PDA

View Full Version : Who's voting?



Little_Miss_1565
10-21-2004, 01:51 PM
I just sent in my absentee ballot yesterday. It won't count for much since I'm voting absentee in Indiana, but at least that's one small strike against evil.

http://www.electoral-vote.com

Keep it up, guys and gals. We're almost there.

wheelchairman
10-21-2004, 03:37 PM
I sent in my absentee ballot a while back as well. I voted for the Greens. Too bad no socialist or Cascadian* options got on the Oregon ballot, I am just far too lazy for write-ins.

I wonder why they don't refer to the Republican ticket as the Dick/Bush ticket. You would think that would attract the vote of all college students.

*Website for Cascadian Independence (http://zapatopi.net/cascadia.html)

Mota Boy
10-21-2004, 06:55 PM
I'm mailing my absentee request tomorrow, along with a note that I got an absentee form for my dad, not for myself. Just a quick name correction and explanation and we've avoided some accidental voter fraud (though people might be a bit confused as to why dad voted for both candidates).

Go Kerry. My state still falls within the margin of error, so perhaps I'll make a difference. OK, I won't, but I'd be one pathetic PoliSci major if I was too apathetic to cast my vote.

Jebus
10-21-2004, 07:07 PM
I cant vote yet.

leo3375
10-21-2004, 07:18 PM
Definitely voting! I voted in the Presidential election in 2000, the mayoral elections in my city in 2001, and the gubernatorial election in my state in 2002. I didn't vote for Junior in 2000 and I sure as hell am not voting for him this year!

samr
10-21-2004, 07:24 PM
I'll vote next time, when I am of age.

Dirty Sanchez
10-21-2004, 09:32 PM
I'm voting for the Kerrizzle. Won't make much difference since CA is pretty liberal anyway. Fuck the electoral college.

Endymion
10-22-2004, 03:44 AM
yes, i'm voting.

Master of Puppets
10-22-2004, 03:45 AM
cant vote, we did have a mock election at school though

Faded Soul
10-22-2004, 04:06 AM
I'm voting now that I am old enough to. (19 now) If I was old enough in 2000..I'm not too proud of who I would have voted for....Dubya...I feel betrayed. My state (AZ) is a weak Bush (according to the link 1565 posted) and my neighbor state (NM) is barely Kerry..considering it was a big Democrat state in the '00 elections. Shitty that Bush is spreading more of his lies to woe New Mexico. Arizona has always been a republican state...but probably not for long. Kerry woed many at the last debate.

Vera
10-22-2004, 07:01 AM
Absentee slip?

I'd vote if I was one year older and a US citizen. I actually saw a dream last night where I got to vote for the regional election here in Finland (strange, as I'm not allowed to vote in that one, either). I schribbled the name of my current favourite actor on the slip and walked away. It was strange.

wheelchairman
10-22-2004, 11:20 AM
Well I hope the US election doesn't go the way of Australia. John Howard (the Australian Bush) was elected for a 4th term. He's the guy who invented terms like "core and non-core" promises.

It's a pity no one ever hears about Finnish politics. What's Finland's (the government's I mean) thoughts concerning the EU?

Vera
10-22-2004, 11:33 AM
Well, we're waist-deep in EU already. Finland has a lot of swamps and as far as I know, once you step into one, you're not getting out.

I don't really care. The possible cons of EU haven't really touched me. 'Cept for the prices getting higher thanks to euro.

I'm all for co-operation between countries, though.

wheelchairman
10-22-2004, 11:51 AM
I agree with cooperation on social issues. But things like a common EU army, is hard to swallow. We are creating an imperialist power basically. And the far right powers that seem to have a lot of influence scare me shitless as well, all the lobbies and whatnot. Trying to push through as much neoliberal policies as possible. Can only hurt a welfare-state like Denmark.

Vera
10-22-2004, 11:56 AM
EU Army, EU President.. I don't think Finland is for any of these things. We want to remain an independent country that just works together with other independent countries.

CommonRider
10-22-2004, 12:27 PM
Im voting, go Kerry.

Rag Doll
10-22-2004, 03:53 PM
Definitely voting.

And not for Dubya.

SicN Twisted
10-22-2004, 06:11 PM
Good ol' Ralph Nader got my vote.

Little_Miss_1565
10-22-2004, 09:25 PM
Haha, even the Green Party doesn't want him anymore.

