Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jimmy Leeds

Presidential Election Poll

Presidential Election/Unscientific Poll   41 votes

  1. 1. For those eligible, who are you voting for in November?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

175 posts in this topic

Just curious how we are standing on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other. They are both way too similar and I disagree with both of them way too much. They are all rhetoric and no substance. I'm going with Gary Johnson (Libertarian) or Jill Stein (Green), haven't really decided yet.

Edited by devilsfan26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be funny coming from me, but hopefully this doesn't spin out of control. Cool resons why you are supporting a particular candidate is as always welcomed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other

I disagree with the two main party candidates too much. Now, I may change my mind as it gets closer as I do realize I am throwing my vote away to send a message.

My ideal platform would be:

Pro-choice, complete rejection of religious influence, voter ID but pro-immigration, not pro-union, smaller government, measured health care reform, flat tax, pull majority of troops from ME, pro-nuclear power, increased NASA funding, no bailouts, true campaign reform including term limits, and pro gay marriage. Phew, that's a lot but probably left out a campaign hot button in there somewhere. Oh, I'd be open to legalizing pot, I'm on the fence on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other

I disagree with the two main party candidates too much. Now, I may change my mind as it gets closer as I do realize I am throwing my vote away to send a message.

My ideal platform would be:

Pro-choice, complete rejection of religious influence, voter ID but pro-immigration, not pro-union, smaller government, measured health care reform, flat tax, pull majority of troops from ME, pro-nuclear power, increased NASA funding, no bailouts, true campaign reform including term limits, and pro gay marriage. Phew, that's a lot but probably left out a campaign hot button in there somewhere. Oh, I'd be open to legalizing pot, I'm on the fence on that one.

I agree with your platform to a tee with absolutely no changes except I'm 100% for legalization of marijuana.

I'm with you on the throwing away the vote part which is why I choose Obama, however, considering it's NJ and its almost impossible for Romney to win this state, I very may well pull the lever for Stein or even Johnson when the time comes depending on how the final 6-7 weeks of the campaign go. As of now, I can't bring myself to do that and despite my definite differences with the way Obama has governed in many respects, my vote is going to him as Romney is less closer to my beliefs.

My hope is that Jesse Ventura runs in 2016. I've never done it, but I would absolutely consider campaigning for that man. 150 years of Republican and Democrat dominance is enough. They won't lose it this year though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hope is that Jesse Ventura runs in 2016. I've never done it, but I would absolutely consider campaigning for that man. 150 years of Republican and Democrat dominance is enough. They won't lose it this year though.

Ventura thinks the Twin Towers were brought down by the US gov't through painted Thermite on the walls and that HAARP may have caused the tsunami in Japan. Just those alone are pretty outside the main stream and, for me, pretty nutty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other

I disagree with the two main party candidates too much. Now, I may change my mind as it gets closer as I do realize I am throwing my vote away to send a message.

My ideal platform would be:

Pro-choice, complete rejection of religious influence, voter ID but pro-immigration, not pro-union, smaller government, measured health care reform, flat tax, pull majority of troops from ME, pro-nuclear power, increased NASA funding, no bailouts, true campaign reform including term limits, and pro gay marriage. Phew, that's a lot but probably left out a campaign hot button in there somewhere. Oh, I'd be open to legalizing pot, I'm on the fence on that one.

I don't consider it throwing my vote away at all. I'm not trying to send a message, I'm voting for who I think would be the best president. I haven't decided who that is but I figured out pretty quickly that it's not Obama or Romney. I think voting for Obama or Romney is throwing your vote away because it's just another vote for the same old bullsh!t that we've been dealing with already.

Whether your vote is for Obama or Romney, it's a vote for more senseless wars that are very costly in dollars as well as lives of troops and civilians.

It's a vote for more government spying on American citizens i.e. Patriot Act, SOPA/PIPA, TrapWire, Stellar Wind.

It's a vote for more erosion of our civil liberties as evidenced by the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA (which Obama said he wouldn't sign, and then he signed but said he wouldn't use, and then appealed multiple times when judges declared it unconstitutional).

It's a vote for more control of our country by corporations and special interests and less control by citizens of our own government.

It's a vote for more dependence on foreign oil and no progress toward clean alternative energy.

It's a vote for further increasing the national deficit.

It's a vote to continue the ineffective and costly war on drugs.

