page two of NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS

11/2/2012 8:38:03 AM

suspend this dude because we sure as fuck can't fix this bug in TWW

11/2/2012 8:38:20 AM

Quote :

"You people who voted for Johnson...why? You know he's not going to win. You hate both real candidates so much that you waste your vote?"

I don't ever see the logic in the fact that 3rd party is a wasted vote. I get to vote once every 4 years for the President of our country and I'm supposed to vote for someone who I don't really like and isn't even my favorite of the options available to me (ignoring write-in where you could argue everyone is an option)? yeah right.

What a boring life I'd lead if I always settled for the lesser of two evils or settled for the safe options when other options were available.

11/2/2012 8:48:14 AM

but... you're essentially casting a vote for the major party candidate that you agree with least

it just shows a lack of understanding of the two party system

11/2/2012 8:57:47 AM

11/2/2012 9:01:29 AM

I see nothing wrong with people voting third party and do not consider it "throwing away" a vote. This country is not about pressuring people to vote one way or another even if the media and politicians would like you to think it is. When you leave the voting booth you should feel like you voted for the person that YOU thought would best run the country--not the "lesser of two evils" between Republicans and Democrats. This is the point of democracy.

11/2/2012 9:07:11 AM

^I can agree with that, but I also think everyone needs to go into the polls with that attitude, and honestly, I don't see that happening. If I thought a 3rd party candidate could possibly even pull 10-15% of the vote, I would consider voting for him if (s)he were my preferred candidate, but until I think that will happen, I will put my vote in for the person that I think will do the most for the country and actually has a chance at winning.

11/2/2012 9:16:37 AM

Valid point when considering the fact that people don't think that way. But I maintain that it's a self perpetuating phenomenon. People need to just tighten up and man up.

11/2/2012 9:18:37 AM

the ONLY purpose in voting for a third-party candidate is to deprive the most closely aligned of the two major parties a vote

for example, you have:

gary johnson - libertarian party
jill stein - green party
rocky anderson - justice party
virgil goode - constitution party

a vote for the last two is a vote against the republicans...a vote for the green is a vote against democrats, and i'd say a vote for libertarian is a vote against both (though still moreso against the republicans)

anyone with a shade of common sense realizes that not a single one of those people are going to be elected president...they are nobodies

so unless you are specifically voting to deprive one (or both) of the two main parties a vote, you ARE throwing away your vote

11/2/2012 9:24:29 AM

Quote :

" You people who voted for Johnson...why? You know he's not going to win. You hate both real candidates so much that you waste your vote? "

This argument right here is exactly why we're doomed to perpetuate this circus until it is so far removed from legitimacy that the election process itself is nothing more than a colorful pony show for the sake of tradition.

[Edited on November 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM. Reason : ]

11/2/2012 9:38:14 AM

Quote :

"This argument right here is exactly why we're doomed to perpetuate this circus until it is so far removed from legitimacy that the election process itself is nothing more than a colorful pony show for the sake of tradition."

i disagree

first, we NEED campaign reform, the abolition of the electoral college, and a whole slew of reorganization to allow for "fairer" elections...i would argue that while most folks ARE affected by the barrage of ads on TV, they do still MOSTLY agree with the candidate they're voting for...the unfairness lies in the lack of exposure and inclusion that third party candidates receive...aside from random signs around town, most people have never heard of gary johnson

second, a candidate should not win with less than 51% of the popular vote (none of this electoral college bullshit)...the more candidates there are, the harder that becomes...if you have even 3 or 4 candidates with equal exposure who could (arguably) fall into the republican or democrat party (with the exception of some minor platform differences), you're going to get a fragmentation of support that may leave us without a clear winner...and then we all lose

11/2/2012 9:55:56 AM

The people telling you not to vote for a 3rd party are only concerned that their team is going to lose.

11/2/2012 10:14:26 AM

I would argue that a very large percentage of voters have no idea who they're voting for and don't really know whether they agree with their chosen candidate at all beyond a few issues highlighted on TV. These are the people that did their research by watching those "debates" and listening to major news outlets, of course influenced by the similarly-formed opinions of their friends and family.

This isn't likely to change for the majority of voters so the only way to get media coverage of other candidates is for Americans to demonstrate significant interest thereof. It's not something that's likely to change next few elections but over time this notion of D v R in American politics could be eroded.