SicN Twisted
10-23-2004, 12:03 AM
Name a better, more honest and more qualified candidate.

And don't say John Kerry.

Moose
10-23-2004, 01:16 AM
...well i would vote, if i registered, but i dont give a fuck, since we are screwed either way, i live in ny anyway so 25 percent of the registered dems couldnt vote and kerry would still win...skull and bones baby, skull and bones.
________
Kawasaki A1 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Kawasaki_A1)

Amelia
10-23-2004, 01:27 AM
I am definetly voting for Kerry...its time for a change!

Moose
10-23-2004, 01:31 AM
sometimes it just sounds like the trendy in hip thing to do haha, not like that matters anyway...well whatever.
________
Harley-Davidson Model B (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Harley-Davidson_Model_B)

Dive
10-23-2004, 12:06 PM
I am. I live in a swing state, but I think it'll go Kerry's way. Or maybe not.

Muttleygirl
10-23-2004, 01:55 PM
I voted early on Wednesday.

Little_Miss_1565
10-23-2004, 09:19 PM
Name a better, more honest and more qualified candidate.

And don't say John Kerry.

How about John McCain? Even if he did mea culpa and stick his head back up Bush's ass...

punk_flamingo
10-23-2004, 10:46 PM
in Australia its compulsary to vote, we dont have a choice....but some of us like to "donkey" vote. You pretty much get a fine of something around $150 if you dont....

...it sucks though, i think we should have the freedom to choose whether we want to vote or not.

Not Ozymandias
10-24-2004, 02:01 AM
I'm voting. (http://www.johnkerry.com)

SicN Twisted
10-24-2004, 02:11 AM
John McCain? Wow, you gotta be kidding me. He supported the fucking patriot act! He's only slightly less of a psychotic warmonger then Bush. He's no actualy humanitarian, like Ralph Nader.

Little_Miss_1565
10-24-2004, 06:45 AM
John McCain? Wow, you gotta be kidding me. He supported the fucking patriot act! He's only slightly less of a psychotic warmonger then Bush. He's no actualy humanitarian, like Ralph Nader.

Don't forget that most everyone who voted for the Patriot Act had no idea what it said, as they only made two copies of it available to both Houses and only two hours before the vote. The Bush Administration preyed on fear, which we had in abundance following September 11th.

Psychotic warmonger? He received the ire of the entire Republican Party for his sharp criticism of the war in Iraq and for his fervid support of the 9-11 Commission in its efforts to Rice to testify under oath, etc.

Go ahead and vote for Nader, I'm too much of a moderate to support him again.

Vera
10-24-2004, 06:55 AM
By moderate do you mean calm or conservative?

I know, damn words with different meanings.

Little_Miss_1565
10-24-2004, 09:00 AM
By moderate do you mean calm or conservative?

I know, damn words with different meanings.

Not particularly liberal or conservative, I have leanings towards both sides. For example, liberal in my all-out womens' rights views, but conservative in that I really don't like the idea of a big government. However, it should be noted that conservatives hating "big government" is nothing but a joke in the Bush administration, who has created the biggest fucking government in history.

Not Ozymandias
10-24-2004, 12:17 PM
McCain is critical of the handling of the Iraq invasion, not the invasion itself, which he theoretically supported way back in the 2000 Presidential primary - along with invading North Korea and even possibly China; the last one to free Taiwan and Hong Kong (no surprise he forgot Tibet).

Around the time of this year's GOP convention Bush floated the idea of lessening our military presence around North Korea, possibly his first sane move. McCain was all over his ass for that.

So yeah, he's an even bigger war-hawk.


He's dependable though, you know where he'll stand on something. You don't get that much. The down side is he's almost always dead wrong.

SicN Twisted
10-24-2004, 01:36 PM
McCain signed the resolution to give the president full authority to go to war. He may think that Bush is going about the war wrong, but that's semantics to someone who's against the war for principle reasons just as much as practical (which is, what, 90% of the world?)

If you're a moderate, I'd still say to support Ralph Nader. By world standards, he's center left. He's just seen as a liberal here because this country's a mecca of psychotic christian fundementalism where standards are entirely scewed. He's not a radical the way he's painted to be, he's just an honest man with principles and an advocate of the people, which I can't say about either Bush or Kerry (or even John McCain).

