NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not going to urge you to vote for anyone, nor will I say which party to vote for. but I do want you to think about this.


wether or not you are happy with President Bush, wether or not you are happy with the Republicans or Democrats in general... I urge you to vote responsibly. Many on these boards seems to me, anyway, that they will vote Democrat, not because the person running is competent, not because they think this person will do better than the other, but because that person is a Democrat.

Right now, our Govenor is a Republican, and I believe she did more for our state than what the challanger states he can do. in the debate we had, he asked and pressed the issue about the iraq war. wether or not she supports or is against the Iraq war has nothing to do with how our state is run, she has no control over troop movements, nor does she, or any governor, have any influence over the President or his senior staff. I felt that it was just a ruse to play to people's emotions and to remind everyone not what she's done for my state, but the fact that she is Republican.

People have stated here before that Voting along Party lines is wrong. I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to. Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting. you have one vote, please use it wisely.

*Claps*

Well said.

It should be a federal mandate that the logic used in this post is presented to every voter before they can vote. :p

On the other hand, there are cases where I might encourage someone to vote for the worse candidate who was a Dem (but one who was worse, but not just plain awful), if I felt that voting for the better candidate would empower a group of people who should not be empowered. But that would be a pragmatic descision, and I suspect that it counts as part of the logic one uses when judging a candidate's merit. Certainly, it doesn't matter as much in the case of a Gubanatorial (how do you spell that?) election.

I'm not going to urge you to vote for anyone, nor will I say which party to vote for. but I do want you to think about this.


wether or not you are happy with President Bush, wether or not you are happy with the Republicans or Democrats in general... I urge you to vote responsibly. Many on these boards seems to me, anyway, that they will vote Democrat, not because the person running is competent, not because they think this person will do better than the other, but because that person is a Democrat.

Right now, our Govenor is a Republican, and I believe she did more for our state than what the challanger states he can do. in the debate we had, he asked and pressed the issue about the iraq war. wether or not she supports or is against the Iraq war has nothing to do with how our state is run, she has no control over troop movements, nor does she, or any governor, have any influence over the President or his senior staff. I felt that it was just a ruse to play to people's emotions and to remind everyone not what she's done for my state, but the fact that she is Republican.

People have stated here before that Voting along Party lines is wrong. I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to. Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting. you have one vote, please use it wisely.
Nice pitch for the Republican party. :rolleyes:

*great applause*

I salute you for saying that. Am I probably (once I reach voting age) going to be voting almost exclusively along one party? Yes. Will it be because of the party? No. And if someone comes up of the other party who I feel better represents the people (and, of course, me specifically), will they get my vote? Sure. It's the policies, not the parties, that should determine the vote.

Please teach this to more people than just NSers, because there's a lot of people who need to hear your message >.>

Nice pitch for the Republican party. :rolleyes:

It was a good effort at being bipartisain... your mocking it merely discourages it.

Typically rude Democrat.*



*Yeah, that was an illustration, don't get your panties in a twist, will ya?

Hate to sound redundant, but that is well stated.

It was a good effort at being bipartisain... your mocking it merely discourages it.

Typically rude Democrat.*



*Yeah, that was an illustration, don't get your panties in a twist, will ya?

Too bad he is Canadian.

Nice pitch for the Republican party. :rolleyes:

God forbid a Republican not be a baby eating sycophant and *gasp* good at her job!

I'm not going to urge you to vote for anyone, nor will I say which party to vote for. but I do want you to think about this.


wether or not you are happy with President Bush, wether or not you are happy with the Republicans or Democrats in general... I urge you to vote responsibly. Many on these boards seems to me, anyway, that they will vote Democrat, not because the person running is competent, not because they think this person will do better than the other, but because that person is a Democrat.

Right now, our Govenor is a Republican, and I believe she did more for our state than what the challanger states he can do. in the debate we had, he asked and pressed the issue about the iraq war. wether or not she supports or is against the Iraq war has nothing to do with how our state is run, she has no control over troop movements, nor does she, or any governor, have any influence over the President or his senior staff. I felt that it was just a ruse to play to people's emotions and to remind everyone not what she's done for my state, but the fact that she is Republican.

People have stated here before that Voting along Party lines is wrong. I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to. Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting. you have one vote, please use it wisely.

Sounds pretty but the fact remains. Freedom says you can be smart or stupid with your voting.

Most people vote stupid anyway. How many times have you heard "I'm voting a straight line democrat or repub"

How many have said "He is a Christian"

Sometimes you vote dumb to force a change. A couple people doing good does not make for the whole.

People don't really look over candidates anymore. They should. We have degraded to the point were we are arguing which idiot is smarter then the other idiot(kerry and the shrub).

Having said all that.....you are correct that you should vote for a person who will do a good job and not just his party or sound bytes......

God forbid a Republican not be a baby eating sycophant and *gasp* good at her job!

Maybe I would, if any of the Republicans in my state were any good.

Maybe I would, if any of the Republicans in my state were any good.

And the state is...

Sounds pretty but the fact remains. Freedom says you can be smart or stupid with your voting.

Most people vote stupid anyway. How many times have you heard "I'm voting a straight line democrat or repub"

How many have said "He is a Christian"

Sometimes you vote dumb to force a change. A couple people doing good does not make for the whole.

People don't really look over candidates anymore. They should. We have degraded to the point were we are arguing which idiot is smarter then the idiot(kerry and the shrub).

Having said all that.....you are correct that you should vote for a person who will do a good job and not just his party or sound bytes......which is why I asked people to vote responsibily... unfortunatly, I know that the majority of American Voters don't visit NSG... a pity...

Good pitch but no sale!
If the supreme court had been predominatly democrat in 2000 then Gore would have been chosen as president. But they were not and the worst man won the presidency.
Lets get rid of the rebulicans once and for all! Vote democrtat.

Nevermind, all the voting we all should rise up and make me 'second' Emperor of the U.S. and all who support me shall make up the nobility. Who is with me?

But, really you should vote for the most responsible and wise person no matter what their idealogy is when compared to your's.

Good pitch but no sale!
If the supreme court had been predominatly democrat in 2000 then Gore would have been chosen as president. But they were not and the worst man won the presidency.
Lets get rid of the rebulicans once and for all! Vote democrtat.

"No Sale" voting for the best person? Logic cries tonight.

Oh, and SC judges are supposed to be nonpartisan, remember?

"

Oh, and SC judges are supposed to be nonpartisan, remember?

And the president is suppose to be elected, not selected.

I'm not going to urge you to vote for anyone, nor will I say which party to vote for. but I do want you to think about this.


wether or not you are happy with President Bush, wether or not you are happy with the Republicans or Democrats in general... I urge you to vote responsibly.
I'm more than happy to second and endorse that sentiment!

Many on these boards seems to me, anyway, that they will vote Democrat, not because the person running is competent, not because they think this person will do better than the other, but because that person is a Democrat.
Of course there are a number of such people, also a number who will vote for a Democrat because they are not a Republican (some as a general principal, others in this particular context).

Right now, our Govenor is a Republican, and I believe she did more for our state than what the challanger states he can do. in the debate we had, he asked and pressed the issue about the iraq war. wether or not she supports or is against the Iraq war has nothing to do with how our state is run, she has no control over troop movements, nor does she, or any governor, have any influence over the President or his senior staff. I felt that it was just a ruse to play to people's emotions and to remind everyone not what she's done for my state, but the fact that she is Republican.
It isnt really a ruse though.

People have stated here before that Voting along Party lines is wrong.
I have not done so, although I have asserted the absurdity of indiscriminately voting along party lines, there are circumstances in which voting along party lines would be the most responsible way to vote.

I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to.
The problem with this advice, is that this is (in my opinion) one of those cases in which responsibility dictates voting along party lines, (specifically against a particular party).

Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.
Why would I wish to remember a false premise?

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting.
That's really kind of naive and absurd.
Voting with emotions isnt wrong. Rather voting based soley on emotions without the benefit of critical examination and an objective analysis of the facts is wrong.
The respect in which President Bush used terrorism is not the same respect in which every political appeal to emotion is used. It is entirely above board to appeal to emotions that are a reasonable and appropriate reaction to objective facts. It is another thing altogether to intentionally generate and then manipulate an unreasoned and unreasoning state of hysteria that it's actually your duty to prevent, in order to manipulate a populice into allowing things you expect they wouldnt allow were they not in a state of hysteria. The first is a perfectly reasonable way to persuade, the second is evil, plain and simple.
you have one vote, please use it wisely.
I agree with the prinicipal but I dont agree with your analysis of how the principal applies in practise to this situation.

The fact is the system works in such a way that one of the only means the populice has of preventing outrageous conduct (be it incompetence of corruption) that could ultimately threaten the functioning of democracy is to motivate the political parties concerned (in this Democrats and Republicans) to take an active role in the prevention of both corruption and incompetence (for instance, through the appropriate selection and endorsement of suitable party-ticket candidates for the Presidency).
There is in fact only one way to do this. That is punishing failure at a party level, at the party level.

It's a simple matter of necessity. Those who can facilitate or prevent the election to Presidency of a particular person on a particular party ticket, are the party whose ticket it is. Of everyone involved who has the most influence over who is given the opportunity to run for Presidency on a Republican ticket? Republicans.
This means that they are the necessary target of any robust attempt to prevent a catastrophe being elected on their ticket,
that they have a role in generating (and in not preventing) the problem concerned (and so are not being unfairly victimised by being held accountable for the circumstance concerned)
and that the treatment they get from voters in response to what they have facilitated, is the treatment that will be seen as the likely result of such failings.
If a party in this position is not punished, not only are they not motivated to change, not only might they wonder how much further they can push this envelope, but further the example sends a clear message that parties need not consider themselves in any way shape or form accountable for the kind of person they are largely responsible for putting in power. That's really not a very good message to send.
The decision to put someone in a position where they could be elected into the Whitehouse is one that is located with the party concerned, so of course it is them who must be held accountable and other than not voting for them, how else might they possibly be held accountable?

And the president is suppose to be elected, not selected.

Duh. The SC makes difficult and controversial decisions all the time.

Duh. The SC makes difficult and controversial decisions all the time.

But in 2000 they made a partisan decision. Plain and simple!

I would consider voting green, but I will not vote republican. Why? Because any decent republicans would have left the party quite a while ago out of disgust with their fellows.

Not all democrats represent what I believe in, but I know that no republicans do.

I'm not saying I don't think about the candidates individual positions on issues when I vote, because I do. It's just highly unlikely that I'm going to agree more with any republican than a democrat, at least in California.

Also, parties tend to want their candidates to support the party positions, at least most of them. At the moment, I despise the positions of the republican party, so logically, I'd disagree quite a lot with just about any republican. After all, if they didn't support most of the party's positions, than why would they be in it?

Now I usually don't agree with any candidate completely, but democrats seem to be the ones I have the least issues with.

But in 2000 they made a partisan decision. Plain and simple!

the Electorial College selected the President. Under normal circumstances, the Electorial canidate mirrors the votes of their state, however, it's not a rule that they MUST. in the case of the 2000 election, one or more of the electorial canidates chose Bush instead of Gore.

the purpose of the Electorial College is to avoid the passion of the masses, in other words, the dominition of the majority over the Minority. it's just that in the case of the 2000 election, the electors didn't follow the majority of their state.

that's why it looked like Bush stole the election.

snippage...

that's why it looked like Bush stole the election.
Well that and the still unresolved and unexplained anomally with the electronic-voting-machine tallys....

Well that and the still unresolved and unexplained anomally with the voting machine tallys....

2000 elections were all about the chads.

2000 elections were all about the chads.
Er, no, the chads were only one concern, in my opinion the diebold-debacle was the more significant (especially given its implications for future elections)...

After all it's a bit of a worry when....
"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22, in Scoop: Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud
Friday, 24 October 2003, 11:18 am
Article: Alastair Thompson

linkie (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm)

Er, no, the chads were only one concern, in my opinion the diebold-debacle was the more significant (especially given its implications for future elections)...

After all it's a bit of a worry when....
"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22, in Scoop: Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud
Friday, 24 October 2003, 11:18 am
Article: Alastair Thompson

linkie (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm) :rolleyes: whatever, the point of this thread is not to rehash old topics, reopen investigations already done or rub salt in anyone's wounds, but to ask people to think about more than just party. if you don't want to vote Party Lines, I certainly cannot force you. In the end, it's just you in that little room, by yourself.

the Electorial College selected the President.

Not in the year 2000.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

Not in the year 2000.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm
neither here nor there in concerns with this topic. if you want to continue to push your point, please start your own thread. this is a plea for people to vote responsibly.

neither here nor there in concerns with this topic. if you want to continue to push your point, please start your own thread. this is a plea for people to vote responsibly.Or his post could be taken as proof that voting responsibly doesn't always help.:D

Or his post could be taken as proof that voting responsibly doesn't always help.:D

true, which is why I didn't totally discount their posts. I just asked to keep it from diverting to another topic.

neither here nor there in concerns with this topic. if you want to continue to push your point, please start your own thread. this is a plea for people to vote responsibly.

Then you are missing my point. The point of an election is to have candidates that will run the nation as each voter would want them to.
You are suggesting that people not vote a straight party ticket, but rather choose whom they think is the best candidate regardless of party.
I pointed out the flaw in your system.

Then you are missing my point. The point of an election is to have candidates that will run the nation as each voter would want them to.
You are suggesting that people not vote a straight party ticket, but rather choose whom they think is the best candidate regaurdless of party.
I pointed out the flaw in your system.

no you attempted to argue one party over another. that is not the point of this thread. I am not saying one party is better, but rather one person is more suited for the job than the other. I am asking people to look past the party, and look at the canidates themselves. if the best person is in the green party, then vote for that person. if the best person for that job is an Independant, then cast your vote for him.

the purpose of the elections is to vote for the best person for the job... not as you put it..Lets get rid of the rebulicans once and for all! Vote democrtat.

Sounds a lot like a republican waking up to the fact the Dems look set to take the house and trying to encourage voter apathy in a desperate attempt to reduce voter turnout.

It's largely true, but thats how it's coming across.

Also - The majority in the two houses can be more important than who your own representative/senator is and wether he can do his job better than the other guy.

If you don't have the majority laws that affect you that you don't want will be passed. Laws that you do want won't be passed and your views have little representation in parliament.

:rolleyes: whatever, the point of this thread is not to rehash old topics, reopen investigations already done or rub salt in anyone's wounds, but to ask people to think about more than just party. if you don't want to vote Party Lines, I certainly cannot force you. In the end, it's just you in that little room, by yourself.
Ok, you just lost all benefit of the doubt so far as I am concerned. I do not believe your concern is at all electoral responsibility.

Attempting to denigrate my point with eye rolling references to 'rehashing old topics' in this context is ridiculous. You entered into discussion about an issue, I saw your assertions and commented on them, that was my first comment on the issue. To now roll your eyes as though I initiated discussion of the issue rather than responding to your prior comments about it, indicates a complete lack of respect for truth and reason. I can only conclude that your motives are not to arrive at sound conclusions, but to propagandize.

You start a topic about 'electoral responsibility' but your comments indicate that you have none.
Roll your eyes about an issue being 'a rehash of the past' all you like, but when the issue is the complete unreliability of results generated by a method that is being expanded throughout the nation, when another words the issue is that every single election in the future may be hopelessly compromised by faulty or insecure machines that leave absolutely no paper trail whatsoever, dont expect anyone to believe for a moment that you care in any way whatsoever for electoral responsibility. No one willing to dismiss an issue with implications of this kind and magnitude, has any claim whatsoever to electoral responsibility.

The fact is anyone who possessed (much less cared enough to preach about it to others) electoral responsibility would consider this issue to be far more significant than 'voting on party lines'. Why people vote for who they do is utterly insignificant in comparison to the issue you are dismissing. What does it matter why people vote a particular way unless we can reasonably rely on the voting results to be an accurate account of the way people voted?

Your dismissal of this issue while claiming to care about electoral responsibility is a farce!

Sounds a lot like a republican waking up to the fact the Dems look set to take the house and trying to encourage voter apathy in a desperate attempt to reduce voter turnout.

It's largely true, but thats how it's coming across.

Also - The majority in the two houses can be more important than who your own representative/senator is and wether he can do his job better than the other guy.

If you don't have the majority laws that affect you that you don't want will be passed. Laws that you do want won't be passed and your views have little representation in parliament.
how is it voter apathy?

Am I asking not to cast your vote? no.

Am I asking you to not look at any certain canidate? no

if you look at the candidates and find that a Democrat is the better person for the job, am I encouraging you to vote for someone else? no

am I asking you to look at each canidate and not at the party they belong to? yes.

am I saying your vote does not count? No. (tho it seems others here are pushing that.)

Ok, you just lost all benefit of the doubt so far as I am concerned. I do not believe your concern is at all electoral responsibility.

Attempting to denigrate my point with eye rolling references to 'rehashing old topics' in this context is ridiculous. You entered into discussion about an issue, I saw your assertions and commented on them, that was my first comment on the issue. To now roll your eyes as though I initiated discussion of the issue rather than responding to your prior comments about it, indicates a complete lack of respect for truth and reason. I can only conclude that your motives are not to arrive at sound conclusions, but to propagandize.