It's a vote for the Federal Reserve continuing to devaluing the dollar.

It's a vote for NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership which result in job outsourcing and more unemployment.

It's a vote for more bailouts and corporate subsidies and tax loopholes, passing the tax burden onto us.

It's a vote for allowing banks that are too big to fail to remain too big to fail.

It's a vote to uphold the Electoral College and keep us from directly electing our presidents.

It's a vote for more unopposed elections for mayor, town council, and Congress by upholding strict ballot access laws and the lack of term limits.

It's a vote for further shutting out anyone who is considered a threat to the Democrat/Republican duopoly.

I don't care how unlikely it is that Stein or Johnson actually get elected, I'm not supporting any candidate that embodies those stances.

Edited by devilsfan26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask those here a question since Marijuana legalization was brought up. Why is it that so many people I talk to or come across would support or at least open to legalizing marijuana, but can still be so rigid when I bring up full drug legalization? I don't see how anyone can look at the argument to legalize one drug and not say that makes perfect sense for every other drug too. It truly baffles me because people will constantly bring up in the support of pot legalization about individual rights and how you should be able to do whatever you want to your own body, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

Yet then when you say, ok, what about if it was cocaine, heroin, meth? Then they turn and the diarrhea of the mouth starts flowing where they say, well, that's different because it's bad. Ok, how is it different, how is it bad? Drugs don't kill people, for the most part, usually it's unknown dosages and contaminants that do that, so it's something that is eliminated when the black market is gone. What about drug addicts are bad people that steal stuff. Ok, what if the drugs were cheap and being caught with them didn't equal a felony conviction? Then you wouldn't have people who can't find a job just because they've used drugs and c'mon, do you ever see people rob their neighbors for money to buy alcohol at the liqour store next door? No.

Anyways, before I start going on too long, I'm curious what your guys' thoughts on the matter are and why you feel pot should be legal, but not other drugs or if you agree with me, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

But it always has. One of the earliest causes to politically organize women in this country was not female suffrage, but alcohol temperance because of abusive men, husbands, etc. People who use drugs have always hurt others and always will. Some people think it's better to try and prevent the trouble than it is to punish it after the fact. Prohibition comes with all sorts of troubles though, as we learned in the 1900s. So the public has divided the drugs between "too dangerous" (either highly addictive or causing extreme behavior) and "safe enough to regulate." More of the public is starting to move marijuana from the latter to the former, while almost nobody feels the same way about PCP. So there's the distinction in peoples' reactions.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it always has. One of the earliest causes to politically organize women in this country was not female suffrage, but alcohol temperance because of abusive men, husbands, etc. People who use drugs have always hurt others and always will. Some people think it's better to try and prevent the trouble than it is to punish it after the fact. Prohibition comes with all sorts of troubles though, as we learned in the 1900s. So the public has divided the drugs between "too dangerous" (either highly addictive or causing extreme behavior) and "safe enough to regulate." More of the public is starting to move marijuana from the latter to the former, while almost nobody feels the same way about PCP. So there's the distinction in peoples' reactions.

So if that's the issue, why not focus enforcement on that? If the concern is that drug addicts will commit crimes, then arrest them for THOSE crimes. And despite alcohol being involved in a large percentage of domestic abuse cases and it being quite the killer of Americans at about 100K per year, not counting automobile accidents involving alcohol, alcohol is legal. The entirety or illicit drugs kills around 10K per year, obviously the amount of users varies greatly, but still, I don't understand how one can sensible argue that one drug should be legal and another not. I do not see the difference.

Also, on temperance, I don't agree with punishing based on motive rather than intent. The law in this country is written on intent, this is how conspiracy laws exist. But if that is the case, why do we have a whole set of preventative laws for drug enforcement? Crimes are wrongs committed by one person against another person(s). With drugs, there is no other person, no victim. How can you reconcile that with the rest of the laws of this country? It's illogical. If the issue is theft, domestic abuse, robbery, wtv, then enforce those statutes and get those people that way. The law should be about what you do(or intend to do), not why you did it.

And I understand people's opinions on the drugs they deem "dangerous", but there really are no dangerous drugs, there's just people who shouldn't be doing them. Most, if not all damage done to your body and brain by drugs(including alcohol) are reversible with time abstained from drugs. So right there, you kill the drugs kill argument. I mean, they do to a degree, but again, this is hugely affected by the lack of QC measures in the black market.

