If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Dear undecided voter: Stay home. You suck and nobody likes you   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 9
    More: Obvious, electoral systems, reasoning, pleas, independent study  
•       •       •

2004 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2012 at 5:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-05 08:12:54 PM
2 votes:
"I haven't decided yet" is a polite way of saying, "none of your business."
2012-11-06 11:04:33 AM
1 votes:
Lastly (go go triple post! Threemendous!),

When it comes to voting for the President candidates, while I will insist voting 3rd party is better than not voting, I still think people need to accept that they will never, EVER, have the perfect candidate and will always be voting for the lesser of 2 (or 3, or 4, whatever) evils. But despite what many third partiers claim, the two parties are indeed very different. There are a potential two supreme court justice seats to be appointed in the next four years. If you care about nothing else, you should at least be capable of casting a vote in favor of the lesser evil as it pertains to such a long-lasting position.

You should also, if you really do care about the system and vote third party as a result, try to be active in one, or both, of the big two parties' primaries. Real policy issues within parties are decided at that level, and you can have an effect there (depending on your state order, sadly). You should also apply the same scrutiny to your third party candidate as you do to Barack or Romney. That is something I see lacking the most in the average third-party voter. They know everything about the main candidates and thus can talk for hours about their flaws (many of which I'll find myself nodding along with). But because their own candidate is such a small fry, and because they themselves know he/she won't win, they don't even bother learning much about them. This holds true for greens and libertarians alike. By all means get upset at the actions of Republicans and Democrats. Compare them, but don't forget to contrast them as well, and check yourself before you find you are putting a third party on a pedestal merely because it is different, as opposed to because it is truly better.
2012-11-06 10:47:23 AM
1 votes:

Teufelaffe: please explain to the class how your vote for a third-party in an election that will not be won by a third-party is different from not voting.


Polls are one thing, but actual votes are more concrete. Even if a third party candidate fails to win, it will be a clear message sent out to the two primary parties that X number of people DO vote and WILL vote in favor of the ideas espoused by the third party candidate. Additionally, if a candidate loses because of a split on their 'side' of the political spectrum, the party may decide that the best way to move forward is to shift their values to be more inclusive of that viewpoint.

Now, this doesn't always happen, and I couldn't tell you an exact value for how much any given % of the vote going to a third party candidate directly affects the primary candidates, but you asked how it was different to vote for a third party vs. not voting, and there you have it: you are on record as a likely voter who has an opinion, and presumably are a potential voter to be picked up by a different candidate in the future.

Real world example would be the tea party. Their fielding of candidates and winning ground (and yes I know they aren't a real grassroots movement, but they are a self-identified voting group with viewpoints none-the-less) has had an effect on the views and attitudes of the republican party candidates (and not just the presidency) in the 2012 election.

On the opposite side, if a substantial number of people simply repeat BSRB and don't bother showing up (and btw, there is a lot more going on with respect to your ballot than the presidential candidates or even just the party candidates. You've got various county proposals, amendments to the state constitution, local offices, etc - if you don't vote at all then you are a farking idiot and deserve whatever bullshiat officials wind up in charge of your criminal justice system, controlling the way your taxes are spent, and you ought to be slapped if you stayed home and then biatch about a millage increase of some kind).
2012-11-05 11:19:45 PM
1 votes:

Happy Hours: The Great EZE: I see what your problem is. Unlike most third-party voters, you understand how Congress works and how even the most idealist President can be forced to sign bills he or she doesn't agree with.

Unlike you, I understand how principles work.

Let's say I have a gun pointed at your mother and I say I'm going to shoot her. I ask you to sign a piece of paper saying you're okay with that. It doesn't matter whether or not you sign it, I'm going to shoot her. Do you sign the piece of paper?


What's with you and shooting people?
2012-11-05 10:35:04 PM
1 votes:

propasaurus: Happy Hours: jaylectricity: Happy Hours: Obama's policies of signing the NDAA,

They sign that every year. It's how they know how much to spend on defense. The new president will be signing it every year as well.

Ahhh - and if it includes a provision allowing jaylectricity to be shot on sight, you'd be cool with that?

The NDAA was passed by a veto proof majority in Congress. If the President had refused to sign it, they would have simply overridden his veto, and you'd still have your right wing talking points about the President authorizing indefinite detention PLUS he'd be 'against the troops'.
The NDAA also included severe sanctions against the Iran Central Bank, which is one of the reasons their economy is in shambles right now. And it included pay raises for military personnel. As I recall, the President did issue a signing statement essentially saying he disagrees with certain provisions and won't be enforcing them.


I see what your problem is. Unlike most third-party voters, you understand how Congress works and how even the most idealist President can be forced to sign bills he or she doesn't agree with.

I'm sure Gary Stein PAUL would never do something like that *snort*.

The "Why Guantanamo is Still Open" issue is a 400-level class. Not enough time to explain now.
2012-11-05 10:31:34 PM
1 votes:

Happy Hours: jaylectricity: Happy Hours: Obama's policies of signing the NDAA,

They sign that every year. It's how they know how much to spend on defense. The new president will be signing it every year as well.

Ahhh - and if it includes a provision allowing jaylectricity to be shot on sight, you'd be cool with that?


The NDAA was passed by a veto proof majority in Congress. If the President had refused to sign it, they would have simply overridden his veto, and you'd still have your right wing talking points about the President authorizing indefinite detention PLUS he'd be 'against the troops'.
The NDAA also included severe sanctions against the Iran Central Bank, which is one of the reasons their economy is in shambles right now. And it included pay raises for military personnel. As I recall, the President did issue a signing statement essentially saying he disagrees with certain provisions and won't be enforcing them.
2012-11-05 10:30:09 PM
1 votes:

Happy Hours: Ahhh - and if it includes a provision allowing jaylectricity to be shot on sight, you'd be cool with that?


I'd be dead. Why would I care?
2012-11-05 09:15:15 PM
1 votes:
If you really are undecided, consider going to the booth, get your ballot and insert it blank into the machine. It shows that you cared enough to vote, but did not care for any of the candidates.
2012-11-05 08:10:33 PM
1 votes:
The odds are, you've just been too busy obsessing about the misfortunes of the Kardashians or the quality of your ringtone, to spend any time thinking about who might be the better president.

Well, that's your right. Unlike the Australians, we don't compel people to vote, and it would likely be a First Amendment violation if we tried. A refusal to vote can be seen as a statement that the electoral system is rigged, meaningless or so thoroughly corrupt as to deserve contempt. ("I never vote," one citizen said long ago. "It only encourages them.")

And there are other valid reasons for not voting. As a personal matter, I stopped voting more than a decade ago, on the grounds that it helped me as an analyst not to think about making a choice in the voting booth.


So ... he stopped voting because his ring tone wasn't obsessed with Kim Kardashian enough?
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report