You start a topic about 'electoral responsibility' but your comments indicate that you have none.
Roll your eyes about an issue being 'a rehash of the past' all you like, but when the issue is the complete unreliability of results generated by a method that is being expanded throughout the nation, when another words the issue is that every single election in the future may be hopelessly compromised by faulty or insecure machines that leave absolutely no paper trail whatsoever, dont expect anyone to believe for a moment that you care in any way whatsoever for electoral responsibility. No one willing to dismiss an issue with implications of this kind and magnitude, has any claim whatsoever to electoral responsibility.

The fact is anyone who possessed (much less cared enough to preach to others) about electoral responsibility would consider this issue to be far more significant than 'voting on party lines'. Why people vote for who they do is utterly insignificant in comparison to the issue you are dismissing. What does it matter why people vote a particular way unless we can reasonably rely on the voting results to be an accurate account of the way people voted.

Your dismissal of this issue while claiming to care about electoral responsibility is a farce!I just don't want this thread to get detracted by party arguments. the purpose of this thread is to vote responsibly. to look past the party lines.. ALL PARTY LINES and at the canidates.

you want to create a republican/democrat/independant debate thread, please go ahead. I only ask that you not Hijack this one. in fact, if you do create one, I'll be glad to place that link here so that others can debate the merits/flaws of each party there. I really don't want to argue party lines, rehtoric nor anything like that here.

no you attempted to argue one party over another. that is not the point of this thread. I am not saying one party is better, but rather one person is more suited for the job than the other. I am asking people to look past the party, and look at the canidates themselves. if the best person is in the green party, then vote for that person. if the best person for that job is an Independant, then cast your vote for him.



Right. and while on the surface, your plan sounds good. I simply pointed out the flaws of "looking past the party, and look at the candidates themselves" can have (some) very negitive results. Such as the disaster of 2000.

Right. and while on the surface, your plan sounds good. I simply pointed out the flaws of "looking past the party, and look at the candidates themselves" can have (some) very negitive results. Such as the disaster of 2000.

go read back through your arguments, you made no such claim. you only moaned that the SCotUS made a decision and put their foot down on a process that would've left the country in dire shape. It had nothing to do with how one votes, nor the danger of voting party lines. If you wish to prove it to me, please show that in another thread. I am inviting you to do so, but in another thread. not this one please.

And with that, I must turn in. I can only ask people please do not turn this into a polictial debate. that is not the purpose nor intended purpose of this thread.

I must agree. I've voted four times in my (not very long ;)) life. And in these elections I voted for three different parties.

And I still don't know for whom I will vote the next time.

The right to vote is important - don't waste it by voting for stupid reason.

how is it voter apathy?

Oops.. skimmed the first line waaay too fast. Early in the morning here.

Still - it comes across that you are hoping to get people to hopefully vote for a republican on the basis that individual is a better choice than the Dem on offer. Using the not-very-true logic that it is more important to vote for a person who is better for your state than the person who will put the party that represents your interests into power.

Like... Great... you have a compentant guy representating your state, but none of the laws you want make it through as your views are not represented as the majority in the voting houses.

Your OP was much needed and well said JuNii. Nicely done .

I am glad I am not the only one who wishes that more people would understand that voting straight party ticket is not always the best idea. And I am more or less guilty of doing so myself. In the last election I bothered to vote in, I went almost straight Libertarian votes with a few from other areas sprinkled in for th ehell of it.

Unfortunately, there are way too many people out there whos' attitude is; I've been votin' (Insert party here.) for most of muh life, and I'll be damned if I'll give them bastards in the (Insert name of opposing party here) a chance to screw up this great country!

Too set in their dogmas to understand there are other possiblities.

But before the year 2000 i voted exactly as you suggested Lunii. Because it "used" to be a good plan. (I know. Sad but true)

Eh, all the canidates for antional level here suck as canidates for the position, about the only reason to vote for any of them over the other is the push it gives to their party.

Still - it comes across that you are hoping to get people to hopefully vote for a republican on the basis that individual is a better choice than the Dem on offer. Using the not-very-true logic that it is more important to vote for a person who is better for your state than the person who will put the party that represents your interests into power.

No, JuNii was talking about a specific experience for him within his state. He wasn't recommending who people vote for.

Like... Great... you have a compentant guy representating your state, but none of the laws you want make it through as your views are not represented as the majority in the voting houses.

Go back, read again. Nowhere in there did JuNii suggest any ideas for laws, nor did he suggest or recommend anyone particular candidate or party.

But before the year 2000 i voted exactly as you suggested JuNii. Because it "used" to be a good plan. (I know. Sad but true)

The Bush-Gore election results had zip to do with people voting for candidates they like. It still is a good paln. Unless one is entirely too partisan to see it of course.

I just don't want this thread to get detracted by party arguments.
I call B.S. on that too. There is a very real danger that the systems that tally the results of elections generate utterly unrealiable results, for whatever reason. That means that there is a very real possibility that if the Republicans got more votes in an election the tally of votes generated would return in favour of someone else.
I point out to you that the system cannot be relied apon to return a result consistent with the votes cast. That has nothing to do with one party over another, so your excuse just doesnt wash. If you had any electoral responsibility you'd look beyond the fact that it might have been the party you prefered who benefited last time, to the point that it could be any party if we cannot reasonably assume reliable results.

Either you are hiding behind the excuses you are making because you wish to propagate partisan propaganda by passing it off as a concern for 'voter responsibility' (and so are motivated to dismiss and counter anything that might be negative to your favoured party) or you are so caught up in 'the party line' that you cant be objective about the issue. Otherwise you'd realise the implications of the information includes the possibility that Bush took Florida by a landslide and the result only looked marginal because it was corrupted by whatever happened to cause the anamolies that were spotted.

the purpose of this thread is to vote responsibly.
No it isnt, because the first and foremost priority in voter responsibility is ensuring the integrity of the vote tally. Taking any step available to you to ensure the integrity of vote tally is a pre-requisite of voter responsibility, yet you dismiss the issue entirely. Hence your purpose cannot be voter repsonsibility.

to look past the party lines.. ALL PARTY LINES and at the canidates.
You are not looking past party lines, so your advice is counter-indicated by your example.
Any person looking past ALL PARTY LINES would not dismiss the issue of voting system integrity 'out of hand' if they were concerned with voter responsibility. It's as simple as that!
The facts are the corruption of the results that very probably did occur (and very probably will occur on an ever greater scale) has not been shown to be the fault (either through intention or non-performance) of a particular entity or group. It hasnt been conclusively determined who if anyone benefited from the corruption of the results.
We do know that it is to the cost of anyone who values free and fair elections. How exactly is that partisan?

you want to create a republican/democrat/independant debate thread, please go ahead.
The thread is about voter responsibility according to you...
Again if you could look past party lines you wouldnt equate "there is a very real danger that the vote tallies are corrupt for reasons unknown", with some kind of argument in favour of republican/democrate debate.

I only ask that you not Hijack this one.
Right....
Firstly, you claim the thread is about voter responsibility, demanding that elections be demonstrately free and fair is the first priority in terms of voter responsibility. In fact it's a pre-requisite.
What does it matter how voters choose the way they vote if the vote tally cannot be relied on to actually return an accurate account of their votes?
Secondly, your accusation of hi-jackery is so inconsistent with the facts that it's impossible for me to believe that you could possibly not know that.

in fact, if you do create one, I'll be glad to place that link here so that others can debate the merits/flaws of each party there. I really don't want to argue party lines, rehtoric nor anything like that here.
Actually I dont have that much interest in such a thread at all. I'm quite interested in this one though; the light of the fact that I responded to your original post's points (and only to the OP points) in my first post, and that the only other comments I have made have been in direct response to the prior comments of you, the thread starter, I'm quite mystified as why you would conclude otherwise, much less how on earth you managed to construe such a chain of events as 'hi-jacking' your thread...:confused:

The Bush-Gore election results had zip to do with people voting for candidates they like. It still is a good paln. Unless one is entirely too partisan to see it of course.

I never said it did. I sugested it should. people "should" vote a straight ticket rather than Junii's idea.

And to add: Vote straight ticket to try to get your party the majority in the house so your party's bills have a better chance of passing.

you have one vote, please use it wisely.I only have one vote?! Since when?

Just kidding. I agree with the statements. I especially agree that the right-wing of the electorate should follow your advice. :)

I always vote my conscience. Turns out that tends to be Democrat. *shrug*

One of my pet peeves is the people who just punch the hole for "D" (or "R"), because they "know" the their party is best, so why should they look at individual candidates. Also, they do it because they only have to punch once and they've voted for every "D" (or "R") on the ballot.

Personally, even when I've voted for all Republicans, I vote for each one seperately, and if I see a good Democrat in there, I'll vote for him/her.

*Claps*

Well said.

It was a nice sounding speech full of flowery rhetoric, but it still boiled down to "before you vote against the guy you know is corrupt and destroying the country, consider voting for him anyway."

If I have to choose between walking down two streets, one of which is crawling with unleashed angry rotweillers and another that has rows of brightly shining street lamps and locked gates, I'm going with the locked gates. One of those yards might have a dog that can jump the fence. I don't know for sure. But I know that my chances are a hell of a lot better than the street full of rotweillers.

I urge you to vote responsibly too. I don't care if you vote for democrats. But be responsible. Vote against republicans. And if you've got a choice between a Republican and a Republican running as a Democrat, then vote against both of them. Write in for yourself for all I care. Vote out the Republicans. They are all beholden to the Republican party which has rotted away the last shred of moral rectitude that it never really had to begin with. After so many Nixons, Bushes, and that travisty with Teddy Roosevelt, they can only coast for so long on the name of Lincoln.

I'm not going to urge you to vote for anyone, nor will I say which party to vote for. but I do want you to think about this.


wether or not you are happy with President Bush, wether or not you are happy with the Republicans or Democrats in general... I urge you to vote responsibly. Many on these boards seems to me, anyway, that they will vote Democrat, not because the person running is competent, not because they think this person will do better than the other, but because that person is a Democrat.

Right now, our Govenor is a Republican, and I believe she did more for our state than what the challanger states he can do. in the debate we had, he asked and pressed the issue about the iraq war. wether or not she supports or is against the Iraq war has nothing to do with how our state is run, she has no control over troop movements, nor does she, or any governor, have any influence over the President or his senior staff. I felt that it was just a ruse to play to people's emotions and to remind everyone not what she's done for my state, but the fact that she is Republican.

People have stated here before that Voting along Party lines is wrong. I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to. Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting. you have one vote, please use it wisely.


i disagree with you.

well i agree that voting for a rotten democratic candidate for governor because you are mad at bush for going into iraq is just stupid. no state office has anything to do with the feds.

however, because of the rules of the congress i would urge everyone to vote democratic. the only way to stop bush and his ruinous policies is to get a democratic majority in one of the houses of congress. therefore if your current republican congressman isnt too powerful and if your democratic candidate isnt a complete ass, vote democratic. (for example, i would never vote republican pete dominici out of the senate. he is the 4th or 5th most powerful man in congress)

i dont even know who the democratic candidate in my district IS but im going to vote for him (or her) next week. s/he has no chance of winning but im not going to vote to keep a conservative republican in office. its bad for the country.

Your vote is the one time when you get to make your feelings perfectly clear as to what you want the future of your government to be, and the government must listen.
Whatever you choose, I ask only one thing - that it be your choice. Do not vote one way because someone you trust wants you to, or because you feel some sort of previous obligation. Make your choice according to what you believe and want. If you do that, no one can ever tell you you voted wrongly, or for the wrong candidate. Because it was your vote to cast.

i dont even know who the democratic candidate in my district IS

Find out here:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/e4/

It was a good effort at being bipartisain... your mocking it merely discourages it.

Typically rude Democrat.*

*Yeah, that was an illustration, don't get your panties in a twist, will ya?
Nice try but alas I am Canadian.

While Junii endeavoured to make his pitch appear non partisan, it was in fact partisan.

Honesty is a good quality if indeed one is being honest. This pitch failed the litmus test.

God forbid a Republican not be a baby eating sycophant and *gasp* good at her job!
Being good at ones' job also entails answering the tough questions without trying to obfuscate the truth.

Nice try but alas I am Canadian.

While Junii endeavoured to make his pitch appear non partisan, it was in fact partisan.

Honesty is a good quality if indeed one is being honest. This pitch failed the litmus test.

Then your test is too sensitive. When requesting equal treatment, one should always address the prevailing bias of the environment, and on NS General at the moment, that bias is against the Republicans. There's nothing wrong with that, but it needs to be addressed. Junii's request was for equal treatment and thought - about as bi-partisan as you can get.

Er, no, the chads were only one concern, in my opinion the diebold-debacle was the more significant (especially given its implications for future elections)...

After all it's a bit of a worry when....
"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22, in Scoop: Diebold Memos Disclose Florida 2000 E-Voting Fraud
Friday, 24 October 2003, 11:18 am
Article: Alastair Thompson

linkie (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm)
Americans should insist upon paper ballots for all elections.

Then your test is too sensitive. When requesting equal treatment, one should always address the prevailing bias of the environment, and on NS General at the moment, that bias is against the Republicans. There's nothing wrong with that, but it needs to be addressed. Junii's request was for equal treatment and thought - about as bi-partisan as you can get.
He could have made an unbiased, non partisan plea, but he did not. As a result, his post is in fact disingenuous. Close is only good in horseshoes and hand grenades.

.

no you attempted to argue one party over another. that is not the point of this thread.
As did you in your opening post (bolding mine). You invoked partisan politics and you should expect some partisan replies.

Good pitch but no sale!
If the supreme court had been predominatly democrat in 2000 then Gore would have been chosen as president. But they were not and the worst man won the presidency.
Lets get rid of the rebulicans once and for all! Vote democrtat.


think algore = n chaimberlain

bush = churchill


read some history

But in 2000 they made a partisan decision. Plain and simple!

in your eyes maybe, other eyes - not

Ok, you just lost all benefit of the doubt so far as I am concerned. I do not believe your concern is at all electoral responsibility.

Attempting to denigrate my point with eye rolling references to 'rehashing old topics' in this context is ridiculous. You entered into discussion about an issue, I saw your assertions and commented on them, that was my first comment on the issue. To now roll your eyes as though I initiated discussion of the issue rather than responding to your prior comments about it, indicates a complete lack of respect for truth and reason. I can only conclude that your motives are not to arrive at sound conclusions, but to propagandize.

You start a topic about 'electoral responsibility' but your comments indicate that you have none.
Roll your eyes about an issue being 'a rehash of the past' all you like, but when the issue is the complete unreliability of results generated by a method that is being expanded throughout the nation, when another words the issue is that every single election in the future may be hopelessly compromised by faulty or insecure machines that leave absolutely no paper trail whatsoever, dont expect anyone to believe for a moment that you care in any way whatsoever for electoral responsibility. No one willing to dismiss an issue with implications of this kind and magnitude, has any claim whatsoever to electoral responsibility.

The fact is anyone who possessed (much less cared enough to preach about it to others) electoral responsibility would consider this issue to be far more significant than 'voting on party lines'. Why people vote for who they do is utterly insignificant in comparison to the issue you are dismissing. What does it matter why people vote a particular way unless we can reasonably rely on the voting results to be an accurate account of the way people voted?

Your dismissal of this issue while claiming to care about electoral responsibility is a farce!
Excellent response, and no I don't think your comment is in any way an attempt to hijack the thread. You replied responsibly about a valid concern that was dismissed off hand by the OP. His response could have been more reasonable than it was.

Aye, I'm voting for a democrat for governor, a Republican for Congressman and a Republican for Senator. Why am I doing this? Because I believe these folks are the best choice.

It's become clear to virtually every Ohioan that the Taft administration was fundamentally flawed. And Ken Blackwell, the Republican nominee, has too much associated with that administration, as well as my dealings with the direct results of his policies and the inefficiencies he's caused.

His opponent, Ted Strickland, seems to be eminently qualified, he cares for my state, and has voted his beliefs in Congress (even if I haven't always agreed with those beliefs). Not only that, but the Republican Party has been incredibly dominant in Ohio, so much so that the last Democrat elected to statewide office was John Glenn in 1992. Ted Strickland can help put Ohio back on track, and that's why I'm voting Strickland.

In the Senate, I'm voting for Mike DeWine, admittedly somewhat too socially conservative for my tastes, but his opponent is even further out on economics, than DeWine is on social issues. Furthermore, Senator DeWine has shown an ability to be independent, and take his own stand when he feels what's right is right. He's also a legislative traditionalist, who has shown himself to be unwilling to strip the Senate of many of it's traditional protections.

Ralph Regula will win whether I vote for him or not. So I might as well join the bandwagon.

Americans should insist upon paper ballots for all elections.

Using Diebold Touchscreen voting machines, you do get a paper ballot, it prints out right in front of you, you can read it, and then it scrolls into a sealed ballot box, after you've confirmed that you are happy with it. This way, not only do you have the paper ballot, but you also have a digital copy as well. That seems like a good thing to me.

