NationStates Jolt Archive

Nader.

Here's a thought;

Saudi Arabia is supporting George Bush and China is supporting John Kerry

There have been a shitload of these threads and Kerry always comes out well ahead on this forum. A few have been public polls when you can see how everyone voted, and there are loads of peoples puppets in all of them. Doesn't work.

Ralph Nader won't even be on the ballots of every single state... How's that for democracy?

I'm voting for Ralph Nader because he combines the positive attributes of both George Bush (not being John Kerry) and John Kerry (not being George Bush).

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush essentially.

How's THAT for democracy?

I'm voting for Ralph Nader because he combines the positive attributes of both George Bush (not being John Kerry) and John Kerry (not being George Bush).

HA!

If I was old enough, I would vote for Bush.

As much as I don't like him, I think Bush beats Kerry.

I can't vote yet, but it asked who I support and that's Kerry. I wish it could be Nader, but the stakes are just too high this time around (how's that for democracy?). Besides I live in Illinois and I'm not sure if he's even on the ballot here. Again: How's that for democracy?

Forget Nader. Vote Cobb.

Badnarik

I fully support President Bush.

I'm very impressed that someone has posted a "US presidential candidate" poll that actually lets people vote for someone who is not Bush or Kerry.

irrelevant poll with the electoral college still in place

Badnarik.

irrelevant poll with the electoral college still in place

Without the electoral college, you disenfrancise about 40 states.

Without the electoral college, you disenfrancise about 40 states.
with the electoral college you disenfranchise people in 47, well technically all states

with the electoral college you disenfranchise people in 47, well technically all states

Do you figure that?

Point: CT has 7 votes, and about 3.5 million people.
California has 55 votes and about 35.5 million people.

CT has about 1.3% of the votes and 1.2% of the people.
Vs. CA, which has about 10% of the votes and 12% of the people.

So how is anyone disenfrancised?

Yet, in a system of direct popular voting:
1) You could get a need for nation-wide recounts, ala Florida. No thanks.
2) CT would cease to matter. Why run adds in CT when you have 10 TIMES the people in California?

At least with the EC, small states still can count for something.

I support John Kerry, of course!

John Kerry!

Lets give Bush the ol' Heave Ho!

Do you figure that?

Point: CT has 7 votes, and about 3.5 million people.
California has 55 votes and about 35.5 million people.

CT has about 1.3% of the votes and 1.2% of the people.
Vs. CA, which has about 10% of the votes and 12% of the people.

So how is anyone disenfrancised?

Yet, in a system of direct popular voting:
1) You could get a need for nation-wide recounts, ala Florida. No thanks.
2) CT would cease to matter. Why run adds in CT when you have 10 TIMES the people in California?

At least with the EC, small states still can count for something.


I agree with the nation-wide recount issue, that's the only valid reason I can find to continue the electoral college.

However, it's ironic that you say the electoral college keeps CT relevant. Are any ads run in CT now? No, of course not, it's a Democrat stronghold. Perhaps if Republican voters in CT actually counted, then ads might be run there. As well, are any ads run in California right now? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Bush has zero chance there.

Instead, we have millions of dollars pouring into a handful of states. It's rediculous. I find it insulting that Kerry has scrapped plans to run ads in my state of Arizona because he knows he can't win here. I guess my vote just isn't important enough (and that's true, unfortunately).

If the electoral college was scrapped, then the entire country would suddenly become relevant, not just a handful of states. You might (gasp) see ads run in Texas, or New York. The candidates might even campaign in your state!

But a nationwide recount would be a nightmare, choose the worse of two evils.



oh, and I voted Kerry, for numerous reasons.

Popular vote is bias against Republicans.

Large cities = culturally diverse = awareness, tolerance, intelligence = moderate or liberal views = Democrat voter.

Never mind the fact that most of those people would vote Independent, Libertarian, or Green if they thought their party would have a chance.

Do you figure that?

Point: CT has 7 votes, and about 3.5 million people.
California has 55 votes and about 35.5 million people.

CT has about 1.3% of the votes and 1.2% of the people.
Vs. CA, which has about 10% of the votes and 12% of the people.

So how is anyone disenfrancised?

Yet, in a system of direct popular voting:
1) You could get a need for nation-wide recounts, ala Florida. No thanks.
2) CT would cease to matter. Why run adds in CT when you have 10 TIMES the people in California?

