Jump to content

The 2008 MVPMods election


MarkB

Who would you vote for?  

64 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • John McCain
      20
    • Barack Obama
      44


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Why bother? Anyone voting for a third party candidate is wasting their time. Like it or not, Duverger's law remains true.

Um yeah that bs. Id rather die than submit to the bs candidates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up above, rolie. :)

I considered adding an "Other" vote, but, let's face it, as Sean said, the election is between Obama and McCain. If someone from a minority party wins the election, I'll eat my hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people will be first time voters, in real life, for this election? This is my first election that I'll be able to vote in.

Not me and the worst part about being registered to vote is being picked for Jury Duty every year :wall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people will be first time voters, in real life, for this election? This is my first election that I'll be able to vote in.

Next election will be my first.

Go figure I'm one year behind being 18. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any color you like as long as it's black. I get it.

Not at all - I don't give a damn if the winner of the election is black, white, brown, yellow or purple. I want what's best for the American people and the world as a whole - hell, I live in Scotland, I don't even have a vote, so what I want has absolutely no bearing on anything to do with the election. Considering the forum we're on, I'm probably about as impartial as it gets - I have little to nothing to gain in the short term, or even in the long term, by one person winning the election over another.

My point stands though - I don't think anyone from a minority party will win the election. Do you honestly believe someone from the Green party has a chance against the behemoth Democrat and Republican (listed in alphabetic order, just to quash any conspiracy theories before they get started) parties in this election, despite all the opinion polls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely realize that another party isn't going to win.

That's not the point though. Here's big easy to understand/read bold letters:

A DEMOCRACY SHOULDN'T BE RUN BY CORPORATIONS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely realize that another party isn't going to win.

That's not the point though. Here's big easy to understand/read bold letters:

A DEMOCRACY SHOULDN'T BE RUN BY CORPORATIONS

I'm not going to disagree with that at all - but how is that related to your original comment of "Any color you like as long as it's black. I get it.", which is what I was responding to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was registered to vote, it'd be Obama...But, I'm not registered and this will be the 2nd one I'd be eligible for...I don't vote, because that way I don't have anything to complain about if the person I want doesn't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted in the Dole v. Clinton election, Bush v. Gore, Busk v. Kerry and now Obama v. McCain...

Simple choice, bring em home, protect my limited assets, quit pissing off the rest of the world, do not deny people rights... Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bother? Anyone voting for a third party candidate is wasting their time. Like it or not, Duverger's law remains true.

That's not true at all. A third party candidate can decide who becomes president. Just say the third party candidate receives 3 electoral votes, he can release his votes to either primary candidate if he choses to do so.

Just another reason why the election should be based on popular vote and not the electoral college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true at all. A third party candidate can decide who becomes president. Just say the third party candidate receives 3 electoral votes, he can release his votes to either primary candidate if he choses to do so.

Just another reason why the election should be based on popular vote and not the electoral college.

Instead of simply voting for one of the candidates with a chance to win, you're voting for someone who will then vote for one of the candidates with a chance to win?

So the best case scenario with voting for a 3rd party is that you are delegating to whom your vote will eventually go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of simply voting for one of the candidates with a chance to win, you're voting for someone who will then vote for one of the candidates with a chance to win?

So the best case scenario with voting for a 3rd party is that you are delegating to whom your vote will eventually go?

Pretty much, but any popular ideas that this candidate has that catches the attention of the public can be used by a primary candidate to use support for his own campaign.

For example: Just say both primary candidates do not support the idea of cutting down pollution, but the 3rd party candidate supports it. If people show interest in the 3rd party candidate for this reason, the primary candidates can adopt this idea to attract more attention to themselves, therefor helping to get votes.

The third party candidate doesn't have to release his votes though. He can just keep them.

The electoral college in general is a waste, ruining the statement one vote makes a difference. If you live in NY and , if you are a republican, there isn't even a reason to vote because all the electoral votes will 99% of the time go to the democratic party.

The whole reason for the electoral college was thought of in the early years of this country because it was thought, and fact, that the average man knew nothing about the election or the candidate running.

Now with every news channel giving nightly reports on the candidates, debates, and other resources, the average person knows a whole lot about the candidates.

That's why there should be an amendment passed, making the popular vote count and ruling out the electoral votes.

In 2000, George Bush received less votes than Al Gore, but because Bush had more electoral votes than Gore, he won.

So basically, even though one candidate may be more popular than another, receiving more votes than another, they will lose just because the other won states with more electoral votes.

Ever heard of the phrase "12 states to win""?

Well, sorry for going off topic there.

If I could vote, it would be for Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true at all. A third party candidate can decide who becomes president. Just say the third party candidate receives 3 electoral votes, he can release his votes to either primary candidate if he choses to do so.

Just another reason why the election should be based on popular vote and not the electoral college.

Just what state do you think a 3rd party candidate will win?

Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 and ZERO electoral votes

But you are wrong about the 3rd party candidate releasing his/her electoral votes and picking the President , the Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives picks the president if no candidate wins 270 electoral votes (via state delegation), while the Senate picks the vice president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true at all. A third party candidate can decide who becomes president. Just say the third party candidate receives 3 electoral votes, he can release his votes to either primary candidate if he choses to do so.

Just another reason why the election should be based on popular vote and not the electoral college.

Only person since 1948 has won a state while running as a 3rd party candidate, George Wallace in 1968. In this election I can't see anyone winning a state to be honest because the focus has been so much on these two candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...