Americans should insist upon paper ballots for all elections.

hehe, the democrats after 2000 insisted ELECTRONIC voting was required

Oops.. skimmed the first line waaay too fast. Early in the morning here.

Still - it comes across that you are hoping to get people to hopefully vote for a republican on the basis that individual is a better choice than the Dem on offer. Using the not-very-true logic that it is more important to vote for a person who is better for your state than the person who will put the party that represents your interests into power.

Like... Great... you have a compentant guy representating your state, but none of the laws you want make it through as your views are not represented as the majority in the voting houses.
I guess it does... :p

but really, I vote for the person I would think would do the job, if that person is a Dem, Rep, Indie, Green, Purple, whatever. and normally, I wouldn't worry, however, with all that has been going on for the past years, I am worried that people will vote another incompetent person into office mearly because of the party that person is in, and not because they actually think or know that person is best suited for the job.

think algore = n chaimberlain

bush = churchill


read some history

Bush =Churchill only in 1 regard (the desire to defend his nation against an attacker...Hell, anybody can do that)

Gore=Neville Chamberlain is about the dumbest goddamm thing Ive ever heard.

Were the history books you read, written in crayon by chance?

Yeah, he was a buffalo soulja in the war for America...

Right now, our Govenor is a Republican, and I believe she did more for our state than what the challanger states he can do.

lingle is ok, as far as republicans go (though one really has to question the motives and morality anyone who hasn't yet left the party of torture and murder and imperialist misadventures).

but it'd be a different story if your state legislatures weren't 80% not republican.

Using Diebold Touchscreen voting machines, you do get a paper ballot, it prints out right in front of you, you can read it, and then it scrolls into a sealed ballot box. This way, not only do you have the paper ballot, but you also have a digital copy as well. That seems like a good thing to me.
The paper ballots should be deposited in the ballot box and hand counted. That way, you can be reasonably sure that your vote is going to count. I have read far too many horror stories to trust voting "machines", especially when they can be programed to give a desired result.

The paper ballots should be deposited in the ballot box and hand counted. That way, you can be reasonably sure that your vote is going to count. I have read far too many horror stories to trust voting "machines", especially when they can be programed to give a desired result.

The paper ballots are generally counted. They aren't counted first, but they are indeed counted.

And at the same time, it's probably easier to screw with the paper ballots than with the machines, because you don't need any computing skill to screw with the paper ballots, but loads to do it with the machines.

Furthermore, the machine itself cannot be preprogrammed for an election, instead, the election memory card must be pre-programmed, and those are kept under lock and key, with the only time not being so is when they're transerred into the machines (once in the machines, they are again physically isolated with a locking door mechanism).

Im voting conservative....

Wait, this isn't an english election!! SHOO! GET OUT OF HERE! Discussing foreign politics, the cheeck! :P

Jwp-serbu, i think its not really a fair comparrison, it is churchill after all, bush is nowhere near as good. That sir, is offensive to a hero who saved our nation, George Bush simply made our nation a more dangerous place.

Responsible voting doesn't just mean making the right choice for yourself or your own district/state/backyard. Sometimes it means making the right choice for the country, too.

I've been voting since Reagan. Until 2000, I always voted a mixed ticket, but that was because, before then, the parties were not solid ideological monoliths and the individual politicians were more influential than the parties they belonged to when it came down to casting votes and serving on committees. Those days are over. The Republican party has been hijacked by ideological extremists who are causing serious harm to this nation and fomenting international war like there's no tomorrow. It is my firm belief that a vote to remove the Republican party FROM power is more urgent for the nation right now than a vote to put the Democrats INTO power. But if I have to vote solid Democrat to get rid of the neocon Republicans, then that is how I am going to vote. I will sort out whatever assholes-in-office that leaves me with in the next election. But when I see my nation teetering on the brink of self-destruction, I am not going cast my vote based on a self-centered concern for which candidate is going to steer the most pork-barrel money to my district.

They say that all politics is local, but that's not always true. You want to dick around with local issues? Do that when voting for your state legislators and town/city mayors. When you're voting on who is going to be in the federal government, casting votes about war and taxation and international policy and the Constitution, or which governor, district attorney, etc is going to make the law and set the "culture war" tone for everyone in your state, then it's time to look beyond the end of your own nose.

hehe, the democrats after 2000 insisted ELECTRONIC voting was required

Well, they were wrong, then, weren't they?

Though, actually, I don't recall any such insistence. I do remember people calling for wider use of optical scan machines, such as are used in my district in Massachusetts. Those are great little machines. You fill out your paper ballot, a great big one which is very hard to lose, and feed it with your own little voting hands into the machine which immediately scans it, prints a record of the receipt of it onto a continuous tape that can be immediately checked to make sure the scan happened, AND swallows the ballot sheet for hand counting, if needed later. Works like a charm. All the states and districts that use them, swear by them.

I also recall people discussing possible use of totally digital voting machines someday in the future, and an immediate flurry of debate over lack of paper trails.

They say that all politics is local, but that's not always true. You want to dick around with local issues? Do that when voting for your state legislators and town/city mayors. When you're voting on who is going to be in the federal government, casting votes about war and taxation and international policy and the Constitution, or which governor, district attorney, etc is going to make the law and setting the "culture war" tone for everyone in your state, then it's time to look beyond the end of your own nose.

Hear Hear!

That is one of the wisest posts i have seen. I believe that this is shown well in the UK, where often in the local council elections the results are very different from any national elections, because its the major government that makes the big changes and REALLY effects ALL our lives.

Politics is not local, what you do in the US effects us all over the world. for example NK saying it has a nuclear weapon means that Japan may now want nuclear weapons, and NK says if there are sanctions put on it, mainly by the USA, more so than now more tests will take place. If they don't then japan may not feel the need to procure nuclear weapons, if they do and they are left unchecked i think japan will really feel the need for them more so...

Just a current example that effects ALL our lives in one way or another.

When you're voting for candidates for federal office--House of Representatives and Senate--you're voting for more than just that representative for your state. Remember that. You're voting for who will control the public discourse in Congress, and sometimes that means you swallow your presonal preferences and vote for the greater good.

For instance, I'm extremely pissed at my Senator who's up for re-election right now. Bill Nelson betrayed me and every American by voting for the torture legislation. But a vote for Bill Nelson this year means that if the Democrats win the Senate, then Harry Reid controls the agenda, and that Pat Leahy will be chair of the Judiciary Committee, and that there won't be another Samuel Alito on the bench, and that just maybe that torture legislation will be modified or repealed. So I'm sucking it up and voting for him instead of Katherine Harris, because of what it means on the wider scale.

If I lived about ten blocks east of where I do, I'd be voting for Ron Klein over Clay Shaw. Why? I'm no huge fan of Klein--he's a lobbyist, after all. But he's also a vote for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Ways and Means Chairman Rangel, and Henry Waxman in charge of oversight of government corruption.

Big picture. You can dislike your local options and still vote for the betterment of the nation.

the Electorial College selected the President. Under normal circumstances, the Electorial canidate mirrors the votes of their state, however, it's not a rule that they MUST. in the case of the 2000 election, one or more of the electorial canidates chose Bush instead of Gore.

That hasn't been the case for years. By law, the electors must vote for whoever wins the majority vote in their state. Certain states make the electors vote based on the percentage that each candidate received, so if that state had 4 electoral votes and went 75% one candidate and 25% another, the former would get 3 electoral votes and the latter 1.

I never said it did. I sugested it should. people "should" vote a straight ticket rather than Junii's idea.

And to add: Vote straight ticket to try to get your party the majority in the house so your party's bills have a better chance of passing.

What if we don't have a party? I'm a radically states' rights social democrat (and by social democrat I mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat)) so none of the parties really fit me at all.

When you're voting for candidates for federal office--House of Representatives and Senate--you're voting for more than just that representative for your state.

I see what you're saying, but that's not how I see things. I view the US as a union of states rather than a single nation, so I vote for whoever I think best represents my state's interests. I, like you, plan on voting against one of my Senators (Debbie Stabenow) because she voted for the torture bill. My reasoning is that her vote, as a representative of Michigan implied that Michigan supports torture. Since I don't know anyone who agrees with that statement I don't believe she represents the will of the people of Michigan and I want her gone.

That hasn't been the case for years. By law, the electors must vote for whoever wins the majority vote in their state. Certain states make the electors vote based on the percentage that each candidate received, so if that state had 4 electoral votes and went 75% one candidate and 25% another, the former would get 3 electoral votes and the latter 1.

Actually, it varies from state to state. Here's a short history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector) of faithless electors throughout US history.

Actually, it varies from state to state. Here's a short history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector) of faithless electors throughout US history.

They do it, they just lose their jobs because they aren't supposed to do it.

I see what you're saying, but that's not how I see things. I view the US as a union of states rather than a single nation, so I vote for whoever I think best represents my state's interests. I, like you, plan on voting against one of my Senators (Debbie Stabenow) because she voted for the torture bill. My reasoning is that her vote, as a representative of Michigan implied that Michigan supports torture. Since I don't know anyone who agrees with that statement I don't believe she represents the will of the people of Michigan and I want her gone.
Well, I'm still voting for that Senator, but I'm also looking for a primary challenger for 2012. This is a case of voting for the lesser evil--he's running against Katherine Harris, after all, and she voted for the torture bill in the House. He'll do more good by voting for Democratic leadership than she would by voting for the Republican leadership.

Hear Hear!

That is one of the wisest posts i have seen. I believe that this is shown well in the UK, where often in the local council elections the results are very different from any national elections, because its the major government that makes the big changes and REALLY effects ALL our lives.

Politics is not local, what you do in the US effects us all over the world. for example NK saying it has a nuclear weapon means that Japan may now want nuclear weapons, and NK says if there are sanctions put on it, mainly by the USA, more so than now more tests will take place. If they don't then japan may not feel the need to procure nuclear weapons, if they do and they are left unchecked i think japan will really feel the need for them more so...

Just a current example that effects ALL our lives in one way or another.
Thank you. I'm glad it makes sense, because if we are going to talk about being responsible voters, then we must think about what we are responsible for and who we are answerable to.

When we vote in national elections, when we put a government into office, then we are responsible for the actions of that government and we are answerable to everyone in the world who is impacted by that government's policies.

To make such decisions based solely on concern for who is going to give ME the biggest return on my vote/investment (an "I've got mine" attitude), strikes me as extremely irresponsible. That is how Americans have been voting for far too long, and we see now the real return on our political investments -- terrorism, spreading threats of war, the deaths and crippling of our children fighting overseas, industrial pollution, political corruption, and the loss of our civil liberties and the rule of law.

A lot of people think we don't need to care about outsiders. That's what "all politics is local" really means -- it's a saying of campaigners who know the best way to sell a candidate is to appeal to the personal desires (read: greed + anxieties) of private citizens. But to my mind, that is little better than buying votes, little better than bribery, and it encourages voters to be lazy and short-sighted. And those outsiders we don't see why we should care about pissing off? They have a nasty habit of making us care, eventually.

Well, I'm still voting for that Senator, but I'm also looking for a primary challenger for 2012. This is a case of voting for the lesser evil--he's running against Katherine Harris, after all, and she voted for the torture bill in the House. He'll do more good by voting for Democratic leadership than she would by voting for the Republican leadership.

I can see your point there. It'd take a lot to get me to vote for Harris.

I can see your point there. It'd take a lot to get me to vote for Harris.
Diebold will take care of that part of it for you. ;)

What if we don't have a party? I'm a radically states' rights social democrat (and by social democrat I mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat)) so none of the parties really fit me at all.


If there is not one single issue in which you would prefer to go one way or the other (the wars, global warming, abortion, mexican border fence min.wage) Then what are you looking for in a candidate?

If its just one w/ a socialist title then dont hold your breath.

When you're voting for candidates for federal office--House of Representatives and Senate--you're voting for more than just that representative for your state. Remember that. You're voting for who will control the public discourse in Congress, and sometimes that means you swallow your presonal preferences and vote for the greater good.

For instance, I'm extremely pissed at my Senator who's up for re-election right now. Bill Nelson betrayed me and every American by voting for the torture legislation. But a vote for Bill Nelson this year means that if the Democrats win the Senate, then Harry Reid controls the agenda, and that Pat Leahy will be chair of the Judiciary Committee, and that there won't be another Samuel Alito on the bench, and that just maybe that torture legislation will be modified or repealed. So I'm sucking it up and voting for him instead of Katherine Harris, because of what it means on the wider scale.

If I lived about ten blocks east of where I do, I'd be voting for Ron Klein over Clay Shaw. Why? I'm no huge fan of Klein--he's a lobbyist, after all. But he's also a vote for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Ways and Means Chairman Rangel, and Henry Waxman in charge of oversight of government corruption.

Big picture. You can dislike your local options and still vote for the betterment of the nation.
Very good points. And it brings up why it is important for voters to understand how the whole government works, rather than focus only on their local or private concerns.

For instance, Wallonchia worries only about putting people from his own state into Congress who will work to get benefit for his own state out of the federal government, but he should consider how pols from other states can influence what happens to his state by means of cooperative or uncooperative voting and, more importantly, by means of service on the various Congressional committees. The work records of people like Pelosi, Rangel and Waxman, or Hastert, Frist, Kennedy, or anyone of the others, do matter even to states they don't directly represent.

EDIT: And of course, the only way we can influence how we are impacted by pols from other states is by our support or opposition to the parties that support them.

And while some people may think states' rights trump all, they can't pretend that anyone state can simply opt out of an international war they don't approve of, or that federal law like the Patriot Act or this detestable torture bill won't affect them.

wether or not you are happy with President Bush, wether or not you are happy with the Republicans or Democrats in general... I urge you to vote responsibly.

I intend to vote as irresponsibly as possible on Election Day. I'm voting for a ficus plant as Governor, a cheeseburger to the Senate, and a foot powder to the House. Maybe my dog as Judge. I have to cast ONE sane vote.

Seriously, though. I can't imagine tossing my vote away. The Dems have a chance to take back Congress, and if they've earned it, they should get it.

For Governor, we've had 16 years of Republicans, including Bob Taft, a convicted criminal who's been in enough scandals. Ken Blackwell is way too religious for my liking, his own party had no trouble trashing him in the primaries, and his entire job plan seems to consist of tax cuts for the rich. I read it. That's all I got out of it. That man will get my vote when hell freezes over.

For Senate, I am undoubtedly voting for Sherrod Brown. He was one of a few who had the brains to vote "no" on the Patriot Act. It tells me he actually read the damn thing. Aside from that, if he's really opposed to all this offshoring and coddling the oil companies, he's all right with me. Mike DeWine sure as hell isn't.

For Congress, I want to club both candidates. I've met them both, and both are very personable, but their campaign tactics are ridiculous. They can't tout their own campsigns; 99% of their campaign is "My opponent sucks." Those of you in Columbus, don't vote for Deborah Pryce OR Mary Jo Kilroy. Make a difference adn vote third-party. Vote for Darth Vader if you want.

What if we don't have a party? I'm a radically states' rights social democrat (and by social democrat I mean this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat)) so none of the parties really fit me at all.
<snip>

Then you do as JuNii suggests -- you review all the available candidates individually and vote the best possible balance between your interests and your conscience. You don't have to belong to a party to vote for its candidates, and you don't have to vote for just one party per election.

Find out here:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/e4/

thanks

hmmm al kissling. never heard of him.

but now that i think about it i HAVE seen some "kissling" bumperstickers and wondered who that was.

doesnt matter, he has my vote.

But before the year 2000 i voted exactly as you suggested Junii. Because it "used" to be a good plan. (I know. Sad but true)and the moment you start voting party, you become a party whore...

I only have one vote?! Since when?

Just kidding. I agree with the statements. I especially agree that the right-wing of the electorate should follow your advice. :)well, I tried getting my other personalities registered... but since THEY don't pay taxes... :p

As did you in your opening post (bolding mine). You invoked partisan politics and you should expect some partisan replies.I expect Partisian replies, but I don't want partisan arguments, which is why I chose to back down. ;) and please point in my OP where I support any single party? I will admit, I cannot comment on how other states with Democratic Governors are run. thus I cannot say who the better person is for that job. Akaka has done a lot for Hawaii, and I have a feeling Hirono will to. however, I am not happy with our mayor who seems more inclined to blame the previous mayor for all the problems he's facing.

lingle is ok, as far as republicans go (though one really has to question the motives and morality anyone who hasn't yet left the party of torture and murder and imperialist misadventures).

but it'd be a different story if your state legislatures weren't 80% not republican.and different does not necessarily mean worse... :p

but seriously, alot has been done because both R and D have a say... now if we can get an indie voice here...

and Just because Lingle did not leave the Republican Party does not mean she supports Torture or Murder. That's like saying anyone who hasn't left the USA supports President Bush and the Iraq War. which, as anyone will tell you, is false reasoning.

and the moment you start voting party, you become a party whore...

So you wouldn't vote a straight ticket because of what others might think? (oh my goodness. ANYTHING but somebody calling me a party whore?)

Ok. lets say there is a lower level candidate that is not in your regular party but you would rather vote for him/her because the other sux. He/she wins.
Now this candidate can have more press coverage to spread BS propaganda against your regular party.

