The first method: we were talking about presindential vote not about government. President isn't always a member of the biggest party in government, quite often he/she is, but it's not necessary. Who says that there should be only one party making all the decisions. In my country there are (at the moment) 4 parties in the government so I do think they represent the opinions of people quite well. Opposition parties changes in almost every vote.

The second system: (which we have in my country). We don't give a second preference vote. We have a new election after the first one with only 2 candidates. So yes, if you vote on the second round, your vote is likely to go a major party candidate because they usually get the on the second round. But at least you can make a new decision based on the result of the first round. And what makes you say "the two major parties"? We have four major parties and several smaller parties.

I think this is the biggest problem in most democracies (?). Having only two parties. People should have more different views to choose from. I don't know what should be done about it, especially as it is not a problem in my country and I'm not familiar with the legislation in other countries. Is there any solutions? Good ideas?

He's told me he's voting for the American Communist Party

While I don't view communism as evil, we can already tell that some group like this will never win the Pres election. So what the heck is he doing?

Hes old and has nothing better to do thats probebly why