• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Go Vote

A.Nonymous said:
How are they going to have a snowballs chance if no one votes for them? Again, I go back to my previous argument that you can't say the two major parties suck and refuse to vote for an alternative at the same time.
Click to expand...

A fact I am not arguing, just pointing out the reality. I ask people why not vote for candidate "X" and the answer is invariably "they have no chance of winning so I am not going to throw my vote away". Add to this many of the people I talk to have no idea who Gary Johnson is it is disheartening so few actually pay attention to what is going on.

I may not like either party but I damn sure don't want Obama back in office so I am stuck playing the safe bet and putting my vote where it will count.
 
SamuraiBigEd said:
A fact I am not arguing, just pointing out the reality. I ask people why not vote for candidate "X" and the answer is invariably "they have no chance of winning so I am not going to throw my vote away". Add to this many of the people I talk to have no idea who Gary Johnson is it is disheartening so few actually pay attention to what is going on.

I may not like either party but I damn sure don't want Obama back in office so I am stuck playing the safe bet and putting my vote where it will count.
Click to expand...

I agree that a lot of people have no idea who Johnson is. I place a lot of that blame on his campaign honestly. Either he's not getting his message out or his message isn't resonating. That fact that so many people have no clue who he is would seem to indicate the former.

Personally, I would argue that if you vote for a candidate you don't like then that is throwing away your vote regardless of whether that candidate has a chance to win or not. Additionally, if you are going to use that logic, then you could argue that no one should've voted for McCain last time around. It was fairly obvious that Obama was going to win. So if McCain isn't going to win should anyone vote for him? If the polls today showed that Obama had a 60/40 advantage over Romney would you say that a vote for Romney was throwing away your vote given that he had no chance of winning?
 
A.Nonymous said:
I agree that a lot of people have no idea who Johnson is. I place a lot of that blame on his campaign honestly. Either he's not getting his message out or his message isn't resonating. That fact that so many people have no clue who he is would seem to indicate the former.
Click to expand...

Johnson hasn't had very much luck raising funds, his site shows only having raised $500,000.00 of the $1M needed for TV ads. This can be attributed to a number of factors including those you mentioned.

Sadly it takes money to win an election these days. I personally feel equal time should be donated by the networks for all candidates as a public service.

Personally, I would argue that if you vote for a candidate you don't like then that is throwing away your vote regardless of whether that candidate has a chance to win or not. Additionally, if you are going to use that logic, then you could argue that no one should've voted for McCain last time around. It was fairly obvious that Obama was going to win. So if McCain isn't going to win should anyone vote for him? If the polls today showed that Obama had a 60/40 advantage over Romney would you say that a vote for Romney was throwing away your vote given that he had no chance of winning?
Click to expand...

So by your logic giving the person you don't want in office because he has the better chance of winning, this is in total opposition to the whole voting process. The idea is not to vote for who you think is going to win but who you want to win but I will add the argument that voting for a third party candidate who really has no chance of winning is not only wasting a vote, it is giving the vote to the candidate you don't want in office. As seen with Perot it was not Clinton supporters who voted for him, Bush lost those votes. It is always going to swing to one side in this situation, whichever candidate has policies that most closely resemble those of the third party is the one who will lose the votes.

I understand the point you are trying to make but in our current system it does not work because the American people are total sheep. If we had even 70% voter turnout and people voted their hearts and minds then things would be different but a very large portion vote what they are told to by the media or don't vote at all.

To clarify my position one of the biggest issues is Constitutional rights, specifically the 2nd Amendment. Obama is trying to fill the Supreme Court with anti-gun justices who believe the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals. I know the anti-gun crowd agree with this but if this comes to pass then which of our rights will be next? Free Speech would be my guess. Once the precedent is set that rights granted by the constitution can be revoked by the Supreme Court instead of having to be amended and ratified by Congress and the Senate then we are heading down a truly dark path that only a successful revolution will be able to end. To this end I can not do anything that would give my vote to Obama.
 
Sotomayor and Kagan are both confirmed and actively anti-gun, one of whom made the statement (can't remember which at the moment) publicly that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals and Obama just announced he wants to re-instate the assault weapons ban.

Obama has hidden his anti-gun agenda quite well and has actually enacted programs to affect his end, most notably The Fast and Furious scandal which he claimed executive privilege on to conceal evidence.

Also as a result of this program the Obama administration ordered an illegal arms reporting (thinly veiled registration scheme) program in the border states where any purchase of more than one "long gun" (not "assault weapon") must be reported to the ATF at the time of purchase. It is not at all uncommon for the average law abiding citizen to purchase more than one rifle or shotgun at a time, but those individuals are now entered into a federal "watch list" database.

As the Obama administration is fond to remind us, he killed Bin Laden...by the logic used there he also killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata!
 
SamuraiBigEd said:
Sadly it takes money to win an election these days. I personally feel equal time should be donated by the networks for all candidates as a public service.
Click to expand...

I can't entirely agree with you just because of the practicality of it. There are at least 20-30 candidates who are on the ballot in at least one state. Do you give all of them the same time? Then you're just going to attract nutjobs who just want the air time. There's one ticket out there where neither candidate is actually constitutionally eligible to serve. So the execution of it gets iffy.