You are right in a sense that it comes down to the issues. But most of the major issues are partisan. Arent they?

Republican: Pro life - Democrat: Pro choice

Republican: Do nothing about global warming - Democrat: Ozone Man (Al Gore) IE Recognizes its a major problem.

Republican: Stagnate minimun wage - Democrat: raise it 8 years ago

So hell yea Iza ho! Smak my ass and gimme meh ballot!

I expect Partisian replies, but I don't want partisan arguments, which is why I chose to back down. ;)
You initiated partisan arguments but you don't want to debate partisan politics?

and please point in my OP where I support any single party?
I think the following quote from your OP is one example of your partisan politics:

Many on these boards seems to me, anyway, that they will vote Democrat, not because the person running is competent, not because they think this person will do better than the other, but because that person is a Democrat.
Of course, the other is praising your Republican Governor, and deriding the opponent because he asked what appears to be an honest question about the Iraq war.

Your attempt to make the OP seem non-partisan did not succeed.

If there is not one single issue in which you would prefer to go one way or the other (the wars, global warming, abortion, mexican border fence min.wage) Then what are you looking for in a candidate?

If its just one w/ a socialist title then dont hold your breath.

I pick individual candidates from different parties depending on their individual beliefs. Your statement was that you should vote straight ticket so your party can have an easier time of things. I don't have a party, so I can't do that. Voting straight ticket is silly anyway, just because someone is in a particular party doesn't mean they toe the party line on every issue.

I'm not exactly a socialist. I favor the mixed economies you find in Europe, especially in Scandinavia. Anyway, I'd never vote for a social democrat party in a Federal election because I don't want the United States to be a social democracy. I want Michigan to be a social democracy. The rest of the states can do whatever the hell they want.


Then you do as JuNii suggests -- you review all the available candidates individually and vote the best possible balance between your interests and your conscience. You don't have to belong to a party to vote for its candidates, and you don't have to vote for just one party per election.

That's exactly what I've done in the last two elections, which are the only ones I've been both of age and in the country for. In the 2004 elections I I voted for candidates from the Libertarians, Greens, Democrats, and Republicans, depending on who I found to be least objectionable.

You're all forgetting one important thing.

Due to high expected voter turnout, Republicans are to vote on the 7th, and Democrats are to vote on the 8th.

Anyone else remember those e-mails and newsletters?

Interestingly enough, from what I have seen of this thread, the people who have come out so vehemently against the idea in the OP thus far, have been NS members who are extremely partisan Liberals and/or Democrats. I've not really noticed any of the Conservative/Republican members saying much.

And of course, the ones who seem to be most in agreement with the OP are the ones who tend to ally with the independent parties.

Why is this?

Damn, do any of you, especially DragonTide and CanuckHeaven actually read ANYTHING JuNii has said? At all?

He obviously used the current election race in his homestate as an EXAMPLE of one of the problems he sees' with voting straight party tickets. And you bloody well know that if it had been a Democrat incumbent who he thought was doing a good job, he'd have said the same goddamned thing. Stop filtering his words through your fundamentally-tinted lenses and actually read what he is saying.

Try it.

Voting for the person is the smartest thing you can do. Voting for the party, on EITHER side, is just another way of stating to the world that you enjoy the status quo. And believing you have to vote for whats best for the country is an extremely arrogant stance. Afterall, there are three hundred million people in the United States. And every single last damned one of them wants something different!

Where the fuck do you get off thinking you know whats best for 300,000,000 people?

Well when I register in 2008, I plan to register as an independent.

... Voting for the party, on EITHER side, is just another way of stating to the world that you enjoy the status quo.

Status quo?
You dont see the difference between Democrat and Republican parties?
Are you suggesting that if Al Gore would have been the president for the past 8 years that America would be basicly the same as it is now???!!! For that matter the whole world?

So it has finally happened! Aliens! :gundge: Welcome to Earth! We mean you no harm! Try the clam dip! And what fucking planet are you from?

Interestingly enough, from what I have seen of this thread, the people who have come out so vehemently against the idea in the OP thus far, have been NS members who are extremely partisan Liberals and/or Democrats. I've not really noticed any of the Conservative/Republican members saying much.

And of course, the ones who seem to be most in agreement with the OP are the ones who tend to ally with the independent parties.

Why is this?

Damn, do any of you, especially DragonTide and CanuckHeaven actually read ANYTHING JuNii has said? At all?

He obviously used the current election race in his homestate as an EXAMPLE of one of the problems he sees' with voting straight party tickets. And you bloody well know that if it had been a Democrat incumbent who he thought was doing a good job, he'd have said the same goddamned thing. Stop filtering his words through your fundamentally-tinted lenses and actually read what he is saying.

Try it.

Voting for the person is the smartest thing you can do. Voting for the party, on EITHER side, is just another way of stating to the world that you enjoy the status quo. And believing you have to vote for whats best for the country is an extremely arrogant stance. Afterall, there are three hundred million people in the United States. And every single last damned one of them wants something different!

Where the fuck do you get off thinking you know whats best for 300,000,000 people?
Nice flame. Next time, warn me and I will bring marshmallows. :D

Other than that, the rest of your post is not totally unexpected.

BTW, I can read quite well, and that is why I called the OP for exactly what it is.....partisan politics.

Well when I register in 2008, I plan to register as an independent.
In some US states, Independent is a party. But you don't have to register AS anything, do you, I mean where you live? I've never registered with any party. When I fill out the voter registration forms (each time I've moved) under "party" I list "none", and my city census forms always list me as "U", meaning "Unaffiliated." The only thing I lose by that is that, in some states, I can't vote in primaries, but since I'm not a party member, I don't do that anyway.

Nice flame. Next time, warn me and I will bring marshmallows. :D

Other than that, the rest of your post is not totally unexpected.

BTW, I can read quite well, and that is why I called the OP for exactly what it is.....partisan politics.

If I was gonna flame you. Trust me, you'd know it.

Not unexpected? Good, good. Then my point that voting for a party and not a person is calling for status quo has been understood, yes?

Now. Show EXACTLY where in his posts, JuNii called for people to vote for a particular issue, party or person.

It was utterly NON_PARTISAN in that he did NOT advocate any person, party or issue. He advocates voting for the person who fits with what YOU believe best, and not for a party platform. That means not the Democrat Party Platform, not the Republican Platform, or the Libertarian, or Green, or Reform, or Communist Party Platforms.

I hold to my comment that I believe you are unable to understand what he wrote because you are wearing politically-fundamentalist blinders. If thats' a flame, which I don't believe it is, then I apologize to the Mods now.

Tell, me, if his original example had used a local Dem who he thought was doing a good job, would you be complaining and calling him partisan?

In some US states, Independent is a party. But you don't have to register AS anything, do you, I mean where you live? I've never registered with any party. When I fill out the voter registration forms (each time I've moved) under "party" I list "none", and my city census forms always list me as "U", meaning "Unaffiliated." The only thing I lose by that is that, in some states, I can't vote in primaries, but since I'm not a party member, I don't do that anyway.

Unfortunately, here in Washington State, thanks to the two major parties, you have to register your party allegiance. Utter bullshit in my opinion.

If I was gonna flame you. Trust me, you'd know it.

Not unexpected? Good, good. Then my point that voting for a party and not a person is calling for status quo has been understood, yes?

Now. Show EXACTLY where in his posts, JuNii called for people to vote for a particular issue, party or person.
I did spell it out to Juni in an earlier post. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and actually read what is written in the thread?

It was utterly NON_PARTISAN in that he did NOT advocate any person, party or issue. He advocates voting for the person who fits with what YOU believe best, and not for a party platform. That means not the Democrat Party Platform, not the Republican Platform, or the Libertarian, or Green, or Reform, or Communist Party Platforms.
He definitely made partisan comments. You cannot see it?

I hold to my comment that I believe you are unable to understand what he wrote because you are wearing politically-fundamentalist blinders. If thats' a flame, which I don't believe it is, then I apologize to the Mods now.
Suggesting that I can't read, and now suggesting that I can't understand is definitely flaming, but don't worry, I never complain of these things in Moderation.

Tell, me, if his original example had used a local Dem who he thought was doing a good job, would you be complaining and calling him partisan?
IF he had left the party labels out of his OP then his post certainly would have been more honest and certainly not partisan.

If I rummage through your posts, I wouldn't find that you were somewhat biased against Democrats?

IF he had left the party labels out of his OP then his post certainly would have been more honest and certainly not partisan.

If I rummage through your posts, I wouldn't find that you were somewhat biased against Democrats?

That would have noticeable whether he did or not by the fact the candidate was trying to force the incumbents views on the Bush Administrations bullshit. Views which the OP felt are irrelevant for the job of being Governor.

My biases are irrelevant as well. I don't like Dems party and I don't like Reps' party. I despise both Conservative and Lberals. I've said it in many different threads. Repeatedly. But I have voted for members of both in elections when I saw that particular PERSON was the most viable candidate to me.

That is what you'll find in your search. But hey. Go ahead and look, it's your time to waste on things that have no bearing on the subject at hand.

That would have noticeable whether he did or not by the fact the candidate was trying to force the incumbents views on the Bush Administrations bullshit. Views which the OP felt are irrelevant for the job of being Governor.
The Governors in each State are responsible for the National Guard and I don't see how asking a question regarding the Iraq War is improper, especially when it comes to stories such as this:

Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Say (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0227-02.htm)

The other statement he made about Democrats is clearly a swipe at Democrats, and then he goes on to defend Bush.

And then of course there is the title of the thread:

"A warning for those Voting on Nov 7th."

So, just what is that warning?

So hell yea Iza ho! Smak my ass and gimme meh ballot!
Idaho? :p

I refuse to condone corruption and criminality by voting for the Republicans or Democrats. I refuse to waste my time voting for a third party candidate, knowing they never stand a chance in hell. In short, fuck voting. It's just not worth it.

Idaho? :p
It's time............... to climb aboard....... the hooooooooooooooooo traaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!

The Governors in each State are responsible for the National Guard and I don't see how asking a question regarding the Iraq War is improper, especially when it comes to stories such as this:

Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Say (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0227-02.htm)

The other statement he made about Democrats is clearly a swipe at Democrats, and then he goes on to defend Bush.

And then of course there is the title of the thread:

"A warning for those Voting on Nov 7th."

So, just what is that warning?

Okay, that one you get me on. The Guard issue had simply never occurred to me.

A warning that voting straight party could give you people you don't want in office. A warning that voting straight party lines ignores the fact that the parties only want whats best for the parties? And that is not always what is best for the people in a particular area?

I refuse to condone corruption and criminality by voting for the Republicans or Democrats. I refuse to waste my time voting for a third party candidate, knowing they never stand a chance in hell. In short, fuck voting. It's just not worth it.

I think that is more or less what 60 some odd percent of eligible voter have been saying for years now.

I did spell it out to Juni in an earlier post. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and actually read what is written in the thread? no you didn't. please review your posts and point out where you "Spell it out"

Nice pitch for the Republican party. :rolleyes:
Nice try but alas I am Canadian.
While Junii endeavoured to make his pitch appear non partisan, it was in fact partisan.
Honesty is a good quality if indeed one is being honest. This pitch failed the litmus test.
Being good at ones' job also entails answering the tough questions without trying to obfuscate the truth.
Americans should insist upon paper ballots for all elections.
He could have made an unbiased, non partisan plea, but he did not. As a result, his post is in fact disingenuous. Close is only good in horseshoes and hand grenades.
As did you in your opening post (bolding mine). You invoked partisan politics and you should expect some partisan replies.
Excellent response, and no I don't think your comment is in any way an attempt to hijack the thread. You replied responsibly about a valid concern that was dismissed off hand by the OP. His response could have been more reasonable than it was.
The paper ballots should be deposited in the ballot box and hand counted. That way, you can be reasonably sure that your vote is going to count. I have read far too many horror stories to trust voting "machines", especially when they can be programed to give a desired result.
You initiated partisan arguments but you don't want to debate partisan politics?
I think the following quote from your OP is one example of your partisan politics:
Of course, the other is praising your Republican Governor, and deriding the opponent because he asked what appears to be an honest question about the Iraq war.
Your attempt to make the OP seem non-partisan did not succeed.
Nice flame. Next time, warn me and I will bring marshmallows. :D
Other than that, the rest of your post is not totally unexpected.
BTW, I can read quite well, and that is why I called the OP for exactly what it is.....partisan politics.
you only made claims, you did not point out anything out.

He definitely made partisan comments. You cannot see it?if you see it, that's fine, it's not my concern nor my power to control what you see, interpret, or think.

IF he had left the party labels out of his OP then his post certainly would have been more honest and certainly not partisan.unfortunately, the two big powers in American politics are Republican and Democrat. hard to talk about US politics and a plea to avoid party voting without mentoning any party by name without still sounding like an underhanded attempt to support one party.

If I rummage through your posts, I wouldn't find that you were somewhat biased against Democrats?
lets not get into personal attacks... and this is a plea to everyone!
The Governors in each State are responsible for the National Guard and I don't see how asking a question regarding the Iraq War is improper, especially when it comes to stories such as this:Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Say (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0227-02.htm)
and who is the commander of the National Guard. the Govenors, but only, ONLY under certain circumstances...
Our state constitution cannot be more clear: “The governor shall be commander in chief of the military in the state except when they shall be called into the service of the United States.” so it doesn't matter what the govenor thinks. if the President orders the Guards, the Guard has to obey them, dispite what the Govenors say is.

The other statement he made about Democrats is clearly a swipe at Democrats, and then he goes on to defend Bush.please show me where I defended Bush in my OP. I mirrored what people have said on this board in 2004 about the Republicans using terror and fear to get votes.

And then of course there is the title of the thread:

"A warning for those Voting on Nov 7th."

So, just what is that warning?not to be blinded by Party voting that more incompetent people are elected. Hard to imagine, but can you imagine someone worse than Flay, Nay, Bush.. etc in office?

Interestingly enough, from what I have seen of this thread, the people who have come out so vehemently against the idea in the OP thus far, have been NS members who are extremely partisan Liberals and/or Democrats. I've not really noticed any of the Conservative/Republican members saying much.

And of course, the ones who seem to be most in agreement with the OP are the ones who tend to ally with the independent parties.

Why is this?

Damn, do any of you, especially DragonTide and CanuckHeaven actually read ANYTHING JuNii has said? At all?

He obviously used the current election race in his homestate as an EXAMPLE of one of the problems he sees' with voting straight party tickets. And you bloody well know that if it had been a Democrat incumbent who he thought was doing a good job, he'd have said the same goddamned thing. Stop filtering his words through your fundamentally-tinted lenses and actually read what he is saying.

Try it.

Voting for the person is the smartest thing you can do. Voting for the party, on EITHER side, is just another way of stating to the world that you enjoy the status quo. And believing you have to vote for whats best for the country is an extremely arrogant stance. Afterall, there are three hundred million people in the United States. And every single last damned one of them wants something different!

Where the fuck do you get off thinking you know whats best for 300,000,000 people?


of course i read junii's post and i disagreed with him.

the best "man" is meaningless when the best man's party is ruining the country. politics isnt a one man thing. thats why we HAVE political parties. if i could remove steve pearce with my one vote, i would do so, not because i hate steve pearce but because i dont approve of the policies of the republican party that he votes with 96% of the time. that he is a good man is irrelevant to national politics.

Clearly, however, you are urging people to vote for a specific candidate. The Republican one, as you are basically implying. This is obviously ridiculous, as you are basically implying that it is irresponsible to vote democratic. This is just an opinion, I believe that voting Republican would be idiotic, but I'm not starting entire threads about it.

Of course, I may be getting the wrong pulse off your message.

I will vote Libertarian in every election where one is running.

I respect the sentiment of the OP, but the success of a third party, namely the LP, is far more important than the success of any one politician.

of course i read junii's post and i disagreed with him.

the best "man" is meaningless when the best man's party is ruining the country. politics isnt a one man thing. thats why we HAVE political parties. if i could remove steve pearce with my one vote, i would do so, not because i hate steve pearce but because i dont approve of the policies of the republican party that he votes with 96% of the time. that he is a good man is irrelevant to national politics.

So, are you of the belief that it is better to have someone in office who is incompetent but hews to a particualr party you prefer over someone who can actually do their job properly but is with a political party you don't like?

Why?

So, are you of the belief that it is better to have someone in office who is incompetent but hews to a particualr party you prefer over someone who can actually do their job properly but is with a political party you don't like?

Why?Ashmoria didn't say that an incompetent should fill the spot--you're assuming facts not in evidence. Ashmoria is simply noting what I did--all politics is not local. Local elections--federal ones at least--have national repercussions. This election is as much about who will be the next Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader as it is about individual candidates.

What I'm about to say isn't a slam against anyone--it's just an observation. Republicans are hoping like hell this doesn't become a national referendum, because they'll lose big and they know it. They need this to be a candidate by candidate vote so as to stem their losses--it'll help them hold onto some tight seats. But if Democrats are able to nationalize this election, which it's looking increasingly like they're going to so, they'll win big, because it'll be a referendum on a President who's at 33% in the polls right now.

of course i read junii's post and i disagreed with him.

the best "man" is meaningless when the best man's party is ruining the country. politics isnt a one man thing. thats why we HAVE political parties. if i could remove steve pearce with my one vote, i would do so, not because i hate steve pearce but because i dont approve of the policies of the republican party that he votes with 96% of the time. that he is a good man is irrelevant to national politics.