Muttleygirl
10-24-2004, 01:43 PM
Why the hell is anyone supporting Nader this year? Isn't trying to get Bush out of the White House more important? Or do people honestly believe things will be exactly the same under Kerry? :confused:

SicN Twisted
10-24-2004, 01:45 PM
I don't see why people believe things will be that much better under Kerry. He's a fucking snake.

wheelchairman
10-24-2004, 01:59 PM
I don't see why people believe things will be that much better under Kerry. He's a fucking snake.
Agreed. That's very true.

Little_Miss_1565
10-24-2004, 03:05 PM
Well, I guess that's where my moderate shows through...I am not 100% against the idea of war in general. I'm not going to claim to be the most well-informed citizen, and I'm in severe amounts of pain right now and don't feel much like arguing. But i'd love it if anyone had any suggestions as to how i can take the Vicodin the doctor gave me without it upsetting my stomach so badly that it hurts worse than the reason I took it in the first place.


I don't see why people believe things will be that much better under Kerry. He's a fucking snake.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om

SicN Twisted
10-24-2004, 04:09 PM
Break it in half and take it. That breaks the time release, so all the vicodin will enter your body at once. The time relase is what hurts alot of peoples stomachs, because it stays in your system digesting for hours.

Mota Boy
10-24-2004, 08:59 PM
Name a better, more honest and more qualified candidate.

And don't say John Kerry.



Me. But I'm not going to vote for myself because I'd be wasting my time. You can tell yourself that America is a multi-party country all you want, but it's not going to make it true, especially not on the federal level.

SicN Twisted
10-24-2004, 09:29 PM
All it takes is voters to change that.

Mota Boy
10-24-2004, 09:53 PM
All it takes is voters to change that.


No, it's a function of the system we're in. Because the Constitution sets up a winner-take-all system of elections, it ensures that there can only be two parties, a left-wing one and a right-wing one, both of which have to hug the middle. If any new party enters the race, it will take away votes from one of the others to the point where, even if the clear majority of Americans choose the two-party side, the lone party that leans towards the opposite end of the ideological spectrum will repeatedly win (see 2000).


If the Democrats get 35% of the votes, the Greens 25% and the Republicans 40%, we'll have a Republican president. Voting for a third party is inherently counter-intuitive.

SicN Twisted
10-25-2004, 01:40 AM
The Green/Democrat thing doesn't work, because rebublicans also have their more right leaning, third party counterparts. Third parties are not all left wing, like some people seem to think.

The only reason the Green party can't potentially elect a candidate is because third parties get absolutely no corperate or government funding. If Nader recieved 5% of the vote, he'd get enough funding to have bigger campaigns. He wouldn't become president anytime soon, but it's a step by step proccess of gradually rallying more support to smaller politically parties and helping them get more exposure. If you cast a vote for a third party candidate, it'll show up on national polls, electoral college has nothing to do with it. I live in New York, a state that Kerry would still win even if John Lennon rose from the dead and did a free Bush benefit in central part. I think voting my conscience and helping third parties get national exposure is a better thing to do with wasting my vote on a candidate who's, at most, slightly better then the current president.

Little_Miss_1565
10-25-2004, 02:17 PM
As much as I sympathize with the cause of getting a third-party candidate more visibility, 5% of votes to Nader in this election will secure a Bush victory. And that is not a world I can envision right now. Justice Rehnquist was just diagnosed with thyroid cancer. If Bush gets to make even one Supreme Court nominee, this country is fucked for decades to come.

Mota Boy
10-25-2004, 02:45 PM
The Green/Democrat thing doesn't work, because rebublicans also have their more right leaning, third party counterparts. Third parties are not all left wing, like some people seem to think.

I'm well aware that not all parties are left wing (or even fall along the left/right spectrum). The Green/Democrat example was just that - an example. Conservatives facing the same decision will use the exact same logic.




The only reason the Green party can't potentially elect a candidate is because third parties get absolutely no corperate or government funding...

I believe that the reason they get no funding is because they're unelectable. Ross Perot took the Reform Party to enormous heights in the 1992 election, even going so far as to be the frontrunner for a few weeks, but the party couldn't maintain any of that momentum because, in part, his party received absolutely nothing in the '92 election despite winning an astounding 20% of the popular vote. In fact, after putting up such a striking number, he only went into decline, shrinking to 9% in '96 and losing national funding completely in '98. You'll notice that the same thing is happening to Nader now - people realize that they're vote is counterproductive and move to vote for someone that's actually a serious contender.