At least with the EC, small states still can count for something.
how much your vote counts is a bullshit way to actually make it look like your vote counts more, it doesnt. if you vote in the majority in the state you vote counts, if you vote in the minority in the state, your vote counts for 0% in the actual election where electoral votes are weighed instead of actual peoples votes. the electoral college disenfranchises all people, its not a fair system for the reason i stated: if you vote with the majority, the electoral votes go torward your candidate, and if you vote with the minority, your vote doesnt mean diddly. vote "worth" is BULLSHIT, the election isnt judged on vote "worth" its judged on electoral votes which is dereived from the majority of the state.

lets also note, how many times do presidents go to non siwng states? a FRACTION of time they go to non swing states? why, because there vote there is guaranteed or unguaranteed distinctively, thus why the fuck should the campaign there? the people that agree or disagree respectively depending on state dont mean SHIT because their votes dont count. your sad sad attempt at an explanation made sense in oh about 1780 when the biggest state had ~9-10 electoral votes and the smallest had 3 and there were many in between. NOW the number is a variation of 55+ to 3, wow, thats completely different than "this state is bigger than that state so the big state will get more attention" no shit, that will already happen under the electoral college system in ADDITION TO total polarization


50% give or take about 6% of the america populace votes, now with that said, imagine how many peoples votes DONT COUNT because of the electoral college system


i rest my case

'Support' is such a strong word.

*sigh* I don't really 'support' any of them. And to be honest, my vote is irrelevant. I'm not in a 'battleground state'. I'm sure glad the Electoral College is around to make every state important. ;)

But I will most likely vote for Nader. Simply because he is the most trustworthy politician I have met(not exactly high praise) in quite a while.

Popular vote is bias against Republicans.

Large cities = culturally diverse = awareness, tolerance, intelligence = moderate or liberal views = Democrat voter.

Never mind the fact that most of those people would vote Independent, Libertarian, or Green if they thought their party would have a chance.
were that true republicans would NEVER win because liberals would out number the republicans in every state thus always getting the electoral votes of said state

think before you speak so you dont look like a moron

Bush has a chance to start WWIII because of his bad foreign policies
Kerry supports affirmative action, and doesn't give a look of a strong president
Nader supports Palestinians

I won't vote in this election at all.

Popular vote is bias against Republicans.

Large cities = culturally diverse = awareness, tolerance, intelligence = moderate or liberal views = Democrat voter.

Never mind the fact that most of those people would vote Independent, Libertarian, or Green if they thought their party would have a chance.

I disagree about the supposed bias against Republicans. Surprisingly, with the haphazard arrangement of electoral votes, the country actually seems split pretty evenly electorally, just as it is split evenly by person. 40% of Republicans in California are disregarded, a huge number. 35% of Democrats in Texas are disregarded, also a fairly large number. Some 35% of Republicans are disregarded in New York, and in Illinois. Some 30% of Democrats across the Dakotas, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc, are disregarded. Some 30% of Republicans across New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, etc. are disregarded.

Yet through all this, electorally the country just happened to match up fairly evenly.

Bush's popular vote loss in 2000 does not indicate much. Gore could have just nudged out Bush in Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Missouri, etc, but lost by a larger margin across the South and Midwest, and then Gore would have been the popular loser, but electoral victor.

In fact, it seems very likely that Kerry may lose the popular vote, but win electorally this year.

But I'd much rather we dispense with all this and go to a direct popular vote, regardless of recount issues.

were that true republicans would NEVER win because liberals would out number the republicans in every state thus always getting the electoral votes of said state

think before you speak so you dont look like a moron
Not too many states are largely urban.

Bush is running the US into the ground, so, Bush.

*looks like a mormon*

Bush is running the US into the ground, so, Bush.
If you're anti-US, you might as well support Kerry, because he will make US more compliant with the UN, aka, make US a UN's bitch.

P.S. if the language is "improper" ask me, and i'll edit it.

If you're anti-US, you might as well support Kerry, because he will make US more compliant with the UN, aka, make US a UN's bitch.

P.S. if the language is "improper" ask me, and i'll edit it.