I do wholly agree with your second point, but I don't see the harm in holding subsequent elections after others are eliminated to achieve that goal. We're choosing the president, for Christ's sake, maybe we should take that seriously. I realize that is loosely akin to what happens now, without the actual first election stage(s), but with the key difference that no one actually got a chance to vote for the best contenders (beyond partisan primaries). If we had that initial spread in viable candidates, instead of letting potentially good candidates get eliminated at the party level or crazy shit like Ron Paul running for the R nomination, perhaps the walking farces that are Romney and Obama wouldn't be our only options.

Sorry for the terrible thought flow here but I'm highly distracted atm

11/2/2012 10:25:53 AM

Voted for Romney. Romney will win.

11/2/2012 10:31:28 AM

Make all the candidates debate up front in several televised group, regular season debates set in their designated region of the country. Then in March of election year, everyone goes to vote at the end of the regular season and ranks their top 8 national candidates regardless of party. On Selection Sunday, the top 8 candidates will be revealed based on points from everyone's rankings with respective seeds of 1-8. In years where an incumbent is eligible to run again, you are automatically required to rank them somewhere 1-8.

The elite 8 and the semi-finals each consist of 2 months worth of campaigning and debates for the paired candidates. In the final debate of each round, the higher seeded candidate of the pair gets the closing statement. Voters choose who goes on to the next round by national popular vote.

For the finals, we have 4 months of campaigning and debates between the 2 remaining candidates until election day.

/notserious

11/2/2012 10:50:52 AM

yeah, yeah...jerk.

11/2/2012 10:59:15 AM

I'm just kidding

I'm voting 3rd party and agree with your overall sentiment.

11/2/2012 11:00:19 AM

I voted mostly Republican for the first time in my life, but I did vote for Obama/Biden.

Winner: Obama/Biden

11/2/2012 11:03:13 AM

Quote :

"I would argue that a very large percentage of voters have no idea who they're voting for and don't really know whether they agree with their chosen candidate at all beyond a few issues highlighted on TV. These are the people that did their research by watching those "debates" and listening to major news outlets, of course influenced by the similarly-formed opinions of their friends and family."

but that's exactly my point regarding the two-party system...most people DO know who they're voting for in regards to what matters to THEM

i could know virtually nothing about obama, but know that i disagree almost 100% with republican social values...i don't need to know the details of obama's stances on minor issues to know that republicans endorse and support religious values that i find offensive and inappropriate in a government official (especially the president)

so why does the average american need to know their candidate inside and out? they don't...because only the naive believe that 1.) additional candidates would suddenly make people start researching the candidates in depth, or 2.) that there will be such staggering differences between more than 3 or 4 candidates that it will make a difference

i can see a 3rd candidate being the compromise between those on the left and the right (ie. someone like a libertarian who supports gay marriage and believes in small government at the same time)...and yes, we have that option now

but at this point in time, when the majority of the country votes on tuesday, it is an utterly wasted vote to support any third party options...perhaps in the future this won't be the case, but i'm talking about THIS election

also, as noted several times before...the fucking electoral college is retarded and utterly useless and THAT alone is why you shouldn't bother wasting your vote on a third party because truly, it matter not even a little bit (even if it gives you warm fuzzies to think it does)

i don't know enough election history to know if perot is the third-party candidate to receive the largest percentage of the popular vote or not...but if gary johnson can beat his ~19%, maybe that will help effect change

11/2/2012 1:23:51 PM

I would love to be able to vote for a strong 3rd party. But there's not one 3rd party candidate who's coming off strong.

Until there is major reform and we dump the 2 party system, I still maintain that a vote for a 3rd party candidate right now is a wasted vote. Pick the candiate from the 2 major parties that you're most aligned with, and hope they win, and help them win.

11/2/2012 1:34:44 PM

I don't think I'll vote

11/2/2012 1:52:54 PM

^ if you're only going to vote for a third-party (and no other offices at all), you might as well not

11/2/2012 2:04:53 PM

11/2/2012 2:08:24 PM

Quote :

"You people who voted for Johnson...why? You know he's not going to win. You hate both real candidates so much that you waste your vote?""

aww... looks like somebody is more concerned with being on the winning team than actually voting their conscience

congratulations: you're part of the problem.