Not Ozymandias
10-25-2004, 03:47 PM
I don't see why people believe things will be that much better under Kerry. He's a fucking snake.
Well, yeah: he's a politician. Congress is a nest of vipers. But Kerry knows how to work with them and get things done. And considering he's a progressive/liberal, that's VERY good news for us if he wins.
Things will be better under Kerry.

SicN Twisted
10-25-2004, 07:42 PM
Kerry's not a liberal by a long shot. He's affiliated with the New Democrats, the democratic wing that's most devoted to big business. He's all over NAFTA, believes in military spending/welfare cuts almost as much as Bush does, he supports unilateral withdrawl in Israel even more then the Republicans, and despite the fact that his war plan is not as catastrophic as the current one, it leaves alot to be desired.

Mota, I think you have it the wrong way. They're unelectable because they have no funding. Americans don't all lean towards the center, they just vote for the closest major party to them. We could potentially have a multi-party EUropean style system, and that would be much better and fairer.

hshduppsnt
10-25-2004, 11:48 PM
As much as I sympathize with the cause of getting a third-party candidate more visibility, 5% of votes to Nader in this election will secure a Bush victory. And that is not a world I can envision right now. Justice Rehnquist was just diagnosed with thyroid cancer. If Bush gets to make even one Supreme Court nominee, this country is fucked for decades to come.


I have to agree with this statement. There are many things that really does make the Anybody but Bush philosophy perfectly reasonable.

-hshduppsnt

Not Ozymandias
10-26-2004, 10:57 AM
Kerry's not a liberal by a long shot. He's affiliated with the New Democrats, the democratic wing that's most devoted to big business. He's all over NAFTA, believes in military spending/welfare cuts almost as much as Bush does, he supports unilateral withdrawl in Israel even more then the Republicans, and despite the fact that his war plan is not as catastrophic as the current one, it leaves alot to be desired.
A lot is always left to be desired with politics. Most of that is just posturing to appeal to moderates. If you go by his record and his actions as Senator you'd see he's a progressive. Far more so than Clinton or Gore ever were. You're not going to get another candidate this Liberal again for a LONG time if he doesn't win.

SicN Twisted
10-26-2004, 01:27 PM
Actually, if Bush wins, we're likely to get a more liberal candidate next time around, but the democrats will be even more desperate to entirely switch the national agenda. It's usually in the midterm elections that everyone hugs the midstream.

Kerry's record is the senate shows him to be somewhat of a liberal by American standards, that's all. He still voted for all 6 or so NAFTA resolution in the past ten years. Worse then that, he was on of the senatators who voted to give the president full authority to go to war! Next to Joe Lieberman, he was the most moderate democrat in the primary. I'd be much more inclined to vote for Dennis Kusinich, but the fact that he was honest made him "unelectable." If you take Kerry's planned presidency at face value, it's not gonna make too much of a difference in the long run. There's more hope in gradually getting third parties the publicity they deserve then voting for a moderate political robot cause he's the "lesser or two evils."

Mota Boy
10-26-2004, 02:30 PM
Mota, I think you have it the wrong way. They're unelectable because they have no funding. Americans don't all lean towards the center, they just vote for the closest major party to them. We could potentially have a multi-party EUropean style system, and that would be much better and fairer.


A multi-party system may indeed be better, but it works in Europe because they have a system that accounts for proportional representation. In Europe, you still get points for coming in second, or third, or fourth... this rewards small parties and gives them a foot in the door to politics. In America, however, it's winner-takes-all. Similar parties just split the vote and give the office to the party on the opposite side of the spectrum. If we had multiple parties on both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum, the more centrist party would most likely attract the largest vote. Americans do have a wide variety of views, we just don't live in a system that fosters them.

SicN Twisted
10-26-2004, 03:21 PM
The first stage in giving America a more proportionate (or even parliamentary) system would be giving third parties their deserved exposure. Our two party system has the exact same characteristic as a one party system, especially because the two parties or so closly affiliated (not to mention funded by the same corperations). If there was a one party system, would you say it's unrealistic to strive for change?

Izie
10-29-2004, 12:22 PM
If i were an American i'd vote against Bush (or for Kerry) if I lived in a "swingstate" and for another candidate if I lived somewhere else.

There is a tiny difference between the people around Bush and Kerry though, which probably means "a lot" if you're a poor black or a gay person for instance.

