What your ballot should look like come November.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

voting is participating in a crime? there are other people you could vote for. or just vote for yourself if you are so self righteous.

voting does accomplish slighty more than nonvoting. maybe only a little, but it does.

farfromglorified

MrSmith wrote:

voting is participating in a crime?

That all depends on what you're voting for.

there are other people you could vote for. or just vote for yourself if you are so self righteous.

I am self-righteous! Self-righteous to the point that I'd have no interest in holding that job.

voting does accomplish slighty more than nonvoting. maybe only a little, but it does.

What does it accomplish?

ledvedderman

farfromglorified wrote:

"Showing balls" would be to reject my right to put you in that situation to begin with and to refuse to participate in my crimes.



I have no interest in using this process to "do anything" for me. Regardless, handing over an empty ballot won't do anything for me either.

Agree to disagree. You are clearly upset w/ the system, but the system will not do anything w/ you staying at home pouting about how terrible it is.

farfromglorified

ledvedderman wrote:

Agree to disagree.

Ok.

You are clearly upset w/ the system but the system will not do anything w/ you staying at home pouting about how terrible it is.

Hehe...going to a polling place and pouting about it there won't do anything either.

ledvedderman

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok.



Hehe...going to a polling place and pouting about it there won't do anything either.

Who said anything about pouting in a polling place? At least by voting you would be stating that you care about the process no matter how fucked up you think it is now.

farfromglorified

ledvedderman wrote:

Who said anything about pouting in a polling place? At least by voting you would be stating that you care about the process no matter how fucked up you think it is now.

Voting would be stating that I approve of a candidate. I do not approve of a candidate. You seem to be implying that I should vote for the least evil candidate and, ironically, insisting that such an action would send a "message". The only message that action would send is one of approval of the system, the participants, and the motives and morals of those involved. That would be the exact opposite of what I believe.

ledvedderman

farfromglorified wrote:

Voting would be stating that I approve of a candidate. I do not approve of a candidate. You seem to be implying that I should vote for the least evil candidate and, ironically, insisting that such an action would send a "message". The only message that action would send is one of approval of the system, the participants, and the motives and morals of those involved. That would be the exact opposite of what I believe.

Where the hell did I try and get you to vote for anyone? I told you to pull a ballot and turn it in w/o voting for anyone.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

or vote third party

farfromglorified

ledvedderman wrote:

Where the hell did I try and get you to vote for anyone? I told you to pull a ballot and turn it in w/o voting for anyone.

Ok. What would that accomplish? What "message" would that send, who would receive it, and what action would they take?

farfromglorified

MrSmith wrote:

or vote third party

I've done that. All that has happened in response is the two dominant parties have moved closer to a corrupt center. So why should I even bother compromising my principles again and voting for a lousy third party?

ledvedderman

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok. What would that accomplish? What "message" would that send, who would receive it, and what action would they take?

You don't think political committees look at "total ballots cast" numbers and the number of total votes for each candidate? They look at those very closely. If enough people skip a portion of the ballot they will catch on and see that the people aren't happy with that type of candidate. Send the message that you don't like either. Refusing to vote because your unhappy would just give the parties a "fuck them" attitude. Why would they change if you're not even going to turn out to vote to tell them you are unhappy.

That's the point.

farfromglorified

ledvedderman wrote:

You don't think political committees look at "total ballots cast" numbers and the number of total votes for each candidate? They look at those very closely. If enough people skip a portion of the ballot they will catch on and see that the people aren't happy with that type of candidate. Send the message that you don't like either. Refusing to vote because your unhappy would just give the parties a "fuck them" attitude. Why would they change if you're not even going to turn out to vote to tell them you are unhappy.

That's the point.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Millions of people have done this and absolutely nothing seems to have changed. Less than 25% of this country elected our current president.

That said, I think your post above is theoretically correct. It would send a "fuck you" message. However, your logical extension, that anyone would care or notice, is way off.

ledvedderman

farfromglorified wrote:

Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Millions of people have done this and absolutely nothing seems to have changed. Less than 25% of this country elected our current president.

That said, I think your post above is theoretically correct. It would send a "fuck you" message. However, your logical extension, that anyone would care or notice, is way off.

Yes. I have first hand evidence. First hand experience. My county chairman had me go through precint results in 2004 to look for trends just like this. It gives him an idea where certain candidates fly in areas and where they don't. He keeps stuff like this in mind for the next election cycle.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

farfromglorified wrote:

Less than 25% of this country elected our current president.

That said, I think your post above is theoretically correct. It would send a "fuck you" message. However, your logical extension, that anyone would care or notice, is way off.

because the rest (that didnt vote against him) stayed home! those millions of people weren't voicing their opinion, they just stayed home. thats not the same thing.

you can't find any 3rd party candidate to vote for that wouldnt compromise your principles? what the hell are your principles? does a candidate have to match your principles 100% to get your vote? jesus, and you wonder why you cant change things. extremism is easy.

farfromglorified

ledvedderman wrote:

Yes. I have first hand evidence. First hand experience. My county chairman had me go through precint results in 2004 to look for trends just like this. It gives him an idea where certain candidates fly in areas and where they don't. He keeps stuff like this in mind for the next election cycle.

That's great. However, there's a fundamental flaw. You have no idea why those people handed in a blank ballot. So beyond "keeing stuff like this in mind", what on earth could it accomplish?

All is seems to do is make the candidates fight harder to bamboozle the remaining few who do, for whatever reason, keep electing them.

norm

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

ledvedderman

farfromglorified wrote:

That's great. However, there's a fundamental flaw. You have no idea why those people handed in a blank ballot. So beyond "keeing stuff like this in mind", what on earth could it accomplish?

All is seems to do is make the candidates fight harder to bamboozle the remaining few who do, for whatever reason, keep electing them.

I guess we always took it as the vast majority of people who skip voting on a certain part of the ballot are not pleased with either candidate. I'm sure there are times when people just forget, but the vast majority are people who do not like the candidates.

farfromglorified

MrSmith wrote:

because the rest (that didnt vote against him) stayed home! those millions of people weren't voicing their opinion, they just stayed home. thats not the same thing.

Some stayed home. Some cast blank ballots. Some voted for third parties. Nothing changed.

you can't find any 3rd party candidate to vote for that wouldnt compromise your principles?

No.

what the hell are your principles?

Primarily, I don't believe I have the right to tell you what to do, just because it would make my life easier. I don't believe I have the right to drop a bomb on your house, just because your ideas scare me. I don't believe I have a right to steal your property, just because I don't take care of my own.

does a candidate have to match your principles 100% to get your vote?

No. 50% would be nice.

jesus, and you wonder why you cant change things.

Funny you mention that. I often wonder the same thing about those who go out and vote for dominant candidates.

extremism is easy.

Not really. Shameless compromise is easy. Political cheerleading is easy. Finding principles and sticking to them is hard work. It doesn't make you correct, necessarily, but it isn't easy.

farfromglorified

ledvedderman wrote:

I guess we always took it as the vast majority of people who skip voting on a certain part of the ballot are not pleased with either candidate. I'm sure there are times when people just forget, but the vast majority are people who do not like the candidates.

Yet the candidates do not change, so this "knowledge" doesn't seem to accomplish much.

the wolf

ledvedderman wrote:

Republican:
John McCain (President)
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (Vice President)

Democrat:
Barack Obama (President)
Senator Jim Webb (Vice President)

I'd be happy w/ Richardson, Biden, or Edwards though...

man, i really liked Joe Biden, and Edwards. im not digging the choices now.