Everyone has had an injury or illness that required them to go to the ER or whatever and have been given pain meds. I'm sure no one ever got those pain meds and became a heroin addict solely because of it, but yet, if you wanted to use an opiate recreationally, the gov't says no you can't. I don't understand this sentiment, especially amongst those out there who want smaller gov't. The right seems to want to double down on the utter disgrace and failure that is the "Drug War", but they preach smaller gov't on the other end of things. This is a bit of a dichotomy and I don't see how those who want smaller gov't could want more of the drug war.....

Edited by ATLL765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering a drug for legalization should be based on :

(1) some relative addiction scale- the more addictive the more restrictions

(2) side effect severity

(3) degree of impairment while under the influence - this translates to harm to bystanders

(4) chance of random death while using

Smoking fails in 1, 2 with a high degree of medical impact, the one thing in nicotine's favor is that the chemical effect is very low and short lived, causing very little impact on others (other than 2nd hand smoke which has some conflicting evidence)

Alcohol has 1-3, but the barn door is already open on that one.

Pot seems to have low scores across all 4 thus I am open to thinking about it

Most of the other recreational drugs have stories/evidence of random deaths while using them (e.g. see len bias). I have never heard of anyone having 1 drink and dying due to the alcohol other than maybe some unknown allergic reaction or the like.

Caffiene should be considered but it looks like it really is only addictive (i'm one of them)

I wouldn't have no issue with banning cigarettes but then I am not a smoker. We tried the ban of alcohol but frankly it is just engrained in our culture.

Edited by devilsadvoc8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet then when you say, ok, what about if it was cocaine, heroin, meth? Then they turn and the diarrhea of the mouth starts flowing where they say, well, that's different because it's bad. Ok, how is it different, how is it bad? Drugs don't kill people, for the most part, usually it's unknown dosages and contaminants that do that, so it's something that is eliminated when the black market is gone. What about drug addicts are bad people that steal stuff. Ok, what if the drugs were cheap and being caught with them didn't equal a felony conviction? Then you wouldn't have people who can't find a job just because they've used drugs and c'mon, do you ever see people rob their neighbors for money to buy alcohol at the liqour store next door? No.

There is not one country on this planet where cocaine, heroin, and meth are legalized. The only differences in some countries are the way that they are treated in the criminal sense. I'm absolutely 100% for the re-examination of the effect of drugs on a society and adjusting the way they're treated by law, including hard drugs.

However, I think traffickers and producers of hard drugs (theres a reason they're referred to as "hard" drugs) should face the law for those crimes. I also believe that there are drugs that are more harmful than others. IE cocaine, heroin, and meth. Cocaine and heroin can kill people on their first dose. I don't know enough about meth to really comment on it, but considering how its produced, its not something I'd be interested in considering. I'm all for people to do what they want with their lives, but its proven fact that cocaine, heroin, and other dangerous drugs like meth and PCP can and do create violent addictions. There is no proof whatsoever that marijuana can.

The only time we hear of deaths from marijuana is when the black market is involved or DUIs. We're not going to hear about someone dying from a marijuana overdose, except from that fake man made "legal weed" crap. There are cases of people dying from their first hit of heroin or the first line they've done and not simply because of impurities, but in cases of the drug being too pure. When drugs like heroin and cocaine are cut with something else it lowers the strength, when its not cut, it is more likely to kill. There are also plenty of cases of addicts doing whatever they can to get their fix. Lets say cocaine and heroin were legal, they're still going to cost money to get, and its going to create a lot more violent addicts who run out of money and instead of killing a drug dealer, kill the guy at the drug store. These addictions are absolutely horrendous and the problems the addictions to these substances create are extreme.

There is a reason why drugs like marijuana and some hallucinogenics (i.e. mushrooms) are considered "soft". There is no physical addiction (psychological addictions can develop, but they're more easily broken). Cocaine, heroin, opiates (including prescribed narcotic painkillers) cigarettes, and even alcohol create physical addictions, which is why people get sick when they withdraw from these drugs. They're harder addictions to break and cause much bigger social problems than other drugs. Drugs like cocaine, heroin and meth are also much more stronger in terms of their immediate effect on people in small doses, than again, say marijuana or a few to a moderate amount of drinks. Too much of anything will have a negative effect, but in the case of hard drugs, even a little bit can be lethal.