Yeah, the U.N. should be our bitch! :p

If you're anti-US, you might as well support Kerry, because he will make US more compliant with the UN, aka, make US a UN's bitch.
No, Kerry's compliance would give the US renewed respectability. Bush's continued unilateralism would do more damage in the long run.

Yeah, the U.N. should be our bitch! :p

Imagine if America (the [edit] majority of people or the people they elected) made all the decisions in the U.N. That's a scary thought.

The UN was intended to be a forum for the world's nations to discuss matters of international importance. Having the US rule it would defeat the point, it would destroy it. The world's nations would simply take their conversation elsewhere.

The UN was intended to be a forum for the world's nations to discuss matters of international importance. Having the US rule it would defeat the point, it would destroy it. The world's nations would simply take their conversation elsewhere.

"But we started it. Fuh fuh fuh."

You have to admit, though: The UN is harsher toward the US than it is to actually "evil" countries.

I fully support President Bush.

cuz you're an ass

cuz you're an ass
such bright intelligence in this meaningful and not-spam-at-all post.
[/sarcasm]

I wish liberals on this board would stop acting like retards. Sometimes it's embarassing to be one. Remember guys, we're supposed to be the tolerant, educated, articulate ones. ;) If you can't change a person's mind with reasoned discourse, then their mind (or values) are not worth changing. Besides, then you have a really good excuse to :sniper: them. :D <---- JOKE
Of course the really scary thing about discussing things with people is that you might discover you're wrong about something.

Jeez, what ever happened to respect in this country? Did they have a meeting and repeal it or something?

--------

Project Vote Smart has something called the National Political Awareness Test (http://www.vote-smart.org/npat_about.php) that the candidates use to state their positions. Both Bush and Kerry REFUSE to answer it. They won't even tell us what they believe in - I find that enormously insulting. I've read the results for Nader, I was mostly impressed. He also elaborated on most of the issues. I haven't read Cobb's yet.

'Support' is such a strong word.

*sigh* I don't really 'support' any of them. And to be honest, my vote is irrelevant. I'm not in a 'battleground state'. I'm sure glad the Electoral College is around to make every state important. ;)

Having to choose between Bush and Kerry is like having to choose between two different strains of Ebola. And Nader is enough of a fringe candidate that he really doesn't matter.

Then again, I don't have to make that choice, thank goodness. I live in Canada, and Canada is not the two-party state that the US is... but that only means we have more idiots and morons to choose from (Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton...) than you Americans do. :)

Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party

http://badnarik.org/

Well, it is good to see you included a third party candidate on there. But nader might not be the big 3rd party candidate this year, as he doesn't have Green Party backing. (and is only halfheartedly accepting Reform Party backing)

From what I hear, Badnarik - the Libertarian candidate - might be gathering alot of votes from republicans unhappy with Bush's departure from traditional small government and fiscal responsibility. He is on the ballot in all but two states, so chances are good that just about everyone (but me, grrrr...) here could probably vote for him, unlike Nader.

As for me, I am going to go with the only non bush/kerry option available here:

http://www.nota4oklahoma.info/

I support Badnarick. Libertarian party.

Popular vote is bias against Republicans.

Large cities = culturally diverse = awareness, tolerance, intelligence = moderate or liberal views = Democrat voter.

Never mind the fact that most of those people would vote Independent, Libertarian, or Green if they thought their party would have a chance.

At least in Connecticut:
Large cities = welfare = Democrat votes.

Well, maybe not most, but certainly a lot more than do now!

I agree with the nation-wide recount issue, that's the only valid reason I can find to continue the electoral college.

However, it's ironic that you say the electoral college keeps CT relevant. Are any ads run in CT now? No, of course not, it's a Democrat stronghold. Perhaps if Republican voters in CT actually counted, then ads might be run there. As well, are any ads run in California right now? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Bush has zero chance there.

Instead, we have millions of dollars pouring into a handful of states. It's rediculous. I find it insulting that Kerry has scrapped plans to run ads in my state of Arizona because he knows he can't win here. I guess my vote just isn't important enough (and that's true, unfortunately).

If the electoral college was scrapped, then the entire country would suddenly become relevant, not just a handful of states. You might (gasp) see ads run in Texas, or New York. The candidates might even campaign in your state!

But a nationwide recount would be a nightmare, choose the worse of two evils.

oh, and I voted Kerry, for numerous reasons.