[Edited on November 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2012 2:12:13 PM

i have never met a person so unashamedly vocal in their retarded conspiracy theories as GeniuSxBoY

11/2/2012 2:13:51 PM

Quote :

"ooks like somebody is more concerned with being on the winning team than actually voting their conscience"

Actually, he did vote his ignorant conscience rather that voting on an educated and wise choice that would best lead the country.

Quote :

"i have never met a person so unashamedly vocal in their retarded conspiracy theories as GeniuSxBoY "

Which I could say the same but I've met 100,000s of sheep like you.

11/2/2012 2:16:23 PM

Quote :

"The people telling you not to vote for a 3rd party are only concerned that their team is going to lose."

11/2/2012 2:23:38 PM

step 1) voting reform
step 2) voting your conscience

This system doesn't provide an incentive for voting your conscience. The fault doesn't lie with the voters, it lies with a voting system that has fucked up incentives. We need a system that doesn't encourage strategic voting that inevitably leads to 2-parties; blaming voters themselves is tantamount to expecting them to throw away elections for very doubtful gain.

11/2/2012 2:30:02 PM

What candidate can i vote for who is likely to enact legislation to allow for voter reform

Im krallum and i approvedthis message

11/2/2012 2:32:16 PM

no single candidate can/will do it

i don't know the details, but things like the electoral college (which is a component of voting reform), would require a constitutional amendment (and therefore a 2/3 congressional majority...so yeah, not gonna happen)

even if nothing else requires an amendment (though i suspect that's the case), there would need to be strong bi-partisan support...and they're certainly not going to work to make it harder for them to get elected

tl;dr - not gonna happen

11/2/2012 2:45:07 PM

^^None now.


The vote really doesn't count in every meaning of the word. You cannot change the system through voting any longer, they have completely decimated the republic part of the voting process in the last National Convention by not adhering to rules they had in place and adding new ones without consent of the delegates.

Nothing short of a revolution can save us now.

11/2/2012 2:45:52 PM

you are one dumb motherfucker

a vote for one of the big two matters at least some as it is a SUGGESTION to the electoral college on how to vote...and if the electoral delegates don't vote as they're "supposed" to, they'd be dropped and replaced by someone who would

so yeah, despite your dumbshit belief that the election is "rigged" and the winner has been predetermined, a vote for mitt or obama matters

your vote for ANYONE else matters not one iota because they'll just ignore you

11/2/2012 2:48:06 PM

Tell me about your thoughts on contributors quagmire

Im krallum and i approved this message

11/2/2012 2:51:31 PM

Quote :

"This system doesn't provide an incentive for voting your conscience. "

Fuck your incentive, voting is about exercising your right to determine how your future turns out. All of you retards who have this shit stuck in your heads are the ones perpetuating this bullshit.

There's no telling how many of you assholes are out there going "well I'd vote for Penis McGee but he won't win so I'll just vote for Cunty Willkinsonian." You're throwing your vote away if you aren't voting for the guy YOU think is BEST qualified to run this country. And more importantly, all of you assholes calling for voting reform probably don't even vote in your local elections which are the ones that TRULY MATTER when it comes to effecting immediate change in your life.

Get over this whiny, entitled mentality. Vote locally for personal issues you really care about and vote nationally for national sovereignty, defense and civil rights issues. And no matter how you vote, do so voting for the one YOU feel is best to be in office.

11/2/2012 2:59:09 PM

Quote :

"You're throwing your vote away if you aren't voting for the guy YOU think is BEST qualified to run this country."

here's where we differ, kid...i recognize that the one best QUALIFIED to run the country is the one with actual resources behind him

Quote :

"And more importantly, all of you assholes calling for voting reform probably don't even vote in your local elections which are the ones that TRULY MATTER when it comes to effecting immediate change in your life."

i'll bet that's 96.27% untrue...i'll bet the majority of us who understand why voting reform is necessary do indeed vote in local elections

go back to your corner with your gary johnson sign and prepare for tuesday when you'll realize, yet again, that your vote means exactly piss

[Edited on November 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2012 3:02:48 PM

I'll be getting slightly off topic here, but mr. geniusxboy - if you want to call me ignorant, then list out Gary Johnson's platform with your next post. With a straight face.

11/2/2012 3:26:19 PM

I hear so many people say that they would vote for a 3rd party candidate if they thought there was a chance of them winning. If all these voters actually voted their conscious instead of being swindled into the two party mindset, we would see some real change.