So by your logic giving the person you don't want in office because he has the better chance of winning, this is in total opposition to the whole voting process. The idea is not to vote for who you think is going to win but who you want to win but I will add the argument that voting for a third party candidate who really has no chance of winning is not only wasting a vote, it is giving the vote to the candidate you don't want in office. As seen with Perot it was not Clinton supporters who voted for him, Bush lost those votes. It is always going to swing to one side in this situation, whichever candidate has policies that most closely resemble those of the third party is the one who will lose the votes.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying you vote for the candidate you think should win. Whether that candidate is a 3rd party candidate or not is irrelevant. One thing is certain. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever see the policies you want implemented if you never ever vote for the candidate(s) who support them.

I understand the point you are trying to make but in our current system it does not work because the American people are total sheep. If we had even 70% voter turnout and people voted their hearts and minds then things would be different but a very large portion vote what they are told to by the media or don't vote at all.
Click to expand...

So you are going to argue that voters are sheep but you also say that you're going to vote for someone you disagree with. WTF?
 
SamuraiBigEd said:
Sotomayor and Kagan are both confirmed and actively anti-gun, one of whom made the statement (can't remember which at the moment) publicly that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals and Obama just announced he wants to re-instate the assault weapons ban.

Obama has hidden his anti-gun agenda quite well and has actually enacted programs to affect his end, most notably The Fast and Furious scandal which he claimed executive privilege on to conceal evidence.

Also as a result of this program the Obama administration ordered an illegal arms reporting (thinly veiled registration scheme) program in the border states where any purchase of more than one "long gun" (not "assault weapon") must be reported to the ATF at the time of purchase. It is not at all uncommon for the average law abiding citizen to purchase more than one rifle or shotgun at a time, but those individuals are now entered into a federal "watch list" database.

As the Obama administration is fond to remind us, he killed Bin Laden...by the logic used there he also killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata!
Click to expand...

Again, any resource to back up your claim, besides faulty memory ? There is this thing called the internet. Goggle is one of those applications on the internet.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I can't entirely agree with you just because of the practicality of it. There are at least 20-30 candidates who are on the ballot in at least one state. Do you give all of them the same time? Then you're just going to attract nutjobs who just want the air time. There's one ticket out there where neither candidate is actually constitutionally eligible to serve. So the execution of it gets iffy.
Click to expand...

OK, how about not for profit advertising.



No, I'm saying you vote for the candidate you think should win. Whether that candidate is a 3rd party candidate or not is irrelevant. One thing is certain. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever see the policies you want implemented if you never ever vote for the candidate(s) who support them.
Click to expand...

Agreed.



So you are going to argue that voters are sheep but you also say that you're going to vote for someone you disagree with. WTF?
Click to expand...

Not exactly, I am voting for the person I most agree with of the choices that are viable.
 
SamuraiBigEd said:
OK, how about not for profit advertising.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to the theory. It's the application of it that I can't wrap my mind around. If you've got a good application, I'll hear you out.

Not exactly, I am voting for the person I most agree with of the choices that are viable.
Click to expand...

But someone you agree with more might be viable if you voted for him/her. As long as you don't vote for them, they will never be viable.
 
I'd love to see a change in the voting process from First Past the Post to the Alternative Vote. Sadly, the UK voted against going to the Alternative Vote. Otherwise, we'd get to see how it works out in practice.



 
Alternate Vote isn't a perfect system, but obviously its inherently better than FPTP.

FPTP is usually supported by one or two groups who wish to dominate society and see afraid of people having greater choice (Northern Ireland is a case in point - proportional representation was too fair)
 
After the past four years, I have a hard time believing there is such thing as an undecided voter. All that’s left is which party can get enough of their voters off the couch within the next two weeks.
 
I know this thread was created in order to encourage people to 'go vote'..but I'd also like to encourage you to go bet: https://sb.ladbrokes.com/Ladbrokes/...tml?deepLinkCommandName=mainMenu&locale=en_GB

It makes things much more fun. I despised McCain and Obama last election, but bet $250 on Obama a few days before he actually won the D nomination and parlayed to this 2012 election. I have $500 on him this time around. Betting is much more important than voting.
 
Also, if anyone has some good info on who the next arch bishop of Canterbury will be, i'd love to hear it.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Which really highlights the ridiculousness of the archaic confederal nature of the electoral college.
Click to expand...

Yup. There aren't a whole lot of people around who will defend the electoral college. Redoing it would involve re-writing the constitution though and no one has come up with a system that would be significantly better.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Redoing it would involve re-writing the constitution though
Click to expand...
Did you hear that the constitution can... AND HAS (!) been amended, many times in fact.

A.Nonymous said:
no one has come up with a system that would be significantly better.
Click to expand...
Why the hell is this your answer to everything? Such a backwards mindset.

There are obviously better systems that have been came up with, like the ones used in Brazil or France, christ.
 
How does a two-round system work in this country? Either Obama or Romney will get the majority of votes come November. If some 3rd party manages to steal enough so that neither of them gets a majority, then you can be sure that in a second round one or the other will get a majority.
 
A.Nonymous said:
How does a two-round system work in this country? Either Obama or Romney will get the majority of votes come November. If some 3rd party manages to steal enough so that neither of them gets a majority, then you can be sure that in a second round one or the other will get a majority.
Click to expand...
It works as it works anywhere else, 50% or a run off?
So? You are so afraid of fixing things yet never fail to complain about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom