who is getting your vote?

[Spitzered]

One person one vote.

But I'm voting for McCain, not that I agree with everything he says. But because I'm not a socialist. I don't have anything against rich people, I'm not one of them but I wish I was. So I'm not for punitive action, redistribution of wealth. I'm for smaller govt, less federal intrusion, something the repubs have gotten away from. But until the system allows multiparty elections in reality. But neither party wants that.

But no way I can support socialism or Obama who is in the back pocket of moveon.org.
So hate me if you want, pile on ridicule or hate driven drivel. Sorry to all those who wish to silence the opposition to Obama.

 

[Seamaiden]

You've kind of got the idea. Change starts at the roots. Congratulations on your first presidential race! You'll get a sticker and everything.

 

[smoke2jointsindamorning]

Democrat blood is hardly "new blood", though.

In the end they are ALL politicians. I don't know that we can expect much of anything from any of them. Democrat, Republican,or anyone in between. I mean am I going to be disappointed if the candidate I support gets in and does JACK shit that has been promised repeatedly?? First time I've ever gave two shits about this and don't really know what to expect....

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." - Carroll Quigley – Author of Tragedy & Hope and one of Bill Clinton's mentors...

We've been f*cked by the Republicans, we've been f*cked by the Democrats (we've had a Democratic Congress for the past 2 years- any changes? lol..nope) How long will it take before American awakens?

 

[wackymack]

new blood is a great comment,its time for another switch up in office,the write in votes dont mean shit,and the popular vote dont mean shit,all we are doin is voting for someone from senat(or who ever) to go vote for the candidate,and if more people vote for lets say cain and the person who votes(presumed that hes a supporter of mccain) recieves more votes will go vote for cain

we vote to have a supporter to go vote for a president,the majority of the votes for one candidate in a state will determine if one state will give its electoral vote to the cadidate,now that person will need to recieve the majority inorder to be the next leader.

the popular vote does matter,but its not for the president its for who will vote for the leader

so my vote is goin for who will go vote for obama

 

[VTXDave]

I'm for smaller govt...

Then why would you vote for McCain?

 

[Bongulator]

Actually, to be fair, McCain has pushed for deregulation of the financial industry. That's smaller government. But what happens without much of any regulation, when the greedy wolves are left running the henhouse without regulation? Well, watch the news. Lehman, gone. AIG, bailed out. Fannie/Freddie, bailed out. Merrill, gone. Total cost to the taxpayer for just those? Maybe $300 billion, almost 3 years worth of Iraq. And we're nowhere near done. This meltdown could *easily* surpass the total cost of the Iraq war.

After the Great Depression, safeguards were added to regulations to prevent this sort of meltdown. But over the years, proponents of smaller government, especially Republicans, have eroded those safeguards over time with deregulation. And the result? A financial meltdown. Entirely predictable and completely avoidable.

McCain too has pushed for deregulation. His party, by getting rid of our regulations, is responsible for this financial mess, and should be held accountable. I mean, because of what they did, the average taxpayer's gonna be footing a new bill for about $1500, each. Good thing we didn't need to use that money for things like roads and bridges and health care and education and energy research.

The deregulators -- that is, the Republican Party -- need to be held accountable for getting us to the precipice of a second Great Depression. Strong fundamentals? Yeah, sure. McCain is blind to the problems facing this country.

 

[Seamaiden]

McCain was one of the Keating Five. That's a problem, a HUGE PROBLEM, as this man also said to Ron Paul that he didn't know much of anything about the economy or economics. Oh? Then, please explain to us, Senator, just how you ended up being one of the Five???

In the end they are ALL politicians. I don't know that we can expect much of anything from any of them. Democrat, Republican,or anyone in between. I mean am I going to be disappointed if the candidate I support gets in and does JACK shit that has been promised repeatedly?? First time I've ever gave two shits about this and don't really know what to expect....

We're having some kind of forum weirdness again.. I could have sworn I responded to you last night.

Yes, they're all politicians. But, their records are open and public. It takes time, but nowadays not the kind of time it used to in order to learn about a given candidate. And yes, you're going to be disappointed if you vote someone in and they don't do what they promised, but only if you remember that that was why you voted for them. The rest of the people of the United States of Amnesia don't mind so much.

 

[Seamaiden]

new blood is a great comment,its time for another switch up in office,the write in votes dont mean shit,and the popular vote dont mean shit,all we are doin is voting for someone from senat(or who ever) to go vote for the candidate,and if more people vote for lets say cain and the person who votes(presumed that hes a supporter of mccain) recieves more votes will go vote for cain

we vote to have a supporter to go vote for a president,the majority of the votes for one candidate in a state will determine if one state will give its electoral vote to the cadidate,now that person will need to recieve the majority inorder to be the next leader.

the popular vote does matter,but its not for the president its for who will vote for the leader

so my vote is goin for who will go vote for obama

The current electoral process can be difficult to understand (even more difficult to become a delegate!), however, I stand by my statements, the electoral college is still quite necessary, or people in rural, sparsely populated areas (like myself) will be run completely over by people who live in urban areas. Also, were it not for the agreement made between the colonies specifically on the electoral college system, they would never have united as states. Therefore, I personally find that far more difficult to chuck out the window than, say, the IRS, Social Security, or the Department of (Failing) Education.

 

[Bongulator]

Well, I'll give the other perspective. The electoral college served a purpose: back in the day, we couldn't communicate or travel quickly, so indirect democracy was the best we could do. But that's not true anymore. What would have been wrong with Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, being president? Your vote wouldn't count any less, nor any more, than anyone else's vote, whether you live on a farm in the sticks or not. A vote is a vote is a vote.

The fact that the people can vote in one person, but another person gets the job anyway, against the will of the majority -- I have problems accepting that. Is that not the antithesis of democracy? And it need not be that way. Trash the electoral college system and let the will of the people be fully expressed. When the will of the people is suppressed, democracy suffers. Blame the last eight years on the electoral college system overriding the will of the people, to the enormous detriment of the country as a whole. While I'm sure Gore would have made some mistakes, it is hard for me to believe that they would have resulted in anything like the mess in which we find ourselves now. The people were wise, but their wisdom was chucked right out the window by the electoral college system.

 

[Seamaiden]

I call bullshit on that. I live in a California county with maybe 40,000 residents. Just one county over is the 4th LEAST populated county in the entire U.S. (Alpine County, CA). Without more equal representation our votes wouldn't count for shit, we'd be over-run just by the population of a small city! Too many people either don't get that, or don't give a shit because it doesn't affect them, which is REALLY what the electoral college was about, and still is. We still need it as long as there are such disparaties.

We created our own mess but no one's man enough to admit it. People can hardly be bothered to vote, so why would anyone expect them to learn about the issues FIRST? Learn about the candidates from something more than the commercials that use sound bites. Learn from something more than the 2 minute op-ed piece on CNN or Fox or MSNBC. But they can't, they won't, and those who do bother just don't exist in sufficient numbers.

We created our own mess.

 

[Bongulator]

How is it unequal representation for the vote of the person in Alpine County to count equally with all other votes? I guess I'm missing something. If everyone in Alpine County (as an example) had voted for Gore, and that reflected the will of the majority too, but Bush was elected anyway -- that would make the result more fair and democratic for the residents of Alpine County in what way?

If the electoral college serves some purpose *other* than electing the president, well, I'm not against it except in regards to electing the president. The leader the people choose for this country should reflect the will of the majority of the people. Otherwise, you're disenfranchising some votes, making them completely irrelevant. In 2000, that was, what, a million people or more whose votes effectively were erased by the electoral college system. Maybe you don't care if your own vote is erased like that, but I don't think *anybody's* vote should be erased, ever. Regardless of where they live.

 

[Seamaiden]

The majority of the population live in urban centers and surrounding suburban areas. Those people will essentially make the decision for those in rural areas. How is giving those in rural areas a more even chance of being heard disenfranchisement?

Based on everything I've read about the voting issues in Florida (and Ohio, and New Hampshire, just to name a couple) they had more to do with voters being improperly disqualified and votes not being properly counted than anything else. Not that the electoral system was broken.

 

[Bongulator]

Ah, so if you live on the east side of the street your vote counts. Live on the west side of the street, 50 feet away, and your vote is erased. Well, I'm sorry, but I do not think geography should affect the potency of a vote. If you're a citizen, your vote should count just like the vote of any other citizen, at least when electing the president. Obviously, you disagree, and do think that geography should make some votes count, and others not, or some count more than others.

I'm a proponent of the pure form of democracy, the direct kind, where geography (or race, or sex, or sexual preference, or anything else) doesn't affect whether your vote counts or doesn't, because *all* votes would count, and the will of the majority of the people would be expressed in the results. I do not think overriding the will of the majority, based on who lives where, is democratic at all, at least not when electing the president.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[fdd2blk]

*writes in "fdd"*

 

[Spitzered]

Then why would you vote for McCain?