Our countries problems are so much bigger than who our president is. Continuing to vote the same way over and over again is the definition of insanity.

11/2/2012 3:39:56 PM

Quote :

"sheep like you."

11/2/2012 3:42:48 PM

Quote :

"I'll be getting slightly off topic here, but mr. geniusxboy - if you want to call me ignorant, then list out Gary Johnson's platform with your next post. With a straight face."

I was talking to quagmire.

I know Gary Johnson's platform like the back of my hand.


His platform is to balance the budget right now, end the war on drugs, repeal the NDAA, repeal Obamacare, audit and end the fed, audit the CIA, and restore liberty to the union.

11/2/2012 3:44:01 PM

What's the goal here exactly? I can see 2 possibilities only:
(1) you actually manage to sweep some 3rd party into power which can manage to reform the voting system BEFORE the system collapses back into 2 parties
(2) you manage to pull the "punished" party (whichever of the 2 parties your vote would have "defaulted" to) in your direction for the *next* election

Which of these are you envisioning, exactly, as the likely payoff for going third party? I'm not clear on what consequences are being aimed or hoped for in acting this way

11/2/2012 3:48:38 PM

probably none of that shit

it's just a juvenile emotional act

11/2/2012 3:49:49 PM

^ exactly...which is made more obvious by the the claim that gary johnson will:

Quote :

"restore liberty to the union"

11/2/2012 4:01:51 PM

11/2/2012 4:08:18 PM

Well it's clearly possible that people vote 3rd party (and act indignant or arrogant about it) because they view voting as some sort of act of personal identification ... like a style or consumer choice of a sort

Assuming people vote in order to accomplish things, what's the intended goal of the principled 3rd party voter?

11/2/2012 4:09:03 PM

Quote :

"Assuming people vote in order to accomplish things, what's the intended goal of the principled 3rd party voter?"

Ideally, GJ would get enough votes for the libertarian party to be included in debates during the next election. This third party would be potentially disruptive to the two party paradigm, bringing new issues into the discussion.

11/2/2012 5:06:51 PM

Quote :

"go back to your corner with your gary johnson sign and prepare for tuesday when you'll realize, yet again, that your vote means exactly piss"

I'm definitely not voting for Gary Johnson. I'm simply defending people's right to vote without being belittled for ignorant reasons.

Quote :

"i recognize that the one best QUALIFIED to run the country is the one with actual resources behind him"

i see what you mean here, but i think you're confusing "qualified" with "supported." honey boo boo has a lot of resources behind her but isn't qualified to do shit. again, if that's your reasoning behind voting you're just playing into the machine

[Edited on November 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM. Reason : jank]

11/2/2012 5:35:02 PM

11/2/2012 8:11:26 PM

Quote :

"Assuming people vote in order to accomplish things, what's the intended goal of the principled 3rd party voter?"

to show support for third parties. what if no one voted for the green or libertarian parties? how seriously would they be taken? (not to say they are taken seriously anyways)

[Edited on November 2, 2012 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2012 8:19:00 PM

Quote :

"to show support for third parties. what if no one voted for the green or libertarian parties? how seriously would they be taken? (not to say they are taken seriously anyways)"

exactly as seriously as they're taken in our current system (not seriously)

I love the notion that we can somehow buck the system (throwing away ground to the polar opposition) long enough for it to fundamentally change itself. If we managed to break into 3 parties we'd slide back to 2 in no time. This is why reform has to be discussed first and foremost; winner takes all isn't cutting it. Throwing away ground to your polar opposition isn't going to change that, even for a second.

11/4/2012 5:52:31 PM

quagmire02, Perot has indeed received more of the popular vote than any other third-place Presidential candidate since the two current major parties have existed (1856), although because his support was diffuse, rather than concentrated like Thurmond's Dixiecrats or Wallace's American Independent Party, he didn't get any electoral votes.

FTR, if I didn't live in a swing state, I'd vote for Anderson, Stein, or Johnson, depending on who was on the ballot, mainly to help improve their numbers for future debate access or something; more generally I am with McDanger in recognizing the need for reform of the current SMDP system, which ensures that no more than two political parties can be viable in a given area.

[Edited on November 4, 2012 at 6:09 PM. Reason : When I lived in Indiana, I voted for the Libertarian, but I am more liberal now.

11/4/2012 6:08:55 PM