Hard drugs are inherently more dangerous in so many respects and this has been substantiated for 50+ years. I don't see the correlation between legalizing marijuana, which no one has ever died of an overdose from, and legalizing heroin and/or cocaine which are killers and create horrible and nasty addictions that are much worse than a smoker, alcoholic, or even a pill popper.

I get where you're coming from, but the difference between these drugs cannot be understated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering a drug for legalization should be based on :

(1) some relative addiction scale- the more addictive the more restrictions

(2) side effect severity

(3) degree of impairment while under the influence - this translates to harm to bystanders

(4) chance of random death while using

Smoking fails in 1, 2 with a high degree of medical impact, the one thing in nicotine's favor is that the chemical effect is very low and short lived, causing very little impact on others (other than 2nd hand smoke which has some conflicting evidence)

Alcohol has 1-3, but the barn door is already open on that one.

Pot seems to have low scores across all 4 thus I am open to thinking about it

Most of the other recreational drugs have stories/evidence of random deaths while using them (e.g. see len bias). I have never heard of anyone having 1 drink and dying due to the alcohol other than maybe some unknown allergic reaction or the like.

Caffiene should be considered but it looks like it really is only addictive (i'm one of them)

I wouldn't have no issue with banning cigarettes but then I am not a smoker. We tried the ban of alcohol but frankly it is just engrained in our culture.

True, no one dies from one drink, allergic reactions aside, but that is because there is a clear label on the bottle and everyone pretty much knows how much alcohol is in one drink. Take one shot of insert illicit drug here and you don't know how much is in it, so I want to avoid those apple to oranges arguments because had Len Bias known the true purity and potency of his cocaine, he would have been much more likely to not take a dose that would kill him.

This is something I'm very passionate about because from what I've seen, and I've seen plenty as far as drug use and abuse goes, better education and any QC measures would save countless lives, but this isn't possible with a black market.

I think your 4 criteria for drug legalization covers all the bases. Although I don't think a high rating for any of those criteria should mean it shouldn't be legal to use. Guns kill people all the time and we love them, so....

And yes, alcohol is ingrained in our culture, but so are all drugs. We consume more drugs than everyone else, that is why we have the issues we do with drugs.

There is not one country on this planet where cocaine, heroin, and meth are legalized. The only differences in some countries are the way that they are treated in the criminal sense. I'm absolutely 100% for the re-examination of the effect of drugs on a society and adjusting the way they're treated by law, including hard drugs.

However, I think traffickers and producers of hard drugs (theres a reason they're referred to as "hard" drugs) should face the law for those crimes. I also believe that there are drugs that are more harmful than others. IE cocaine, heroin, and meth. Cocaine and heroin can kill people on their first dose. I don't know enough about meth to really comment on it, but considering how its produced, its not something I'd be interested in considering. I'm all for people to do what they want with their lives, but its proven fact that cocaine, heroin, and other dangerous drugs like meth and PCP can and do create violent addictions. There is no proof whatsoever that marijuana can.

The only time we hear of deaths from marijuana is when the black market is involved or DUIs. We're not going to hear about someone dying from a marijuana overdose, except from that fake man made "legal weed" crap. There are cases of people dying from their first hit of heroin or the first line they've done and not simply because of impurities, but in cases of the drug being too pure. When drugs like heroin and cocaine are cut with something else it lowers the strength, when its not cut, it is more likely to kill. There are also plenty of cases of addicts doing whatever they can to get their fix. Lets say cocaine and heroin were legal, they're still going to cost money to get, and its going to create a lot more violent addicts who run out of money and instead of killing a drug dealer, kill the guy at the drug store. These addictions are absolutely horrendous and the problems the addictions to these substances create are extreme.

There is a reason why drugs like marijuana and some hallucinogenics (i.e. mushrooms) are considered "soft". There is no physical addiction (psychological addictions can develop, but they're more easily broken). Cocaine, heroin, opiates (including prescribed narcotic painkillers) cigarettes, and even alcohol create physical addictions, which is why people get sick when they withdraw from these drugs. They're harder addictions to break and cause much bigger social problems than other drugs. Drugs like cocaine, heroin and meth are also much more stronger in terms of their immediate effect on people in small doses, than again, say marijuana or a few to a moderate amount of drinks. Too much of anything will have a negative effect, but in the case of hard drugs, even a little bit can be lethal.