I have to be pragmatic about it, I did state that I did not agree with McCain on all issues. But writing in a vote will be symbolic at best and I have to deal with realities.

Even tho repubs have gotten away for the idea, Dems have never embraced the idea of smaller govt.

But after balancing out the candidates and their parties, dems lose out.
I can't support a party with a nomination process utilized by the dems.
The super duper delegates? A little reminicient of the politburo isn't it? 1/3 of the delegates not elected by anyone except themselves? Reminds me of the Woody Allen movie 'Bananas', "the people are to stupid to lead themselves, I must do it for them.".

If you really really want to change things, it starts at congressmen and senators. In my limited exp with them they only respond to 2 things, money or fear of losing their position. They control the election process, elect those that would change it. Grass Roots and all. Then writing in names of those that are like minded to the voters will really mean something.

And yes I am part of the problem, I don't know how, or have the means or ability to effect these changes. But I would help or join those that do.

 

[Seamaiden]

Ah, so if you live on the east side of the street your vote counts. Live on the west side of the street, 50 feet away, and your vote is erased. Well, I'm sorry, but I do not think geography should affect the potency of a vote. If you're a citizen, your vote should count just like the vote of any other citizen, at least when electing the president. Obviously, you disagree, and do think that geography should make some votes count, and others not, or some count more than others.

I'm a proponent of the pure form of democracy, the direct kind, where geography (or race, or sex, or sexual preference, or anything else) doesn't affect whether your vote counts or doesn't, because *all* votes would count, and the will of the majority of the people would be expressed in the results. I do not think overriding the will of the majority, based on who lives where, is democratic at all, at least not when electing the president.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

And for me, history shows that "pure" democracy equals mob rules. Things never turn out well if it's mob rules.

 

[Seamaiden]

*writes in "fdd"*

Are you born an American citizen?
Are you over 35 years of age?
Have you lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years (I have no idea whether or not they have to be consecutive, I just have to ask these things)?
If you can answer "yes" to all of these questions, you, sir, are qualified to run for POTUS. Congratulations. Now send me your firstborn.

 

[TheBrutalTruth]

Well, I'll give the other perspective. The electoral college served a purpose: back in the day, we couldn't communicate or travel quickly, so indirect democracy was the best we could do. But that's not true anymore. What would have been wrong with Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, being president? Your vote wouldn't count any less, nor any more, than anyone else's vote, whether you live on a farm in the sticks or not. A vote is a vote is a vote.

The fact that the people can vote in one person, but another person gets the job anyway, against the will of the majority -- I have problems accepting that. Is that not the antithesis of democracy? And it need not be that way. Trash the electoral college system and let the will of the people be fully expressed. When the will of the people is suppressed, democracy suffers. Blame the last eight years on the electoral college system overriding the will of the people, to the enormous detriment of the country as a whole. While I'm sure Gore would have made some mistakes, it is hard for me to believe that they would have resulted in anything like the mess in which we find ourselves now. The people were wise, but their wisdom was chucked right out the window by the electoral college system.

Still believing in that stupid World's Greatest Democracy thing, huh?

The idea behind the electoral college (and the Senate) was that it would not allow the most populous states to ride over the rights of the smaller states.

Though the Electoral College has been screwed up by the fact that it is now a "winner take all" system in many states.

The system was not meant to create a mobocracy, but to form a system where individuals were elected to vote on the candidate that their fellow residents had chosen.

Which means any state that has a winner take all system is effectively allowing urban centers to dictate to rural populations, and essentially making it so that their vote is marginalized and minimalized.

Good examples of this are New Mexico (largely rural, with just Albuquerque and Santa Fe worthy of being on the map.) Popular vote in the two districts outside of Albuquerque was largely Republican. Popular vote in Albuquerque went to the Democrats, thus popular vote was for Democrats, but the state would have had 2 representative electoral votes for Bush, and 3 for Kerry, not 5 for Kerry.

Thus two districts were essentially told that their vote was worthless.

The reason the electoral college was created was to ensure that everyone's vote was actually counted, not to allow the "majority" to dictate to the minority.

 

[ViRedd]

I was thinking that voting for Ron Paul will be taking votes away from McCain/Palin. But, on further reflection, it occured to me that on the other side, lots of disgruntled voters will be writing Hillary in on their ballots. That brings it back up to even.

Vi