Untouchable
10-29-2004, 01:11 PM
Being Canadian I cant vote, but BUSH BLOWS...

GO Kerry.

Mota Boy
10-29-2004, 03:39 PM
If there was a one party system, would you say it's unrealistic to strive for change?


No, but I think that change under this system is close to impossible, as both parties greatly benefit from it. Also, unlike yourself, I see large differences within the party. Not only that, but the parties are moving further apart. Since the 80's, you'll find that the heads of the parties are increasingly partisan. The Senate majority/minority leaders, Tom Delay and Nancy Pelosi, are both fairly extreme for their party, as are George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.

Also, for a variety of reasons (primary law changes - since the party elite can no longer select the people they'd like to run, the people who run for office are more likely to be party idealogues and, since the civil right's movement, a decrease of conservative Democrat Senators from the South and a greater concentration of them in more liberal areas and vice/versa, along with jerrymandering), the parties are more different than ever. Yes, on a fundamental level, many of them operate the same way, but once again this is a product of the system. If the Greens ever got off the ground, I'm sure they'd be just as much beholden to special interests.

Argue to chance the system, if you want. Change it through force or form a movement within one party or another to chance it, but voting third party, imho, just ain't gonna do it.

SicN Twisted
10-30-2004, 05:20 PM
Why not? Third parties have already gotten elected to small offices. Even governatorial offices. The more exposure they recieve, the more key positions they'll take in the future, and the closer the United States will come to turning into democracy. The idea of democracy is based on perpetual change, which is why there's not one entity about American politics left unchanged since 1776.

I don't get why you think Bush and Kerry are ideological opposites. For one, they're not extreme for their parties. Paul Wellstone was an extreme democrat, John Ashcroft is an extreme Republican. Bush and Kerry, in relation to world politics, are center right. As I said, you name the differences between their views, I can name more differences between the views of opposing Soviet premiers, who worked under the same party. Semantic differences simply don't constitute a democratic system. A democrat system constitutes a democratic system, and what we have now simply isn't one.

Mota Boy
10-30-2004, 05:46 PM
I don't get why you think Bush and Kerry are ideological opposites. For one, they're not extreme for their parties. Paul Wellstone was an extreme democrat, John Ashcroft is an extreme Republican. Bush and Kerry, in relation to world politics, are center right.


You named the most liberal member of the Senate and one of, if not the, most conservative members of the Bush administration. Those are very extreme examples. Looking at their records, both Bush and Kerry are more partisan than most of their party, again, as are other party leaders.


Your Soviet premiers analogy is flawed for a couple reasons. For one, you are comparing them over the course of decades of change. Compare, say, John Kerry to Strom Thurman and the Dixiecrat party in '64. Both are members of the same party with significantly different views. Likewise, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were vastly different men.

Secondly, a dictator has much greater ability to force his specific ideology on a country. China likewise changed dramatically over the decades as new faces seized power. The Soviets and Chinese both faced failing systems that they felt they had to reform - the fact that two premiers, decades apart, would differ dramatically is not surprising in the least.

Finally, I will vote third party in local elections, because it's been proven that they can win those. On a national level, however, it's continually proven to be a waste. Nader will receive significantly less votes now than he did in 2000. You can rail against party similarily all you want, but the facts point towards your opinion being in the minority, even among third-party supporters.

wheelchairman
10-30-2004, 05:52 PM
Mota Boy- The USSR did have elections. The people were asked to vote. And there often (however not all the time) was more than one candidate. Despite their being one party there was always debate going on. In fact it wasn't unknown for re-calls to happen. So you're comparison of Strom Thurmond to Kerry is irrelevant.

Mota Boy
10-30-2004, 06:04 PM
I don't see why. Both have to do with how situations change over decades. I was pointing out that the Democratic party has evolved over the years much how the Communist party did.

SicN Twisted
10-31-2004, 12:26 AM
The party did evolve. I don't see how that makes what we have so much less of a one party system then Russia had for so long.

Mota Boy
10-31-2004, 01:23 AM
Excellent point. I was just saying that it's reasonable that two people in a one-party sytem would disagree more than two people in a two-party system.

Do we have serious flaws in our system? Of course we do. Does every democracy? Of course it does. (parliamentary style democracies have the problem of smaller parties exerting greater influence than the percentage of the population that the represent). However, will voting third party in the Presidential election change any of this? No, it won't. And that's why I'm voting Kerry - the candidate closest to my opinion.