Ashmoria didn't say that an incompetent should fill the spot--you're assuming facts not in evidence. Ashmoria is simply noting what I did--all politics is not local. Local elections--federal ones at least--have national repercussions. This election is as much about who will be the next Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader as it is about individual candidates.

actually Nazz, it CAN BE seen that Ashmoria is avocating choosing some by their party. (not saying it is Ashmoria... please don't hit me... :D)

The party does not reflect each individual person's views and values. now if say.. steve pearce's opponent has the same (percieved) competence then party can be the deciding factor, since both persons are equal in competence... However, if his opponent is better than Pearce... then go for it. vote Pearce out. but if Pearce's opponent makes GW Bush look like Einstein, Patton, and Pope John Paul II all rolled into one... would Ashmoria still vote for that person because of party?

What I'm about to say isn't a slam against anyone--it's just an observation. Republicans are hoping like hell this doesn't become a national referendum, because they'll lose big and they know it. They need this to be a candidate by candidate vote so as to stem their losses--it'll help them hold onto some tight seats. But if Democrats are able to nationalize this election, which it's looking increasingly like they're going to so, they'll win big, because it'll be a referendum on a President who's at 33% in the polls right now.the Republicans will loose alot of seats, I just want to make sure their sucessors are competent and people who can think for themselves.

actually Nazz, it CAN BE seen that Ashmoria is avocating choosing some by their party. (not saying it is Ashmoria... please don't hit me... :D)

The party does not reflect each individual person's views and values. now if say.. steve pearce's opponent has the same (percieved) competence then party can be the deciding factor, since both persons are equal in competence... However, if his opponent is better than Pearce... then go for it. vote Pearce out. but if Pearce's opponent makes GW Bush look like Einstein, Patton, and Pope John Paul II all rolled into one... would Ashmoria still vote for that person because of party?What if the perception of competence is only marginally lower--would party affiliation and the larger picture then warrant voting out the slightly more competent incumbent if it meant a sea change in the national scene? It would for me. Remember, in most cases, we're not talking about huge differences in quality between parties.

What if the perception of competence is only marginally lower--would party affiliation and the larger picture then warrant voting out the slightly more competent incumbent if it meant a sea change in the national scene? It would for me. Remember, in most cases, we're not talking about huge differences in quality between parties.

the point is, that person looked at the canadates themselves and is still factoring in the competence. if the margin is close enough (which in most minds, would make em equal) then go ahead. but if one is clearly the inferior, I would rather the competent one than an Incompetent one. reguardless of Party affiliation.

that is to say, an informed voter voting is still better than an uninformed voter looking and punching in all the names that match their Party.

think algore = n chaimberlain

bush = churchill


read some history

You can think it, but it's insane to do so.

It's more like
Clinton = Eisenhower (kept pressure on states we had tense relations with, but didn't start outright wars with no provokation)

Bush = LBJ (provided false and incomplete information to the world, especially our own Congress, to create a false case for war.)

Get someone smarter than you to read you some history.

the point is, that person looked at the canadates themselves and is still factoring in the competence. if the margin is close enough (which in most minds, would make em equal) then go ahead. but if one is clearly the inferior, I would rather the competent one than an Incompetent one. reguardless of Party affiliation.

that is to say, an informed voter voting is still better than an uninformed voter looking and punching in all the names that match their Party.

I disagree. I'd rather have someone who tries and fails to do good, like Jimmy Carter, than someone who tries and succeeds at doing evil, like Bush.

I disagree. I'd rather have someone who tries and fails to do good, like Jimmy Carter, than someone who tries and succeeds at doing evil, like Bush.

and I would rather someone who is the BEST canidate at doing what they were elected to do than one who got in only because they were a member of a political party.

You can think it, but it's insane to do so.

It's more like
Clinton = Eisenhower (kept pressure on states we had tense relations with, but didn't start outright wars with no provokation)

Bush = LBJ (provided false and incomplete information to the world, especially our own Congress, to create a false case for war.)

Get someone smarter than you to read you some history.

Make sure you limit that comparison of Bush to LBJ only to the beginning of the Vietnam war. Outside of that boondoggle, LBJ was a hell of an administrator and did a lot of good stuff. You can't say that about Bush.

So, are you of the belief that it is better to have someone in office who is incompetent but hews to a particualr party you prefer over someone who can actually do their job properly but is with a political party you don't like?

Why?

He already explained that. Republicans are marching pretty close to lockstep these days. Think of when Chef joined that group of pedophile explorers. He was with a bad group, it made him bad. If I joined the Nazi party in interwar Germany because I wanted strong labor unions, I think I'd get the hell out when I saw that it had become a party of oppression and genocide.

By the same token, if you haven't gotten the hell out of the GOP by now, you're probably not a good man. Probably not a Nazi, but not a good man all the same. You're either too cowardly to stick to your principles, or you're evil and agree with GOP principles. Either one makes you a bad candidate.

Think of when Chef joined that group of pedophile explorers. He was with a bad group, it made him bad.

What the hell are you talking about?

And there are quite a few Republicans who are butting heads with the Party on a variety of issues. Just as, I hope anyways, there are Democrats who are willing to go against their party. We need more people in office who don't kowtow to their Party.

And yes, that includes members of the Lib party.

The problem is that when you vote for a Republican or Democrat you ARE NOT voting for that person's views. You're voting for the views of that persons party platform. No politician will stand up against his party these days. Alot of Republicans had/have good messages, but we know for a fact that they're all taking orders down the chain from Karl Rove.

The Democrats aren't as bad yet, but they will be. Power corrupts. It's why our government is hopelessly broken. Free thinking and intellecutalism has been shunned so that the only issues are Jesus and Not-Jesus.

I would put in a plug for a third party, but I don't think that would really help in the long run. IF they managed to win alot of power, they'd corrupt too.

We need about 10 parties. It's time for society to stop punishing people who don't think like a multiple-choice test.

He already explained that. Republicans are marching pretty close to lockstep these days. Think of when Chef joined that group of pedophile explorers. He was with a bad group, it made him bad. If I joined the Nazi party in interwar Germany because I wanted strong labor unions, I think I'd get the hell out when I saw that it had become a party of oppression and genocide.

By the same token, if you haven't gotten the hell out of the GOP by now, you're probably not a good man. Probably not a Nazi, but not a good man all the same. You're either too cowardly to stick to your principles, or you're evil and agree with GOP principles. Either one makes you a bad candidate.you do realize that Oscar Schindler was a part of the Nazi party, spied for the SS and yet still strove to save lives of his Jews. He used his position in the Nazi party as best he could to protect his workers.

Alot of "Loyal Nazi Soldiers" also hid and helped Jews escape. so while they are tarred with the label Nazi, they strove to do their good behind the scenes.

burn the politicians who are bad, but you really do want to keep the ones who are competent.

I'm not going to urge you to vote for anyone, nor will I say which party to vote for. but I do want you to think about this.


wether or not you are happy with President Bush, wether or not you are happy with the Republicans or Democrats in general... I urge you to vote responsibly. Many on these boards seems to me, anyway, that they will vote Democrat, not because the person running is competent, not because they think this person will do better than the other, but because that person is a Democrat.

Right now, our Govenor is a Republican, and I believe she did more for our state than what the challanger states he can do. in the debate we had, he asked and pressed the issue about the iraq war. wether or not she supports or is against the Iraq war has nothing to do with how our state is run, she has no control over troop movements, nor does she, or any governor, have any influence over the President or his senior staff. I felt that it was just a ruse to play to people's emotions and to remind everyone not what she's done for my state, but the fact that she is Republican.

People have stated here before that Voting along Party lines is wrong. I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to. Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting. you have one vote, please use it wisely.

Three sentences in I smelled bullshit.

You're saying that republicans don't vote for their party just because they are republican? It is very obvious what you are telling us. After all you give much praise to repubs. If you wanted to remain nuteral you could have said, "just vote for who you think will do best, not according to your party affilation". But no. Glad to hear your republican governor was the better choice of the opposing side (democrat), I will keep that in mind when I vote. Pshh. Not. There was no need to include in your "neutral" plea, a whole paragraph on why your repub was the better choice.

The problem is that when you vote for a Republican or Democrat you ARE NOT voting for that person's views. You're voting for the views of that persons party platform. No politician will stand up against his party these days. Alot of Republicans had/have good messages, but we know for a fact that they're all taking orders down the chain from Karl Rove.

The Democrats aren't as bad yet, but they will be. Power corrupts. It's why our government is hopelessly broken. Free thinking and intellecutalism has been shunned so that the only issues are Jesus and Not-Jesus.

I would put in a plug for a third party, but I don't think that would really help in the long run. IF they managed to win alot of power, they'd corrupt too.

We need about 10 parties. It's time for society to stop punishing people who don't think like a multiple-choice test.I would rather, NO PARTIES. perhaps limit the number of candidates to 10 and through the primary and successive elections, weed them down to three. then have the General.

Three sentences in I smelled bullshit.

You're saying that republicans don't vote for their party just because they are republican? It is very obvious what you are telling us. After all you give much praise to repubs. If you wanted to remain nuteral you could have said, "just vote for who you think will do best, not according to your party affilation". But no. where did I say that?

If you look at Hawaii, it's a Democratic stronghold so tight, that even Democratic Presidential canidates don't need to visit us. if you look on these boards, its a Republican bashing only. so you're saying anything positive about any one member of any party is an endorsement to that party?

I was HOPING to illustrate that every party has their good people as well as their bad ones. I just thought that the people on these boards were providing with enough bad examples of Republicans and good examples of Democrats that an example of the opposite needed to be shown.

I'm not going to urge you to vote for anyone, nor will I say which party to vote for. but I do want you to think about this.


wether or not you are happy with President Bush, wether or not you are happy with the Republicans or Democrats in general... I urge you to vote responsibly. Many on these boards seems to me, anyway, that they will vote Democrat, not because the person running is competent, not because they think this person will do better than the other, but because that person is a Democrat.

Right now, our Govenor is a Republican, and I believe she did more for our state than what the challanger states he can do. in the debate we had, he asked and pressed the issue about the iraq war. wether or not she supports or is against the Iraq war has nothing to do with how our state is run, she has no control over troop movements, nor does she, or any governor, have any influence over the President or his senior staff. I felt that it was just a ruse to play to people's emotions and to remind everyone not what she's done for my state, but the fact that she is Republican.

People have stated here before that Voting along Party lines is wrong. I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to. Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting. you have one vote, please use it wisely.

:eek: SOME ONE WHO DIDNT START A DEBATE BY POSTING THE WORDS "BUSH" AND "TERROISM" IN THE SAME SENTENCE?!?!?:eek:

Well said. Don't do it again.:D

where did I say that?

If you look at Hawaii, it's a Democratic stronghold. if you look on these boards, its a Republican bashing only. so you're saying anything positive about any one member of any party is an endorsement to that party?

Whoa whoa whoa. Deep Kimchi, Myrmidonisia, MeansToAnEnd, New Mitanni and a host of others more than hold their own for the Republican party. Democrats are perhaps a bit louder right now because we're feeling our oats, but this is not a Republican free zone.

you do realize that Oscar Schindler was a part of the Nazi party, spied for the SS and yet still strove to save lives of his Jews. He used his position in the Nazi party as best he could to protect his workers.

Alot of "Loyal Nazi Soldiers" also hid and helped Jews escape. so while they are tarred with the label Nazi, they stove to do their good behind the scenes.

burn the politicians who are bad, but you really do want to keep the ones who are competent.

hehe...you said stove...

Whoa whoa whoa. Deep Kimchi, Myrmidonisia, MeansToAnEnd, New Mitanni and a host of others more than hold their own for the Republican party. Democrats are perhaps a bit louder right now because we're feeling our oats, but this is not a Republican free zone.

again, I didn't say it was a Republican Free zone, only that it appears that Repulican Bashing is becoming as popular as Religion bashing.

and I will freely admit it's not the fault of the posters, but most of the Republicans in office. :D

So I was just attempting to offer a bit of balance, not partisanship when I did my OP.

hehe...you said stove...

:headbang:

tired... will find and correct...




that really was an error in bad taste... :D

I would rather, NO PARTIES. perhaps limit the number of candidates to 10 and through the primary and successive elections, weed them down to three. then have the General.

People with similar ideas will always tend to band together. Plus, it's really financially hard for individuals to fund themselves without the support of a party. There's alot of logistical issues.

People with similar ideas will always tend to band together. Plus, it's really financially hard for individuals to fund themselves without the support of a party. There's alot of logistical issues.

hehehe... not if a general fund was made, divided by the number of elections... say three (primary, secondary and General)... and then divided among the 10 or less canidates on a per election basis.

keep the same level of watchfulness on campain spending, Donations and outside funding, and it can be done.

hehehe... not if a general fund was made, divided by the number of elections... say three (primary, secondary and General)... and then divided among the 10 or less canidates on a per election basis.

keep the same level of watchfulness on campain spending, Donations and outside funding, and it can be done.

But can we trust the government to distribute funds fairly? I don't think we can, personally. There's too much of a chance to corrupt it.

It's a good idea. I just... don't see it working.

again, I didn't say it was a Republican Free zone, only that it appears that Repulican Bashing is becoming as popular as Religion bashing.

and I will freely admit it's not the fault of the posters, but most of the Republicans in office. :D

So I was just attempting to offer a bit of balance, not partisanship when I did my OP.

Ah. I see. Yeah, I remember what it was like to be a Democrat in mid-November 2004. I didn't much want to post then either. :D

Ah. I see. Yeah, I remember what it was like to be a Democrat in mid-November 2004. I didn't much want to post then either. :D

A bit one-sided was it? Glad I wasn't here for that. The current direction is bad enough.

So, are you of the belief that it is better to have someone in office who is incompetent but hews to a particualr party you prefer over someone who can actually do their job properly but is with a political party you don't like?

Why?

while i have never had to vote for an incompetent, the answer is YES.

what is the sense of having a really smart congressman if he leads the country in the wrong direction? what is the sense of having a great moral man when his very BEING republican means that the rest of his corruption infested party get to do whatever they want?

keeping a republican majority keeps the country going in the wrong direction. as i said in my first post, i didnt even know who the democratic candidate was and i had already decided to vote for him. i dont care if he's a drunkard who sleeps through all the votes. at least he wont be doing harm.

luckily mr kissling isnt a sleepy drunkard. he wont be elected but if he was, he would be a great improvement over the rubber stamp for the republican party that represents me now.

A bit one-sided was it? Glad I wasn't here for that. The current direction is bad enough.
Bad enough that the mods outlawed gloating--a deatable offense, which I imagine will be reinstituted this November.

Ah. I see. Yeah, I remember what it was like to be a Democrat in mid-November 2004. I didn't much want to post then either. :DA bit one-sided was it? Glad I wasn't here for that. The current direction is bad enough.oh man, I'm glad Nader got more votes (1 percent more than the last election...) :D but it was horrible...


Bad enough that the mods outlawed gloating--a deatable offense, which I imagine will be reinstituted this November.
the Gloating... oh GOD the gloating... *curls into a fetal posistion*

Bad enough that the mods outlawed gloating--a deatable offense, which I imagine will be reinstituted this November.

YUCK!!! I am really glad I wasn't hear for that!

YUCK!!! I am really glad I wasn't hear for that!

Lost control of my sig for a month on a bet--that really sucked.

Interestingly enough, from what I have seen of this thread, the people who have come out so vehemently against the idea in the OP thus far, have been NS members who are extremely partisan Liberals and/or Democrats. I've not really noticed any of the Conservative/Republican members saying much.

And of course, the ones who seem to be most in agreement with the OP are the ones who tend to ally with the independent parties.

Why is this?
Different reasons.
Damn, do any of you, especially DragonTide and CanuckHeaven actually read ANYTHING JuNii has said? At all?
How ironic, I dont see how anyone who has read Canuck's post could doubt that Canuck has read the OP...:rolleyes:

He obviously used the current election race in his homestate as an EXAMPLE of one of the problems he sees' with voting straight party tickets.
That's not obvious at all, rather it's contested.

And you bloody well know that if it had been a Democrat incumbent who he thought was doing a good job, he'd have said the same goddamned thing.
I dont believe this for one moment.

Stop filtering his words through your fundamentally-tinted lenses and actually read what he is saying.
You ought to try this for yourself. Your interpretation is inconsistent with the facts.

Try it.
:rolleyes:

Voting for the person is the smartest thing you can do.
You are wrong.

Voting for the party, on EITHER side, is just another way of stating to the world that you enjoy the status quo.
Aha....presumably because....um....wel...er....ahh of course, because you say so....

And believing you have to vote for whats best for the country is an extremely arrogant stance.
You are wack!

Afterall, there are three hundred million people in the United States. And every single last damned one of them wants something different!
Hence the rather simple and obvious plan of each person voting for what they think is best and adding the votes for each candidate up...the candidate who the most people thought would be best for the country (as reflected in the votes) wins...which part of this rather obvious process didnt you understand?

