How many people here (US only, sorry) will vote in the upcoming presidential election
- Thread starter Adv1sor
- Start date
Damn right I'll vote...and it won't be wasted on a third-party candidate...
'mom
'mom
Here is a list of all of the 2004 candidates
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_...ll&PHPSESSID=1a6f014267b32265c9317304418dfadb
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_...ll&PHPSESSID=1a6f014267b32265c9317304418dfadb
Nick15
Member
Vote in 2004? You bet. I think most people should, particularlly in THIS election because the end result could be the different between life or death. (Just sayin'. 
)
And no, no third-party candidate tickles my fancy. I think the same goes for pretty much most of the rest of this nation.
)And no, no third-party candidate tickles my fancy. I think the same goes for pretty much most of the rest of this nation.
Articjedi
Active Member
Of course I'm voting. With this much at stake, you have to.
No third-parties have been strong in the last few years, probably because they have a tendency to follow a single issue (free soil party, if anyone remembers their US history classes), or are so extreme that no one identifies with them.
Sorry to say this, but if you want to make a statement, vote third-party, if you want to make a difference, well, vote democrat or republican.
No third-parties have been strong in the last few years, probably because they have a tendency to follow a single issue (free soil party, if anyone remembers their US history classes), or are so extreme that no one identifies with them.
Sorry to say this, but if you want to make a statement, vote third-party, if you want to make a difference, well, vote democrat or republican.
Burninating_Torchic
New Member
SD PokéMom said:
Wasted? Third Party candidates are not a waste of a vote. True, they never win, but if you hate bush and kerry, but still want to vote, they are your option. I personally dont like any of the candidates, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, whatever party they are. So even if I was old enough to vote, I probably wouldn't.
ToysRUsKid
Active Member
Gooo Gary Coleman! Oh Wait ;x This isn't California.
Of Course Im gonna vote.
Of Course Im gonna vote.
Hot Mustid
New Member
im 1 year off :/ i turn 17 in oct. BUUUUUTTT since I dont care who is the next president, I would vote for bush ONLY because I am republican. I could care less who becomes president because i refuse to listen to any propoganda
TheCrossFormatKid
New Member
I would vote Badnarik if i was of age(turn 18 this coming February) visit www.lp.org for the good word. And 'mom, that mind set, that voting for a third party is a "waste" is what keeps third party's out of office. Vote for whomever exemplifies your beliefs in politics or w/e, regardless of party.
NoTime4LoveDrJ
New Member
I would have to agree, with regard to the presidential election, that a third party vote is a waste. Local office is where third parties usually have the best chances. Naturally, I will be voting, if you couldn't guess after reading anything I've said here.
It's stupid to vote for a candidate because they match your party. Bush is like on the fringe of fringe Republicans. Most of them are really not crazy people, but Bush exemplifies what can either be interpreted as boundless ineptitude or everyone misunderestimating him. I'm a registered Democrat, but as I've said before, if McCain got the nomination (Or bothered to run this time around) I'd most likely vote for him.
UncleBob, you just might be pegged as a pessimist. :O Lots of people feel how you do, and that's why there's no change. Nobody ever turns up at the polls. Yeah, you can't trust 98% of politicians out there, but you can at least try and make a change with other things you can vote for.
... I agree with the belief that those who do not value and utilize their right to vote have no business ever complaining about the way things are run. People who don't vote are quite possibly the biggest cogs that make the current system turn. Apathy isn't ever going to make a change... It will only keep things as they are, or quite possibly, worse.
It's stupid to vote for a candidate because they match your party. Bush is like on the fringe of fringe Republicans. Most of them are really not crazy people, but Bush exemplifies what can either be interpreted as boundless ineptitude or everyone misunderestimating him. I'm a registered Democrat, but as I've said before, if McCain got the nomination (Or bothered to run this time around) I'd most likely vote for him.
UncleBob, you just might be pegged as a pessimist. :O Lots of people feel how you do, and that's why there's no change. Nobody ever turns up at the polls. Yeah, you can't trust 98% of politicians out there, but you can at least try and make a change with other things you can vote for.