Hard drugs are inherently more dangerous in so many respects and this has been substantiated for 50+ years. I don't see the correlation between legalizing marijuana, which no one has ever died of an overdose from, and legalizing heroin and/or cocaine which are killers and create horrible and nasty addictions that are much worse than a smoker, alcoholic, or even a pill popper.

I get where you're coming from, but the difference between these drugs cannot be understated.

Again, unknown purity and potency of black market drugs are what makes them lethal. People never OD when a Dr hits them with the morphine or dilaudid. This is because the exact amount of drug that is being administered is known, so it's not like there's any doubt there. If this was the case with illicit drugs, it would make them ENORMOUSLY safer for the average user.

And yes, there's no true full legalization out there right now, but Portugal is pretty close and they've not seen a whole lot of negative effects. On the contrary, they said AIDS and other diseases i.e. Hepatitis rates plummeted while those admitting to using drugs was statistically identical.

My point here is that no matter how dangerous the drug, prohibiting it's use does nothing to curb supply or demand and makes drugs far less safe and involve much more violence than would otherwise. And if prohibiting a drug does make it harder to find, more expensive or less dangerous, yet costs a boatload of money to enforce against, what's the point? The way things need to be are where we are mitigating the damage drugs do to people and society by educating people as to how to use drugs correctly and safely, what doses are normal, disease prevention, try to make help easier to find. Harm Reduction should be the driver of drug policy in the US, but instead it's the will of the DEA, the private prison system and the people DARE classes brainwashed into thinking that doing certain drugs JUST ONCE will turn you into a violent drug addict....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm voting for Obama; that said if Romney wins, I think he'll govern as a moderate, so it won't be terrible.

Reasons:

Obama inherited a mess. Losing 700+k jobs a month. He helped turn it around with some hard decisions (bailouts, tarp). We have slowly but surely been gaining jobs, it needs to gain steam though.

The worldwide economy is a mess. We are ahead of the curve compared to our international competitors.

He is much more open to science and findings that perhaps contradict peoples religious beliefs/economic interests.

He grew up not very wealthy to a single mom. He earned his way without a last name or wealth. So he can actually relate to different "levels" of American society.

I can't support Romney for a bunch of reasons.

There are no specifics to his plans.

How do we cut taxes & reduce the deficit without touching Medicare, SS, or Defense.

He has a completely different life experience/reality from 99% of the people he is representing.

His "base" supports religious ideals over scientific and data driven ones. Defunding planned parenthood for example would do nothing to our defect but screw over a lot of people.

It seems as if he will do or say anything to be elected. Completely reverse his positions to reflect "political market conditions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

without touching Medicare, SS,

It's impossible to leave those programs untouched. US unfunded liabilities is at ~$120 trillion dollars or ~$1 million per taxpayer. No amount of taxing is going to fix those, the programs have to be changed.

Edited by Devils731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney would be forced to govern from the middle, just as Obama has largely been forced to govern from the middle because of the GOP's filibuster in 08 to the takeover of the House in 2010. The reason Romney will be forced to govern from the middle is that he'll likely have at least one house of Congress belonging to the Democrats and even if the GOP has both houses, it won't be filibuster-proof.

I actually wasn't completely disgusted with Romney in the 60 Minutes interview aside from the ER comment as he came across that he had a brain for the most part, even if I completely disagree with his been there done that top down economics platform, but the biggest bit of bullsh!t in that (and he keeps reiterating on the stump) was his statement that Obama had a "super-majority" in 08-10. No. The Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate for 7 weeks after Obama took office. From the day Al Franken was finally seated (July 2009) to when Ted Kennedy passed away (late August 2009). Obama had to deal with a filibuster from the beginning of his term and once Kennedy passed away to now. There also was never a supermajority in the house. It was 257-178 when Obama took office. It requires 67% to be a filibuster-proof supermajority in the House. 257-178 is 59%.