Where the fuck do you get off thinking you know whats best for 300,000,000 people?
In the election booth for a start since at that point it is your duty as a citizen to do so.....:rolleyes:

I gotta say, I'm astonished...of all the things I ever expected someone could fail to understand....well, you got a new one by me...

You want to know what is wrong with 'ignore the party', it's exactly the same kind of error as 'blindly vote along party lines'...neither of these absurd, lazy methods of choosing how to cast a vote in a particular circumstance are better than the other. I know that having to assess every situation as per the context rather than having nice little dogmatic rules to follow, requires a little more effort, but that's what being a responsible voter is about...

hehe, the democrats after 2000 insisted ELECTRONIC voting was required
If the democrats all jumped off the empire state buliding, would you join them? Whatever any of the politicos want, if you are a responsible voter, if you care about democracy, you'll want a safe, secure, transparent voting system that facilitates free and fair elections.

Well, they were wrong, then, weren't they?

Though, actually, I don't recall any such insistence. I do remember people calling for wider use of optical scan machines, such as are used in my district in Massachusetts. Those are great little machines. You fill out your paper ballot, a great big one which is very hard to lose, and feed it with your own little voting hands into the machine which immediately scans it, prints a record of the receipt of it onto a continuous tape that can be immediately checked to make sure the scan happened, AND swallows the ballot sheet for hand counting, if needed later. Works like a charm. All the states and districts that use them, swear by them.

I also recall people discussing possible use of totally digital voting machines someday in the future, and an immediate flurry of debate over lack of paper trails.
That sounds like a system that's designed around notions of 'safe guards', transparency and integrity...for an election tallying system, wow, what a novel idea.
That does sound robust, checkable, transparent and secure...at least as secure as more traditional paper + manual count only system (you get your fast result without compromising paper trail, tracability, and voter confidence).

If the democrats all jumped off the empire state buliding, would you join them? Whatever any of the politicos want, if you are a responsible voter, if you care about democracy, you'll want a safe, secure, transparent voting system that facilitates free and fair elections.


That sounds like a system that's designed around notions of 'safe guards', transparency and integrity...for an election tallying system, wow, what a novel idea.
That does sound robust, checkable, transparent and secure...at least as secure as more traditional paper + manual count only system (you get your fast result without compromising paper trail, tracability, and voter confidence).

Also when you press the "recount" button it will spit out the same number everytime. So you would be screwed if there were a few wires crossed and something went obviously wrong. You would be obviously screwed.

no you didn't. please review your posts and point out where you "Spell it out"

you only made claims, you did not point out anything out.

if you see it, that's fine, it's not my concern nor my power to control what you see, interpret, or think.
Come on JuNii, you have almost 20,000 posts on these boards, surely you know what you typed and surely you know what I stated in my reply to you? To refresh your memory, I will post it again;

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11803492&postcount=92

Clearly a display of partisan politics.

unfortunately, the two big powers in American politics are Republican and Democrat. hard to talk about US politics and a plea to avoid party voting without mentoning any party by name without still sounding like an underhanded attempt to support one party.
I could draft a statement urging posters to vote in the upcoming election, and urge them to vote for the person that best represents their interests, and it would be totally unbiased and non partisan.

Although you may have wanted to appear unbiased and non partisan in your OP, you did not succeed. You took a swipe at Democrats, heralded a Republican Governor, critiqued her opponents question about Iraq, calling it a "ruse", and gave Bush a little support by suggesting that voters shouldn't let hate or emotions get in the way at the polling station:

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting. you have one vote, please use it wisely.


lets not get into personal attacks... and this is a plea to everyone!
That certainly was not a personal attack.

and who is the commander of the National Guard. the Govenors, but only, ONLY under certain circumstances...
The fact remains the question posed to your Governor was a valid question considering her responsibilities. It was your belief that the challenger's question was "just a ruse to play to people's emotions and to remind everyone not what she's done for my state, but the fact that she is Republican."

I call that a fairly obvious partisan comment.

so it doesn't matter what the govenor thinks. if the President orders the Guards, the Guard has to obey them, dispite what the Govenors say is.
I still think the question is legitimate, especially considering this article, which I posted earlier:

Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Say (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0227-02.htm)

please show me where I defended Bush in my OP. I mirrored what people have said on this board in 2004 about the Republicans using terror and fear to get votes.
And that voters shouldn't let "hate" and "emotions" get in the way.

not to be blinded by Party voting that more incompetent people are elected. Hard to imagine, but can you imagine someone worse than Flay, Nay, Bush.. etc in office?
Nope, but I can say that I can't imagine anyone worse than Bush in office. I can also imagine someone far better. BTW, I don't think it would take much for someone being better than Bush.

Also when you press the "recount" button it will spit out the same number everytime. So you would be screwed if there were a few wires crossed and something went obviously wrong. You would be obviously screwed.
How screwed? There is a consistent stream of evidence of corrupt vote tallys, yet have you seen someone held accountable? Have you seen any voting machine companies loose contracts over having for instance a 25% failure rate?

The fact is when those problems that are discovered are found, they are dismissed as 'isolated glitches' and the rejection of calls to check other results to find out if indeed the 'glitches' are isolated are very nearly always turned down. The refusal to investigate adds a veneer of legitimacy to the unproven assertions of 'it's an isolated glitche'.

I find it astonishing the US citizens either dont realise or just dont care how compromised the integrity of their voting system. The more I find out the more I see that the US as a democracy is a thing of the past. You cant have democracy without free and fair elections and if you cant prove the count is accurate, it's not free and fair.

Evidently having done a bit more 'looking into it' I note that claims made by some earlier posters that paper receipts of votes are always counted are absolutely false, in fact in some states manually counting the votes or doing a full audit is illegal....so much for transparency...

I would consider voting green, but I will not vote republican. Why? Because any decent republicans would have left the party quite a while ago out of disgust with their fellows.exactamente.

How screwed? There is a consistent stream of evidence of corrupt vote tallys, yet have you seen someone held accountable? Have you seen any voting machine companies loose contracts over having for instance a 25% failure rate?

The fact is when those problems that are discovered are found, they are dismissed as 'isolated glitches' and the rejection of calls to check other results to find out if indeed the 'glitches' are isolated are very nearly always turned down. The refusal to investigate adds a veneer of legitimacy to the unproven assertions of 'it's an isolated glitche'.

I find it astonishing the US citizens either dont realise or just dont care how compromised the integrity of their voting system. The more I find out the more I see that the US as a democracy is a thing of the past. You cant have democracy without free and fair elections and if you cant prove the count is accurate, it's not free and fair.

Evidently having done a bit more 'looking into it' I note that claims made by some earlier posters that paper receipts of votes are always counted are absolutely false, in fact in some states manually counting the votes or doing a full audit is illegal....so much for transparency...
In Canada, they have to count the paper ballot because that is all they have. Every poll has scrutineers from each party to ensure the accurateness of the tally.

I think Americans should ask for a recount on their electoral procedures.

In Canada, they have to count the paper ballot because that is all they have. Every poll has scrutineers from each party to ensure the accurateness of the tally.

I think Americans should ask for a recount on their electoral procedures.

A lot of us do, and in some cases, we've been heard. New Mexico had the electronic machines and decided to ditch them for optical scan machines that allow for a recount of the original ballots. I'd love to see that happen here in Florida, but it won't happen as long as the Republicans control the state legislature.

Come on JuNii, you have almost 20,000 posts on these boards, surely you know what you typed and surely you know what I stated in my reply to you? To refresh your memory, I will post it again;

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11803492&postcount=92and I have stated in a post earlier than yours...
As did you in your opening post (bolding mine). You invoked partisan politics and you should expect some partisan replies.I expect Partisian replies, but I don't want partisan arguments, which is why I chose to back down. ;) and please point in my OP where I support any single party? I will admit, I cannot comment on how other states with Democratic Governors are run. thus I cannot say who the better person is for that job. Akaka has done a lot for Hawaii, and I have a feeling Hirono will to. however, I am not happy with our mayor who seems more inclined to blame the previous mayor for all the problems he's facing.

There is alot I did not mention. and since most of these boards already harp on the failures of the Repulicans, why repaved those roads? however, because there are alot of threads here about bad republicans, people like you, assume there are no Good Republicans out there. At the same time, you have also shone the mind set that all Dems are Saints. Fair, Just and can never do any wrong. the exact party minded thinking that I am warning people against. You are providing the Exact thing I am asking people not to do. Focus on the party and not on the candidates.

everything you said so far just proves you cannot get out of the "MUST FOLLOW PARTY" mentality that can and possibly will end up putting someone worse into power... Be they Republican, Democrat or Independant.

Republican and Democrat... Republican and Democrat... you know where you stand when you're a Republican or Democrat, but it's idiotic! Anyone who decides where they stand on an issue before they hear it is a :headbang: ing fool.

Be a person first! LISTEN.

and I have stated in a post earlier than yours...

There is alot I did not mention. and since most of these boards already harp on the failures of the Repulicans, why repaved those roads? however, because there are alot of threads here about bad republicans, people like you, assume there are no Good Republicans out there. At the same time, you have also shone the mind set that all Dems are Saints. Fair, Just and can never do any wrong. the exact party minded thinking that I am warning people against. You are providing the Exact thing I am asking people not to do. Focus on the party and not on the candidates.

everything you said so far just proves you cannot get out of the "MUST FOLLOW PARTY" mentality that can and possibly will end up putting someone worse into power... Be they Republican, Democrat or Independant.
Several problems wrong with your reply.

First, the original point I raised continues to elude you. In your OP, you try to present an unbiased and non partisan viewpoint, yet it ended up being a plug for the Republican party.

Secondly, I have never said that ALL Republicans are bad, and/or that ALL Democrats are good. That may be your assumption of what I think, but that assumption is false. There is obviously good and bad in both parties.

Having said the above, sometimes people have to hold their noses and vote along party lines. The election this year is one of those times. The Republicans have been totally in charge for 6 years now, and that has hurt your country badly. It is time for a change to restore the "checks and balances" that your country was founded on. The Bush agenda has failed miserably and since he will unfortunately be in office for another 2 years, he needs to be reigned in by a Democratic Congress, with a Democrat majority in the House, and/or the Senate.

The Republicans know that they are in trouble, and the only way possible for them to hold on to power is to try and encourage disaffected voters to vote for a 3rd party candidate rather than voting Democrat.

America deserves better than the status quo. George W. Bush has been one of the worst US Presidents in a long, long time. Some of the Republicans that have propped him up over the last 6 years need to lose their jobs on Nov. 7.

Since this thread is about warnings, then the warning should be that the staus quo has got to go!!

Several problems wrong with your reply.

First, the original point I raised continues to elude you. In your OP, you try to present an unbiased and non partisan viewpoint, yet it ended up being a plug for the Republican party.
*shrug* whatever, you will see what you will see.

Secondly, I have never said that ALL Republicans are bad, and/or that ALL Democrats are good. That may be your assumption of what I think, but that assumption is false. There is obviously good and bad in both parties.one critique of a Democrat Candidate for govenor and one praise for the FIRST republican govenor Hawaii has had for 40 yrs is, (in your mind) a party supporting campaign while the boards sport at least 3 threads in the first two pages per week about bad Republicans... go figure.

Having said the above, sometimes people have to hold their noses and vote along party lines. The election this year is one of those times. The Republicans have been totally in charge for 6 years now, and that has hurt your country badly. It is time for a change to restore the "checks and balances" that your country was founded on. The Bush agenda has failed miserably and since he will unfortunately be in office for another 2 years, he needs to be reigned in by a Democratic Congress, with a Democrat majority in the House, and/or the Senate.

The Republicans know that they are in trouble, and the only way possible for them to hold on to power is to try and encourage disaffected voters to vote for a 3rd party candidate rather than voting Democrat.

America deserves better than the status quo. George W. Bush has been one of the worst US Presidents in a long, long time. Some of the Republicans that have propped him up over the last 6 years need to lose their jobs on Nov. 7.

Since this thread is about warnings, then the warning should be that the staus quo has got to go!!the status quo should be changed, but only for the better, the votes should go to the PEOPLE who the voters think and feel should do the better job. not because of what party they're with, and never because you just hate the current status quo. that will leave the US open for worse polticians than the ones currently in office.

to only vote party lines has been and will always be wrong.

You want to vote Party Lines, Then YOU vote party lines in YOUR country's elections.

It was a good speech (the beginning) but I will have to cut in that many governors run for president sooner or later, so it is important to look at party.

It was a good speech (the beginning) but I will have to cut in that many governors run for president sooner or later, so it is important to look at party.

true, and when they do, then you question...

but since not ALL Governors run...

The incumbents are corrupt miscreant failures, vote them out.

If their successors dont to any better, vote them out next.

*shrug* whatever, you will see what you will see.
I call them as I see them, and I do believe that I got it right.

one critique of a Democrat Candidate for govenor and one praise for the FIRST republican govenor Hawaii has had for 40 yrs is, (in your mind) a party supporting campaign while the boards sport at least 3 threads in the first two pages per week about bad Republicans... go figure.
And a knock against the Democrats and a push for Bush. You don't remember what you wrote?

Also, if there are a lot of negative threads directed at the Republicans, it just might mean that they have been doing negative things?

the status quo should be changed, but only for the better, the votes should go to the PEOPLE who the voters think and feel should do the better job. not because of what party they're with, and never because you just hate the current status quo. that will leave the US open for worse polticians than the ones currently in office.
Bolding mine. Why do you assume that a change of the "status quo" will somehow be "worse". That is kinda negative thinking, and leads me to believe that you like the "status quo"?

If you "hate the status quo" then why wouldn't you want to try an change it, even if it meant voting across party lines?

to only vote party lines has been and will always be wrong.
You are in your 30's and have been voting for awhile, when was the last time you voted for a Democrat at the Federal level? Or, is it that only Republicans have the best candidates?

You want to vote Party Lines, Then YOU vote party lines in YOUR country's elections.
I have family and friends who live in the US, the US is Canada's largest trading partner, and I have visited the US on numerous occaisions. The current "status quo" is killing your great country, and I hope that a Democrat victory in the mid-term elections will help turn things around.

If you have to vote across party lines to effect positive change, then so be it.

I call them as I see them, and I do believe that I got it right.then I suggest you get glasses. :p

And a knock against the Democrats and a push for Bush. You don't remember what you wrote?again Typical of you... if it's not For Democrat, it's for Republican... ignoring any third party that might be out there.. only FOCUSED on what YOU want to FOCUS on and ignore everything else. :rolleyes:

Also, if there are a lot of negative threads directed at the Republicans, it just might mean that they have been doing negative things?and to you, as you said, the way you see it, any knock on Democrats is AUTOMATICALLY pro republican. anything good said about any ONE republican is an endorsement for ALL republicans... go on... Keep brining up points that still prove how dangerous it is to keep focusing on only party...

Bolding mine. Why do you assume that a change of the "status quo" will somehow be "worse". That is kinda negative thinking, and leads me to believe that you like the "status quo"?because you keep thinking that a blanket change is a "Good" change and that all Republicans are all painted with the same brush.

If you "hate the status quo" then why wouldn't you want to try an change it, even if it meant voting across party lines?and this proves you didn't read my post. I am urging people to vote for who they think will be competent. as I said repeatedly in this thread, vote for the competent one. not one based on party. :rolleyes:

You are in your 30's and have been voting for awhile, when was the last time you voted for a Democrat at the Federal level? Or, is it that only Republicans have the best candidates?when was the last time I voted for a Dem? that would be when the Dems had a great canidate. perhaps you heard of him. His name was CLINTON and if senate and Congress also fit the Federal arena... CASE, MINK and AKAKA recieved my votes.


If you have to vote across party lines to effect positive change, then so be it. I did not say, nor have I ever said in this thread, to vote party lines, I said don't vote baised ONLY on PARTY, guess what that means Canuckheaven... it means VOTE FOR THE PERSON WHO CAN DO THE JOB REGUARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY THAT PERSON IS IN!!!!

now that you finally agree on that part. I can work on getting you to ignore the party lines altogether... ahh... but I think it might be easier to go and breath hard vaccum first.


oh well, I can be stubborn as well.

the status quo should be changed, but only for the better, the votes should go to the PEOPLE who the voters think and feel should do the better job. not because of what party they're with
You keep ignoring the fact that sometimes change for the better requires the rejection of a particular party.

and never because you just hate the current status quo. that will leave the US open for worse polticians than the ones currently in office.

to only vote party lines has been and will always be wrong.

It seems to me that you are positing a false dilema, the fact that it isnt a good idea to 'only vote on party lines' doesnt mean one should never vote on party lines. The suggestion that one ought always only vote for the person (which is what your comments amount to) is as wrong, simplistic and lazy as 'always vote only on party lines'.
In effect you are simply suggesting that people substitute one kind of simplistic laziness for another.

There is nothing responsible about propagating a simplistic reductionist rule in place of some other simplistic reductionist rule. It's simplistic and lazy to vote 'only on party lines' or 'only with regard to the candidate as a person'. Whether or not you realise that presenting the matter as though one must follow one or the other of these utterly flawed and frankly only good for aiding and abetting the lazy type principals, is simply propagating a fallacy of false dilema, only you know, but now it's been explicitly pointed out to you, you do know so any further attempts to propagate it on your part will be clearly intentional.

You keep ignoring the fact that sometimes change for the better requires the rejection of a particular party.and you are also ingnoring the fact that you too are focusing on PARTY only.

It seems to me that you are positing a false dilema, the fact that it isnt a good idea to 'only vote on party lines' doesnt mean one should never vote on party lines. The suggestion that one ought always only vote for the person (which is what your comments amount to) is as wrong, simplistic and lazy as 'always vote only on party lines'.
In effect you are simply suggesting that people substitute one kind of simplistic laziness for another. so you don't think that voters should find out where the person stands on issues and just assume that if they're with a Party, they're goosestepping right along? this is about all canidates, not just incumbants nor any member of the big two, but all candidates.

There is nothing responsible about propagating a simplistic reductionist rule in place of some other simplistic reductionist rule. It's simplistic and lazy to vote 'only on party lines' or 'only with regard to the candidate as a person'. Whether or not you realise that presenting the matter as though one must follow one or the other of these utterly flawed and frankly only good for aiding and abetting the lazy type principals, is simply propagating a fallacy of false dilema, only you know, but now it's been explicitly pointed out to you, you do know so any further attempts to propagate it on your part will be clearly intentional.voting for the right person means not voting for the party. How is doing the extra research to find out where the candidate stands is being as Lazy as saying "I'll vote Republican because I don't like Bush"? or "I'm not going to vote for him because he didn't leave the Republican party"? I would say voting among those lines is even MORE IRRISPONSIBLE than finding out where the candidate stands and voting on that.

[First member of the NS General Forum FireFighters]

Smokey ought to revoke your membership. FireFighter my ass - more like a would-be arsonist.

Smokey ought to revoke your membership. FireFighter my ass - more like a would-be arsonist.
ad hominem attacks from YOU!! that's the last thing I did honestly expect from you...


ok, maybe not. :p there are worst things you could do, but I really didn't expect ad hominem attacks from you. :(

ad hominem attacks from YOU!! that's the last thing I did honestly expect from you...


ok, maybe not. :p there are worst things you could do, but I really didn't expect ad hominem attacks from you. :(

And I really never thought I'd have to resort to making an ad hominem attack upon you in order to underscore a third-partys' perception of your position.

And I really never thought I'd have to resort to making an ad hominem attack upon you in order to underscore a third-partys' perception of your position.

please, tell me what message am I trying to give here in this thread?

honestly.

some people did get what I was trying to say. Others accepted it after some explanation, and some insist that what I am trying to convey is not what they percieve me saying.

and you are also ingnoring the fact that you too are focusing on PARTY only.
No, how can one ignore a fact when it isnt a fact?

so you don't think that voters should find out where the person stands on issues and just assume that if they're with a Party, they're goosestepping right along?
Nothing I have said indicates that I do think any such thing. Perhaps the reason you always expect others of doing the strawman is because it takes a theif to suspect everyone else is a theif...

this is about all canidates, not just incumbants nor any member of the big two, but all candidates.
It's about that and more. You seem to want to forget the more.

voting for the right person means not voting for the party.
Not necessarily.

How is doing the extra research to find out where the candidate stands is being as Lazy as saying "I'll vote Republican because I don't like Bush"? or "I'm not going to vote for him because he didn't leave the Republican party"? I would say voting among those lines is even MORE IRRISPONSIBLE than finding out where the candidate stands and voting on that.
Who said anything whatsoever about doing research? Try addressing the points instead of arguing against stuff no one is actually stating.

It's lazy to invoke some blanket 'how to decide how to vote' forumula and that is what you are presenting. All you are doing is replacing one lazy-ass formula with its polar opposite lazy-ass forumula.

Instead of being so frigging intellectually lazy you have to employ either a 'only the candidate' or 'only the party' rule in regards to how you determine who to vote for, people should examine the actual situation at hand and decide what weight to give each aspect in accordance with the dictates of the circumstance. Yes this means they actually have to think for themselves instead of blindly following some lazy-ass reductionist 'how to figure out who to vote for' formula, but that's the effort that being a responsible voter requires.

please, tell me what message am I trying to give here in this thread?
You're trying to tell people how to vote.

No, how can one ignore a fact when it isnt a fact?

Nothing I have said indicates that I do think any such thing. Perhaps the reason you always expect others of doing the strawman is because it takes a theif to suspect everyone else is a theif...I will admit, most of your posts here were about the VOTING PROCEDURES and not party lines.

It's about that and more. You seem to want to forget the more.I'll bite, what do you THINK i'm forgetting.

Not necessarily.and how is voting baised on your perceptions of the person's qualifications and abilites, and not baised off of party actions and ideals, voting for party lines.

Who said anything whatsoever about doing research? Try addressing the points instead of arguing against stuff no one is actually stating.who said anything about research? I hinted at it... let me quote the parts in the first post where I ask people to look at the candidates...

I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to. Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting. you have one vote, please use it wisely.

Now removing all party rehtoric since I said do not concentrate on the party, how would you know who would be your best voice? how would you determine between Candidate 1, 2, or 3 who would be your best representative to washington if you remove all party lines and ideals...

you would be forced to look where these people stand on issues. IF they repeat party lines and ideals, then that's where they stand, and then IF you don't believe he/she isn't the best choice, then I say DON'T VOTE for that person. that's a better reason for not voting for that person than saying (as others have, here and on other threads) "I'm not voting for him/her becuase he/she's a Republican and didn't leave the party."


It's lazy to invoke some blanket 'how to decide how to vote' forumula and that is what you are presenting. All you are doing is replacing one lazy-ass formula with polar opposite lazy-ass forumula.??? I'm not telling anyone how to vote, I'm asking, not telling, people to look at the candidates themselves and not be blinded by the party. Some have said they did but still will vote against the Republicans. I did not chastise them for they said they looked at the candidates. others wasn't clear to me, those I asked and they showed me that they are looking at the candidates, and since I have no knowledge of each candidate for each state, I let that go. however those that said I am pushing one party over another are those I responded to. also those who are pushing for party line votes are also what I'm against. IF the candidate uses the party ideals as his/her stands on the issues, then that his/her stand on the issues. but to assume that the party issues are their issues is wrong.

what do you know about your candidates, all of em. did you do your research into each one? if you did, then fine, you did what I asked you to do. how is that a Lazy Ass formula?


Instead of being so frigging intellectually lazy you have to employ either a 'only the candidate' or 'only the party' rule in regards to how you determine who to vote for, people should examine the actual situation at hand and decide what weight to give each aspect in accordance with the dictates of the circumstance. Yes this means they actually have to think for themselves instead of blindly following some lazy-ass reductionist 'how to figure out who to vote for' formula, but that's the effort that being a responsible voter requires.re: bolded area...
people doing that properly are ones not following the lines of the party they signed up for. you do realize that right? that is what I am asking what voters should do. I have asked people not to vote democrate because they hate the Republicans. but to vote for the candidate they feel will be the best qualilfied for the job whether they be Democrat, Republican or Indipendant. I, however, am not tellling the voter how to determine what qualifies the perfect candidate for the job. that is up to each voter. yes, some will still weigh party lines, others won't, some may place some issues higher than others. but as long as they are not thinking "vote Democrat because they are not Republicans" I'm satisfied. The only thing lazier than "I'll vote Democrat because they're not Republican" is "well we always voted for John Smith..."

You're trying to tell people how to vote.

well, in a way, yes. i'm asking them to be responsible with their vote. not to look at party reasons/lines/ideals only but to research the candidates themselves.

other than that, what they press while in that booth is really up to them.

Vote however the Hell you want to kids - and for whatever reason motivates you to do so.














There - now that'll be sure to rile up the well-intentioned types who want to tell you how to vote. My job here is done.

Vote however the Hell you want to kids - and for whatever reason motivates you to do so.

There - now that'll be sure to rile up the well-intentioned types who want to tell you how to vote. My job here is done.
well... you did forget one thing...


at least VOTE! even if it's to turn in an empty ballot... :)
(an empty ballot says more about your displeasure in all candidates than not voting.)

well... you did forget one thing...


at least VOTE! even if it's to turn in an empty ballot... :)
(an empty ballot says more about your displeasure in all candidates than not voting.)

I concede the point.

Do vote, everybody...

Failure to vote invalidates your right to bitch or gloat over the outcome, and impedes your overall credibility for the next electoral term.

The beginning speech was good, I totally agree with you. I am a strict green, more left than many leftists in America, and I can totally relate.

I guess it just depends on what you want as a person, which canidate will be best for you or your country/state/city/other.

I will admit, most of your posts here were about the VOTING PROCEDURES and not party lines.

I'll bite, what do you THINK i'm forgetting.
That it isnt necessarily true that party affiliation (of candidates) is completely irrelevent in every context, that it is no more sensible to ignore party affiliation as a matter of dogma than it is to dogmatically vote along party lines. That to reject any and all consideration of party affiliation (of candidates) is the same kind of error as never considering anything else. It's still a matter of substituting dogma for an actual analysis of the case at hand.

and how is voting baised on your perceptions of the person's qualifications and abilites, and not baised off of party actions and ideals, voting for party lines.
Er, what?

who said anything about research? I hinted at it... let me quote the parts in the first post where I ask people to look at the candidates...
How about you post something explaining how your posting about research somehow led you to believe that I somehow indicated anything whatsoever about doing research or do you agree that this
How is doing the extra research to find out where the candidate stands is being as Lazy as saying "I'll vote Republican because I don't like Bush"?
is a strawman, given that I've not made a single reference to research prior to the above comment....

Now removing all party rehtoric since I said do not concentrate on the party, how would you know who would be your best voice?
I wouldnt remove all party rhetoric because unlike you I think it is important to give due consideration to all relevent aspects not just those that I want to.

how would you determine between Candidate 1, 2, or 3 who would be your best representative to washington if you remove all party lines and ideals...
Given I would never make a dogmatic decision to disregard party lines, any more than I would make a dogmatic decision that takes nothing but party lines into account, it's not a question that I have any need to consider.

you would be forced to look where these people stand on issues. IF they repeat party lines and ideals, then that's where they stand, and then IF you don't believe he/she isn't the best choice, then I say DON'T VOTE for that person. that's a better reason for not voting for that person than saying (as others have, here and on other threads) "I'm not voting for him/her becuase he/she's a Republican and didn't leave the party."
Right, back to the false dilema fallacy....perhaps the meaning of fallacy has escaped your notice. It isnt true that one has to either only consider party lines or ignore them entirely. Both such positions (one of which you argue for the other against) are equally flawed, equally dogmatic and equally lazy.

??? I'm not telling anyone how to vote,
I never suggested you were, you are however advising them to vote according to a 'formular' just as redundant as the formular you argue against them using.
I'm asking, not telling, people to look at the candidates themselves and not be blinded by the party.
No, you are not telling them not to be blinded by the party (if you were I wouldnt offer any disagreement whatsoever, as should be obvious from my comments in my first post in this thread), what you are arguing is that people ignore party affiliation entirely. It is exactly the same class of error you are arguing against. Only the detail differs.

Some have said they did but still will vote against the Republicans. I did not chastise them for they said they looked at the candidates. others wasn't clear to me, those I asked and they showed me that they are looking at the candidates, and since I have no knowledge of each candidate for each state, I let that go. however those that said I am pushing one party over another are those I responded to.
Aha, and I disagree that it is necessarily wrong to push one party over another. Certainly it's wrong to do so dogmatically rather than as a result of analysing the particular circumstances. However, if an analysis of a situation indicates that on the balance of things pushing a party line is the best course in that particular situation then it is irresponsible to not do so due to some dogmatic formula that requires one to pre-determine (independently of the actual facts at issue) that party affilitation ought to always be ignored.

also those who are pushing for party line votes are also what I'm against.
Right, regardless of whether or not the facts actually indicate that there is good cause in a particular circumstance to push along party lines. What I'm against is the dogmatic insistence on some formula or other (be it 'always vote party lines' or 'always ignore party lines) that be follwed in preference to a decision based on all the facts that gives consideration to anything that might be relevent including party lines. To put it simply, until you've considered the actual facts in a particular case you cant know how relevent party affiliation is in that particular case.

IF the candidate uses the party ideals as his/her stands on the issues, then that his/her stand on the issues. but to assume that the party issues are their issues is wrong.
Which is neither here nor there considering what I am arguing is that dogmatic 'how to work out who to vote for formulas' such as the one you argue for and the one you argue against are equally redundant and lazy.

what do you know about your candidates, all of em. did you do your research into each one? if you did, then fine, you did what I asked you to do. how is that a Lazy Ass formula?
That's not all you asked (or even quite what you asked) at all; you asked people to ignore party lines. Posting as though all you asked was that people considered more than merely party lines when really what you were suggesting was that they consider something instead of party lines doesnt accurately reflect the content of your comments.

re- bolded area...
people doing that properly are ones not following the lines of the party they signed up for. you do realize that right?
Yes, and they are also the ones who are not pre-determing that party affiliation is irrelevent.
that is what I am asking what voters should do.
No it isnt. You have not merely asked people consider things other than party lines, you've asked them to ignore party lines. All I argue is that party lines be considered of possible relevence and not be discounted 'out of hand' prior to and independent of consideration of the actual circumstances in a particular case.

I have asked people not to vote democrate because they hate the Republicans. but to vote for the candidate they feel will be the best qualilfied for the job whether they be Democrat, Republican or Indipendant.
No, "removing all party rhetoric" is a direction to ignore potentially relevent facts. You are not asking that they vote for who they believe is best qualified, but rather that they decide who is best qualified while ignoring party affiliation.

I, however, am not tellling the voter how to determine what qualifies the perfect candidate for the job.
I never suggested otherwise, however, what you are telling people is to make the determination in the context of excluding particular considerations.

that is up to each voter. yes, some will still weigh party lines, others won't, some may place some issues higher than others. but as long as they are not thinking "vote Democrat because they are not Republicans" I'm satisfied. The only thing lazier than "I'll vote Democrat because they're not Republican" is "well we always voted for John Smith..."
Unfortunately that isnt consistent with your comments, throughout the thread....if we 'put aside all party rhetoric' then you are not considering all potentially relevent aspects. You have not merely argued 'consider aspects other than just party lines' or 'it's not always best to vote along party lines' but rather 'ignore party lines' 'only consider the candidate not the party'.

If you can see the flaw in 'only ever consider party affiliations', then I dont see why you equally cannot see the flaw in 'put aside party affiliations'. Both formulas equally require that one pre-determine the relevence of (or irrelevence) of issues that are potentially relevent, and who's true relevence in a particular instance can only be determined through an analysis of the particular instance.

I concede the point.

Do vote, everybody...

Failure to vote invalidates your right to bitch or gloat over the outcome, and impedes your overall credibility for the next electoral term.

I wish I could vote...:( (I'm two years too young)

at least VOTE! even if it's to turn in an empty ballot... :)
(an empty ballot says more about your displeasure in all candidates than not voting.)

Wow! You can do that in Hawaii? (turn in an empty ballot) Here in Alabama you have to make at least one choice or the machine will reject your ballot.

<snip>
Unfortunately, here in Washington State, thanks to the two major parties, you have to register your party allegiance. Utter bullshit in my opinion.
Are you sure that you actually have to belong to a party? Requiring party membership would be placing a prior limitation on your voting rights. It would be saying "only members of parties are allowed to vote," and surely that is illegal, just like back in the day when only property owners could vote or only men or white people could vote -- all against the law nowadays. I suggest you call your local election board and ask for clarification on that. I am certain you can just put down "none" and still get registered to vote. I mean, in Mass, I have to account for my party affiliation, but I can do that by saying "none."

Now, also, in Mass, I can still vote in primaries, but if I do, I have to announce at the polling place which party's candidates I'll be voting for, because they have separate primary ballots for each party. As a result of that, I'll be recorded as being a Democrat or Republican, but then the next time around, I can reregister as "unaffiliated" again, if I feel like it.

I suggest you double check Washington State, because I really do think it is against the law to require party membership in order to vote.

and I would rather someone who is the BEST canidate at doing what they were elected to do than one who got in only because they were a member of a political party.

I don't know about you, but I do not elect presidents -- or senators or representatives or governors or DAs -- in the hope that they will start unnecessary wars, inflame and strengthen my country's enemies, lower taxes for major corporations while maintaining a freeze on basic wages that are already way out of keeping with the cost of living, allow major corporations to ship millions of jobs to other countries while flooding my local workforce with illegal immigrants who will take the remaining jobs for pennies/hour, "disappear" prisoners into overseas torture camps, and mount attacks against my civil liberties and my nation's and state's constitutions.

No matter what I DID elect them to do, and regardless of whether they are actually doing it or not, if they start doing any of the above, they get tossed the fuck out of office.

you do realize that Oscar Schindler was a part of the Nazi party, spied for the SS and yet still strove to save lives of his Jews. He used his position in the Nazi party as best he could to protect his workers.