... I agree with the belief that those who do not value and utilize their right to vote have no business ever complaining about the way things are run. People who don't vote are quite possibly the biggest cogs that make the current system turn. Apathy isn't ever going to make a change... It will only keep things as they are, or quite possibly, worse.
Nick15
Member
It's the problem with politicians that no single politician can represent every single person. There's no way you can represent everyone in this nation, otherwise there'd be 300 million potential presidential candidates. Therefore, you're best off choosing the one who's MOST like you, even if they're hardly like you.
I mean... where's the presidential candidate who I can trust to help support the Pokémon TCG and keep the game from falling apart by creating government support bills? Oh yeah, there isn't any... so I'd best put aside THAT view when thinking about what president to choose. ....
It's not so much choosing "the lesser of two evils" in this election, or ANY election. Nor is it to vote for someone along your party lines (THOSE are wasted votes as well). It's a tough decision, but what voters really need to do is think about what the most important thing(s) are to them and choose what president will provide it.
I mean, although my vote has pretty much been cast for Bush (see me sig), I didn't choose Bush because I'm just moronic knee-jerk Patriotic meathead. I looked at the issues, saw what was most important to me, and chose who I was going to vote for based on what president was going to represent me better. Right now the issue of war and terrorism is most important to me, and therefore I feel Bush would do a better job at taking care of it. HOWEVER, I could have easily chosen the environment issue or marriage issue (because those are important to me as well) and chose to vote for Kerry instead. More so, if my candidate loses, I'd still support the new guy on the issues I felt he would have done a better job at than my choice... I wouldn't say anything like "he's not MY president" or some other whiney, sore-loser statements.
This is also why I don't vote third party because they only choose one issue and take the extremist view on it (like Articjedi said). The Greens and Libertarians are the two biggest Thirds which probably have little to no chance of being elected. It's not to say that I disagree with their views (I do agree with a lot of what the Greens and Libertarians have to say)... but I don't feel what they're fighting for is the most important thing to me right now. Plus I'm also a realist and realize that a Third Party win won't happen overnight.... it'll be a gradual shift over several elections. (Though if I had my choice, I'd vote Libertarian.)
And of course there's the best example of a wasted Third party vote... a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. This held true in 2000 and seems to be holding true in 2004. (Not that I PERSONALLY would consider it to be a waste, but others would.)
I would also never vote party lines... as a registered Republican, I still would have voted Clinton (if I could) and I was going to vote Gore in 2000 (but I missed the register deadline). I'm voting Bush this year, but this "no party line votes" holds true in my family as my Democrat dad and brother is voting Bush as well. Thing might be different in 2008, maybe Kerry will run again and the next Republican hopeful isn't as good as Kerry, so I'd vote Kerry. Who knows? ....
Now I feel that my job as an American is to support the President, whoever it may be. Provided there's no unarguable proof that the Pres is pure evil that is (and it IS arguable if Bush is evil or not). Oh... and to vote. Because if you don't participate in the Democratic process, you have no room to complain about it. VOTE, even if it IS on a "wasted" third party, at least you've made your viewpoint known. Heck, I'll bet Bush and Kerry won't care if you vote for "the other guy", as I'm sure they both feel voting is the single most important thing anyone could do in this nation.
I mean... where's the presidential candidate who I can trust to help support the Pokémon TCG and keep the game from falling apart by creating government support bills? Oh yeah, there isn't any... so I'd best put aside THAT view when thinking about what president to choose. ....
It's not so much choosing "the lesser of two evils" in this election, or ANY election. Nor is it to vote for someone along your party lines (THOSE are wasted votes as well). It's a tough decision, but what voters really need to do is think about what the most important thing(s) are to them and choose what president will provide it.
I mean, although my vote has pretty much been cast for Bush (see me sig
), I didn't choose Bush because I'm just moronic knee-jerk Patriotic meathead. I looked at the issues, saw what was most important to me, and chose who I was going to vote for based on what president was going to represent me better. Right now the issue of war and terrorism is most important to me, and therefore I feel Bush would do a better job at taking care of it. HOWEVER, I could have easily chosen the environment issue or marriage issue (because those are important to me as well) and chose to vote for Kerry instead. More so, if my candidate loses, I'd still support the new guy on the issues I felt he would have done a better job at than my choice... I wouldn't say anything like "he's not MY president" or some other whiney, sore-loser statements.This is also why I don't vote third party because they only choose one issue and take the extremist view on it (like Articjedi said). The Greens and Libertarians are the two biggest Thirds which probably have little to no chance of being elected. It's not to say that I disagree with their views (I do agree with a lot of what the Greens and Libertarians have to say)... but I don't feel what they're fighting for is the most important thing to me right now. Plus I'm also a realist and realize that a Third Party win won't happen overnight.... it'll be a gradual shift over several elections. (Though if I had my choice, I'd vote Libertarian.)
And of course there's the best example of a wasted Third party vote... a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. This held true in 2000 and seems to be holding true in 2004. (Not that I PERSONALLY would consider it to be a waste, but others would.
)I would also never vote party lines... as a registered Republican, I still would have voted Clinton (if I could) and I was going to vote Gore in 2000 (but I missed the register deadline). I'm voting Bush this year, but this "no party line votes" holds true in my family as my Democrat dad and brother is voting Bush as well. Thing might be different in 2008, maybe Kerry will run again and the next Republican hopeful isn't as good as Kerry, so I'd vote Kerry. Who knows? ....
Now I feel that my job as an American is to support the President, whoever it may be. Provided there's no unarguable proof that the Pres is pure evil that is (and it IS arguable if Bush is evil or not). Oh... and to vote. Because if you don't participate in the Democratic process, you have no room to complain about it. VOTE, even if it IS on a "wasted" third party, at least you've made your viewpoint known. Heck, I'll bet Bush and Kerry won't care if you vote for "the other guy", as I'm sure they both feel voting is the single most important thing anyone could do in this nation.
Last edited:
Articjedi
Active Member
Yeah, it's kinda strange how other countries can have so many strong parties at once (last I heard, france had four, India has something like 7, including two different communist parties). I guess it's tradtional to have a two-party system in this country, there are very few times when any third party have gotten any electoral votes. Abraham Lincoln won his first election when all of the political parties had essentially split into four. Theodore Roosevelt started the Bull Moose Party and split the republican party enough for Woodrow Wilson to win his election. Hmmm, maybe I should be a history major.
Last edited:
I wrote a very elaborate post for this thread but it got lost as I was posting it, so I will paraphrase:
America is a two party system. Deal with it.
IMO, the system does not work if everyone votes. If you can't tell me why your voting for candidate X based on the issues, then you should not be voting.
I will be voting for John Kerry (or as I like to put it, against Bush).
America is a two party system. Deal with it.
IMO, the system does not work if everyone votes. If you can't tell me why your voting for candidate X based on the issues, then you should not be voting.
I will be voting for John Kerry (or as I like to put it, against Bush).
Marxist-Leninist Party. Oh, wait, America doesn't have that.
Really, just vote for someone that you believe won't screw up the country worse than it already has been. Sure, "a third party can't win", but if you actually believe that, then it'll become true. Just remember that each vote for Bush is a vote for a bad president who doesn't have his priorities straight. Better to "waste" (hah, hardly) your vote on a third party than to vote for someone you don't really believe in and is completely inadequate to lead the country.
Really, just vote for someone that you believe won't screw up the country worse than it already has been. Sure, "a third party can't win", but if you actually believe that, then it'll become true. Just remember that each vote for Bush is a vote for a bad president who doesn't have his priorities straight. Better to "waste" (hah, hardly) your vote on a third party than to vote for someone you don't really believe in and is completely inadequate to lead the country.
Marril said:
This is where Nader comes in. He pretty much takes votes that would go to Kerry, thus splitting the vote in a race where it will come down to the narrowest of margins. It happened in 2000, it's set up to occur again in 2004. So in this case even if you are not voting for Bush, you are still helping him overall.