Thanks.

Yes, but CT is also an odd state: 180 towns, 170 or so of which usually vote Republican. It's the 6 cities and (and their immedate sub-cities) that always vote Democratic. That's why CT is a DEM state in most elections.

Actually, Cali is a closer race than you'd think! It's not locked away like New York for Kerry or Texas for Bush. Check it out at:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Personally, I vote in every election for local politics. I consider the Presidential as important (and I vote, of course), but I hardly expect my vote to do very much, Presidentially. But it gives me "grumping rights" if my candidate doesn't win. :)

Nah. You'd still have to tabulate the votes by something, be it town or county or something. The US is YEARS if not DECADES away from having universal voting machines. (CT & NY are the only states in the union to exclusively use the mechanical machines, and those are all at least 40 years old!!) Further, I believe that the elections would get WORSE, as the candidates would pander to the fickle will of the people more, as in ancient Rome. Welcome back to the days of bread and circuses...

I'll keep the college. It's done well (if not perfectly) for the life of the nation.

I'm waiting until the final debate to decide for sure.

how much your vote counts is a bullshit way to actually make it look like your vote counts more, it doesnt. if you vote in the majority in the state you vote counts, if you vote in the minority in the state, your vote counts for 0% in the actual election where electoral votes are weighed instead of actual peoples votes.

Yes, exactly. When more people choose something, that's the will of the majority.

the electoral college disenfranchises all people, its not a fair system for the reason i stated: if you vote with the majority, the electoral votes go torward your candidate, and if you vote with the minority, your vote doesnt mean diddly. vote "worth" is BULLSHIT, the election isnt judged on vote "worth" its judged on electoral votes which is dereived from the majority of the state.

Yes, exactly. When more people choose something, that's the will of the majority.

lets also note, how many times do presidents go to non siwng states? a FRACTION of time they go to non swing states? why, because there vote there is guaranteed or unguaranteed distinctively, thus why the fuck should the campaign there?

Yes, exactly. When more people choose something, that's the will of the majority.

the people that agree or disagree respectively depending on state dont mean SHIT because their votes dont count.

Yes, exactly. When more people choose something, that's the will of the majority.

your sad sad attempt at an explanation made sense in oh about 1780 when the biggest state had ~9-10 electoral votes and the smallest had 3 and there were many in between.

You really like to talk down to people, I see. I believe that people like you is the reason why we *should't* have direct voting for the President. The idea that a group of people like you are deciding my future directly scares the crap out of me even more as an idea than say... labor unions.

NOW the number is a variation of 55+ to 3, wow, thats completely different than "this state is bigger than that state so the big state will get more attention" no shit, that will already happen under the electoral college system in ADDITION TO total polarization

Yes, exactly. When more people choose something, that's the will of the majority.

50% give or take about 6% of the america populace votes, now with that said, imagine how many peoples votes DONT COUNT because of the electoral college system

No more or less than if we did have direct representation. You seem to forget that states do not always vote as expected, and that the popular vote does determine the electoral college vote.

i rest my case

In the ground?

Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party

http://badnarik.org/

Ditto that.

I wish liberals on this board would stop acting like retards. Sometimes it's embarassing to be one. Remember guys, we're supposed to be the tolerant, educated, articulate ones. ;) If you can't change a person's mind with reasoned discourse, then their mind (or values) are not worth changing. Besides, then you have a really good excuse to :sniper: them. :D <---- JOKE
Of course the really scary thing about discussing things with people is that you might discover you're wrong about something.

Jeez, what ever happened to respect in this country? Did they have a meeting and repeal it or something?


Yup, and they decided to start burning swastikas in people's lawns instead--at least that's what the "tolerant, educated, and articulate" liberals did to a republican supporter's yard in the Madison area.

I'm finding out more and more that whilst conservatives do talk a great deal, they tend to just talk. I'm seeing more and more violence, lack of respect, and general all-around-assholishness type activity toward others coming from the liberal camp, when "discussing" politics (See most of Chess Squares' responses to ANYBODY to see the negative/attack argument cases).

This has just been my observation--I don't know if that covers everyone, but that's what I've been seeing in Wisconsin the last 10 years. This is one of the reasons why I stopped being a democrat.

Now, to just get off the democrats' mailing lists....ugh.