Alot of "Loyal Nazi Soldiers" also hid and helped Jews escape. so while they are tarred with the label Nazi, they strove to do their good behind the scenes.

burn the politicians who are bad, but you really do want to keep the ones who are competent.
The "but he's a 'good" Republican" argument doesn't hold much water when it's the bad ones that are controlling party and national policies.

Oscar Schindler's membership did not make it okay to vote Nazi, and a few old guard Republicans who are desperately shoveling against the tide of their own party do not make it a good idea to keep that party in power in its present condition.

Now, can we not continue with Nazi comparisons, before some troll decides to start attacking "liberals" about it?

Whoa whoa whoa. Deep Kimchi, Myrmidonisia, MeansToAnEnd, New Mitanni and a host of others more than hold their own for the Republican party. Democrats are perhaps a bit louder right now because we're feeling our oats, but this is not a Republican free zone.
Makes me almost feel sorry for the Republicans. :D

But I do think JuNii is being a bit weaselish. I've been trying to overlook it, but the truth is, the OP was a partisan post. It tried not to be but couldn't help itself. Now that he's being jumped on for it, he seems to be crying that R-bashing is the only thing that goes on here, which is obviously ridiculous and only makes him seem more partisan, not less.

JuNii, please take note.

If the democrats all jumped off the empire state buliding, would you join them? Whatever any of the politicos want, if you are a responsible voter, if you care about democracy, you'll want a safe, secure, transparent voting system that facilitates free and fair elections.


That sounds like a system that's designed around notions of 'safe guards', transparency and integrity...for an election tallying system, wow, what a novel idea.
That does sound robust, checkable, transparent and secure...at least as secure as more traditional paper + manual count only system (you get your fast result without compromising paper trail, tracability, and voter confidence).
Yep, me like da optical scan voting system. It works, therefore it rocks.

Also when you press the "recount" button it will spit out the same number everytime. So you would be screwed if there were a few wires crossed and something went obviously wrong. You would be obviously screwed.
That doesn't make any sense. What "same number" does it spit out?

There is no "recount" button on optical scanners. Recounts are ALWAYS done by hand in this system.

i still dont see the point of voting for the "Best" candidate if that candidate doesnt see things my way. especially a candidate for national office who doesnt have the power to protect my state.

why would i EVER vote for a republican? i dont support anything that they stand for; i dont want their leadership to control congress; i dont want them to be able to sneak failed legislation onto must-pass bills.

if a person supported everything the republicans stand for, if they love their leadership and want them to continue to control congress, why would they EVER vote democratic?

new mexico 2 of the most "independant" republican representatives in congress right now. they vote with the party 96% of the time. the only time they disagree is when it is something that directly affects new mexico--as any representative would. they are both good people and good candidates. why would i vote for either of them (of course i can only vote for the one) when they are a virtual rubber stamp for every bad decision that the republican congress and president bush makes?

state and local politics are different. on the local level where personality and character is much more important than party affiliation, i always vote for "the man" instead of for the party. the state level is quite similar. the ideology of the parties are more of a general guideline than a monolith. our last governor was a republican who advocated the legalization of drugs, for example.

Good pitch but no sale!
If the supreme court had been predominatly democrat in 2000 then Gore would have been chosen as president. But they were not and the worst man won the presidency.
Lets get rid of the rebulicans once and for all! Vote democrtat.

Nice one. :rolleyes:

You're one of the stupid people who only vote Democrat because they're not Republican. Democrats are even more intolerant and whiny than the Republicans, and just as rich.

Besides, it's AMERICA. Why does it onlyhave to be one or the other? I'd vote Independent every time if I were old enough. :mad:

Nice one. :rolleyes:

You're one of the stupid people who only vote Democrat because they're not Republican. Democrats are even more intolerant and whiny than the Republicans, and just as rich.

Besides, it's AMERICA. Why does it onlyhave to be one or the other? I'd vote Independent every time if I were old enough. :mad:

you can BE independant but 99% of the candidates are in a party so you have to VOTE for someone in a party.

i think youll find that if ONE republican candidate represents your views (on a national scale) that pretty much ALL of them will. do you really think that you would vote for a senator who is prolife, progun, and big on the war on terror and a representative who is pro choice, pro guncontrol and pro sane international relations? (not to be partisan or anything...)

you can BE independant but 99% of the candidates are in a party so you have to VOTE for someone in a party.

i think youll find that if ONE republican candidate represents your views (on a national scale) that pretty much ALL of them will. do you really think that you would vote for a senator who is prolife, progun, and big on the war on terror and a representative who is pro choice, pro guncontrol and pro sane international relations? (not to be partisan or anything...)

The first part is, sadly, true. :(

The second part, however... It would depend on the politics locally, statewide, and nationally. Though people wouldn't vote for a senaor and a representative with two conflicting views.

It all depends on how well people know politics. Apparently Republican=uberJesusfreak and Democrat=anything but Republican, when that's not necessarily true. There are Christian Democratic candidates. Really it comes down to what people want to see and voting for who they think are truly the best people, but it's not happening because both are vote-whoring and everyone's currently mad at the GOP so they'll vote Democrat because they're not the GOP, when the Independents won't get any votes because America is *supposed* to be a two-part one-or-the-other system. :rolleyes:

Nice one. :rolleyes:

You're one of the stupid people who only vote Democrat because they're not Republican. Democrats are even more intolerant and whiny than the Republicans, and just as rich.

Besides, it's AMERICA. Why does it onlyhave to be one or the other? I'd vote Independent every time if I were old enough. :mad:

In Washington, things do not get accomlished if there is gridlock.

Pick a side:
Republican-Pro life, do nothing about environment, minimun wage is is fine, etc...
Democrat-Pro choice, global warming is a problem, raise minimum wage, etc...

In Washington, things do not get accomlished if there is gridlock.

Pick a side:
Republican-Pro life, do nothing about environment, minimun wage is is fine, etc...
Democrat-Pro choice, global warming is a problem, raise minimum wage, etc...

Independent*: the group that doesn't vote-whore, mudsling, and whine.




*includes 3rd parties

Independent*: the group that doesn't vote-whore, mudsling, and whine.




*includes 3rd parties

This is getting on my nerves.

EVERYONE, ATTENTION PLEASE: INDEPENDENT IS A POLITICAL PARTY IN THE US!!

INDEPENDENT either appears on ballots or it doesn't, depending on whether they pass a given state's requirements. Every now and then, they get enough momentum to float some candidates.

Here is a website: http://www.usiap.org/

"Independent" appears on ballots when the Independents are running a candidate. If you register as an "Independent," your state may assume that you mean this party. Check before registering.

Here's another site: http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

It's a directory of known political parties in the US. I just like everyone to know what they are talking about. Scan the list. It will become pretty clear which ones are serious contenders for political influence and which ones are just a bunch of nuts hanging out at a Denny's.

I'm not going to urge you to vote for anyone, nor will I say which party to vote for. but I do want you to think about this.

Despite your saying this, the post was fairly biased in favour of Republican candidates.

the Electorial College selected the President. Under normal circumstances, the Electorial canidate mirrors the votes of their state, however, it's not a rule that they MUST. in the case of the 2000 election, one or more of the electorial canidates chose Bush instead of Gore.

the purpose of the Electorial College is to avoid the passion of the masses, in other words, the dominition of the majority over the Minority. it's just that in the case of the 2000 election, the electors didn't follow the majority of their state.

that's why it looked like Bush stole the election.

Bush did steal the election with the Republicans controlling Florida and the Supreme Court. The Electoral College also is just a way to make the voter irrelevant, and kill democracy. The body is a way to keep control of the presidential election of a few. People think their vote matters but it doesn't. The voter doesn't actually elect the president as the College can simply ignore the voters desire. Until it is gone I really don't see how we can call ourselves a democracy.

The "but he's a 'good" Republican" argument doesn't hold much water when it's the bad ones that are controlling party and national policies.

Oscar Schindler's membership did not make it okay to vote Nazi, and a few old guard Republicans who are desperately shoveling against the tide of their own party do not make it a good idea to keep that party in power in its present condition.

Now, can we not continue with Nazi comparisons, before some troll decides to start attacking "liberals" about it?which is why you vote the "bad" ones out. if your elected officals, be they Dem, Rep, or Indie are "bad" then they are not the best candidates to represent you and yours. right?

I don't know about you, but I do not elect presidents -- or senators or representatives or governors or DAs -- in the hope that they will start unnecessary wars, inflame and strengthen my country's enemies, lower taxes for major corporations while maintaining a freeze on basic wages that are already way out of keeping with the cost of living, allow major corporations to ship millions of jobs to other countries while flooding my local workforce with illegal immigrants who will take the remaining jobs for pennies/hour, "disappear" prisoners into overseas torture camps, and mount attacks against my civil liberties and my nation's and state's constitutions.

No matter what I DID elect them to do, and regardless of whether they are actually doing it or not, if they start doing any of the above, they get tossed the fuck out of office.and as long as you are looking at job performance of the individual, that is all that I am asking for.

Makes me almost feel sorry for the Republicans. :D

But I do think JuNii is being a bit weaselish. I've been trying to overlook it, but the truth is, the OP was a partisan post. It tried not to be but couldn't help itself. Now that he's being jumped on for it, he seems to be crying that R-bashing is the only thing that goes on here, which is obviously ridiculous and only makes him seem more partisan, not less.

JuNii, please take note.Please take note, i did NOT say R-Bashing was the ONLY thing taking place, I stated it was as Popular as Religion Bashing.

the general mentatlity at the time I started this thread was "I'm voting Dem to get the Republican's out."

Everyone's mentality here is Republicans bad, Democrats good. My post was to remind people that there are Good Republicans out there as well as Bad Democrats.

if a person supported everything the republicans stand for, if they love their leadership and want them to continue to control congress, why would they EVER vote democratic?and this is another example of what I'm trying to get away from while voting. you are saying that they love what the PARTY is standing for and NOT whether the person is qualified to do the job. this is herd mentallity and it's dangerous and wrong. from any viewpoint.

Despite your saying this, the post was fairly biased in favour of Republican candidates.because I gave one example of a good Republican, I'm supporting Republican candidates?

My opinion of NSG at this time is that the majority of Americans here think that there is no such thing as a good Republican or a bad democrat.

Then prove me wrong. give me all the examples of good Republicans that are currently in office or running for office. give me examples of Bad Democrates currently in office or running for offiice. not just one, but as many as you can think of or find. I offer this challange to everyone on this board.

which is why you vote the "bad" ones out. if your elected officals, be they Dem, Rep, or Indie are "bad" then they are not the best candidates to represent you and yours. right?
When the "bad" ones are running the party and using the political influence and media presence of the entire party to corrupt the nation's political system and lead the nation down a self-destructive path, then it is in the interest of the nation to dislodge such a corrupted party from power. It's only temporary. Let those Republicans who are trying to save their party from extremism succeed, and they will have no trouble getting back into the game.

and as long as you are looking at job performance of the individual, that is all that I am asking for.
I count the individual's activities in re his party's platform to be part of his job performance. A vote in favor of the recent torture bill counts against any politician, on my tally list.

Please take note, i did NOT say R-Bashing was the ONLY thing taking place, I stated it was as Popular as Religion Bashing.
Well, so is D-bashing. Who cares?

the general mentatlity at the time I started this thread was "I'm voting Dem to get the Republican's out."
And I have explained some reasons why that may not be an irresponsible attitude to take, given certain circumstances, which I have also described.

Everyone's mentality here is Republicans bad, Democrats good. My post was to remind people that there are Good Republicans out there as well as Bad Democrats.
That is a fallacy. It is not everyone's mentality. It's not your mentality, for instance, is it? And there are plenty of people who take the opposite view, that Democrats = bad and Republicans = good. In fact, party hackery seems pretty evenly distributed around here.

and this is another example of what I'm trying to get away from while voting. you are saying that they love what the PARTY is standing for and NOT whether the person is qualified to do the job. this is herd mentallity and it's dangerous and wrong. from any viewpoint.
I do not elect officials to "love what the party stands for." So if that is what they are doing (i.e. voting in support of their party's platform even if it is counter to the national interest), then they are not doing the job I want them to, are they?

People have stated here before that Voting along Party lines is wrong. I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to. Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.


The problem is that when the Republicans elected vote along party lines (which they seem to do about 90% of the time) they do not act as my voice. Untill we get an elected republican that will vote in FAVOR of gay rights, Roe vs. Wade and the multiple other social and econmic veiws that I hold as important I will vote for those most likely to do so. Those people are not Republicans so a Republican will never get my vote.

Look I live in Pa ....I do not want the Democrats to win the house or Senate.. I thinks its a very bbad thing from what I have heard from their OWN words as to what they eill attempt to do ..like do away with tax cuts cut and run .... etc.


But I live in PA. and that would mean I would HAVE to vote for Santorum ...

I could not do it even if my nuts were held in a vice....


In every election you cant vote for the PARTY you have to pick the BEST caandidate . If it happens that DEMS or Republicans lose because of party affiliation then it reflects badly on the electorate .

The best man should win not he best party .

and this is another example of what I'm trying to get away from while voting. you are saying that they love what the PARTY is standing for and NOT whether the person is qualified to do the job. this is herd mentallity and it's dangerous and wrong. from any viewpoint.


why in the world would i ever vote for someone who ....

opposes abortion rights
supports prayer in school
supports bush's running of the iraq war and war on terror
supports the excessive spending of the republican party
supports tax cuts that leave us in mindbogglingly huge debt
supports the abolishment of the estate tax without replacing the revenue
supports bush's stand on torture
supports bush's stand on wiretapping US citizens

just because he is a more qualified or even more MORAL candidate than his opposition? for god's sake, if he is GOOD at the job he'll do a thousand things that i dont agree with. why would i want that?

republicans are republicans for a reason. it usuallly means its because they support the republican platform and that even when they dont support it they will still vote along with the rest of their party when required. thats the way politics works and im certainly not going to screw myself by pretending that its any different.

when a republican candidate that comes along who supports the deomcratic platform, ill consider voting for him.

Makes me almost feel sorry for the Republicans. :D

But I do think JuNii is being a bit weaselish. I've been trying to overlook it, but the truth is, the OP was a partisan post. It tried not to be but couldn't help itself. Now that he's being jumped on for it, he seems to be crying that R-bashing is the only thing that goes on here, which is obviously ridiculous and only makes him seem more partisan, not less.

JuNii, please take note.
Exactly what I was saying. Unfortunately Junii cannot see what I was trying to tell him. Either that or he knows that he has been caught with his pants down and is dragging out all the strawman arguments he can find in an effort to wiggle off the hook?

Bush did steal the election with the Republicans controlling Florida and the Supreme Court. The Electoral College also is just a way to make the voter irrelevant, and kill democracy. The body is a way to keep control of the presidential election of a few. People think their vote matters but it doesn't. The voter doesn't actually elect the president as the College can simply ignore the voters desire. Until it is gone I really don't see how we can call ourselves a democracy.
I agree. I think that the Electoral College should be scrapped.

why in the world would i ever vote for someone who ....

opposes abortion rights
supports prayer in school
supports bush's running of the iraq war and war on terror
supports the excessive spending of the republican party
supports tax cuts that leave us in mindbogglingly huge debt
supports the abolishment of the estate tax without replacing the revenue
supports bush's stand on torture
supports bush's stand on wiretapping US citizens

just because he is a more qualified or even more MORAL candidate than his opposition?

Out of curiosity. Where is their room in a person's character for morality when they believe in all that shit?

Out of curiosity. Where is their room in a person's character for morality when they believe in all that shit?

well i dont know but the good republican congressmen of newmexico support every bit of it. at least ive never seen them speak against it.

Out of curiosity. Where is their room in a person's character for morality when they believe in all that shit?

That *is* what they call "morality". They also call it adhering to His Word and condemn all who oppose to a deep fiery eternal Hell.

It's currently the most popular form of vote-whoring within the Republican Party. :(

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW10-11-06.jpg

Saw it and thought of this thread...

I'm not going to urge you to vote for anyone, nor will I say which party to vote for. but I do want you to think about this.


wether or not you are happy with President Bush, wether or not you are happy with the Republicans or Democrats in general... I urge you to vote responsibly. Many on these boards seems to me, anyway, that they will vote Democrat, not because the person running is competent, not because they think this person will do better than the other, but because that person is a Democrat.

Right now, our Govenor is a Republican, and I believe she did more for our state than what the challanger states he can do. in the debate we had, he asked and pressed the issue about the iraq war. wether or not she supports or is against the Iraq war has nothing to do with how our state is run, she has no control over troop movements, nor does she, or any governor, have any influence over the President or his senior staff. I felt that it was just a ruse to play to people's emotions and to remind everyone not what she's done for my state, but the fact that she is Republican.

People have stated here before that Voting along Party lines is wrong. I urge you all, to vote for the best person you believe will be your voice, and not just because of which party they belong to. Please, remember. your vote should be for the one you believe would be your representative in the Government, not for the Party.

People here have said, voting with your emotions is also wrong. many have accused President Bush of using terrorism to get votes, in that same respect, hate for ANY PARTY should not be the emotion used for voting. you have one vote, please use it wisely.

Well said, which is precisely why I will be voting Libertarian in '08....hopefully we'll actually be on the ballot.