I'm far more concerned with the congressional elections than the Presidential and have been since this cycle began. I personally think everything is going to stay status quo. I think the current gap in the house will tighten by at most a handful of seats (its currently 241-191 GOP) with the Democrats picking up 5-8 seats, the GOP will probably pick up a seat in the senate (53-47 Dems currently), and Obama will win re-election. There is very little chance of either side taking all 3 and an even lesser chance of a filibuster-proof majority if that was to happen. This is a disappointment and should be to both sides. However, I'll be extremely happy if both Michele Bachmann and Allen West lose, although it looks more likely only one of them will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's impossible to leave those programs untouched. US unfunded liabilities is at ~$120 trillion dollars or ~$1 million per taxpayer. No amount of taxing is going to fix those, the programs have to be changed.

Yeah i totally agree. I'm just saying Mitt won't say he will do anything to the things that will actually reduce the deficit. The only cuts I hear are for education, the EPA, Planned Parenthood, NPR... stuff that is such a tiny part of the budget that it does nothing but screw over a few people and cause collateral damage.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/

But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On top of that, we have a precedent for using drone strikes on American Citizens now.

I'm on the fence about both issues, on one hand I'm comfortable using drone strikes on people who are engaging in war or war-like activities against the US, on the other hand, especially in the case of US Citizens who have additional rights owed by the US gov't, when have we made the threshold too easy to use this method? I don't know the answer, we may not even be at the point it is too easy yet. It's an issue I can see both sides of and agree with some of what everyone says.

Edited by Devils731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really leaning towards Gary Johnson the more I read about both major party candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"other" votes are what sways the election nowadays. It is amazing. The "3rd" parties don't have enough support to knock out a "Big 2", but they absolutely can torpedo one of them by drawing votes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"other" votes are what sways the election nowadays. It is amazing. The "3rd" parties don't have enough support to knock out a "Big 2", but they absolutely can torpedo one of them by drawing votes away.

This is such an annoying argument. Why are votes being "taken away" from the major parties? Why are they entitled to all the votes until a third party takes them away? If there were no third parties or write-ins, I wouldn't vote at all. Neither major party is worth my support and nobody on the ballot is entitled to votes just because they are a Democrat or Republican. With the double standard of ballot access laws and media coverage and campaign finance, etc., I would say that Romney and Obama are costing Johnson and Stein the election moreso than the other way around.

Of course not all third party voters would refuse to vote if Obama and Romney were the only two choices, but that is why the fairest election format would be range voting. In range voting you don't have to worry about costing anyone an election because you get to rate each candidate on a scale of 1-10 or 1-100, etc. This allows you to voice your support or opposition for as many candidates as you want, and also measure just how much you support or oppose each candidate. So if you are a conservative for example you would be able to give Johnson a 100, Romney an 80, Stein a 40, and Obama a 1. You can show full support for Johnson, a true conservative, without having to worry about "costing" Romney the election. Same goes for Stein. Of course neither major party is interested in this kind of fairness because it would hurt their chances of perpetuating their stranglehold over this country. You can learn more at www.rangevoting.org, it's pretty interesting to see just how inefficient our voting system is, where you are forced to approve one candidate 100% and completely disapprove all the others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"other" votes are what sways the election nowadays. It is amazing. The "3rd" parties don't have enough support to knock out a "Big 2", but they absolutely can torpedo one of them by drawing votes away.

There is some truth to this, but its not an across the board "always" sort of thing. Definitely, Perot in 92 and Nader in 2000 had an effect, but even in that respect its blown out of proportion, at least in respect to Nader. The third parties right now will not draw enough votes away from either of the "big 2" to have an effect this year. It's really a cycle to cycle thing. You gotta look at it state by state since its not a true national election. Its a series of 50 state elections.

Dont get me wrong, I'd love to have viable 3rd (and 4th and 5th and 6th) party candidates that truly have a chance, but it's more that they "can" have an effect rather than they "do". I personally believe that a vote for a candidate that is assuredly going to lose is a wasted vote, but I completely understand the perspective of someone voting for one of those people as its their right. There are too many people not tuned into the process for an outside party to win right now with the rules set up the way they are.

I also would like to see the electoral college done away with. I think its an archaic way to elect someone, espc when someone can win the popular vote, yet still lose.

I would say that Romney and Obama are costing Johnson and Stein the election moreso than the other way around.

I actually agree. The problem is money and the stranglehold on the process that the two major parties have. I would love to see Stein and Johnson allowed to debate. IMO if you get on a percentage of the ballot (say 75%), you should automatically be allowed to debate. I also think Citizens United should be done away with. There should be no anonymous money in politics. The rules as they are set up now are heavily weighted towards the two major parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0