How many people here (US only, sorry) will vote in the upcoming presidential election
- Thread starter Adv1sor
- Start date
Articjedi
Active Member
Doesn't Canada have a strong third party? Oh well, I must be working off old information.
Well, no system is perfect, the American system is set up so that no single entity should gain all of the power. But apparently it happened when the Republicans swept both the white house and congress. So essentially the last check the Dems have is that they have to watch for and pick up every single mistake that the Republicans make, in order to gain support for the next election.
I think that's how it's supposed to work in the UK, since all of the power will rest in the majority party in the house of commons.
Well, no system is perfect, the American system is set up so that no single entity should gain all of the power. But apparently it happened when the Republicans swept both the white house and congress. So essentially the last check the Dems have is that they have to watch for and pick up every single mistake that the Republicans make, in order to gain support for the next election.
I think that's how it's supposed to work in the UK, since all of the power will rest in the majority party in the house of commons.
sneaselsrevenge
New Member
Seeing as how I can't stand Bush or Kerry, and dont know anything about third party candidates, I most likely won't vote. However, I wont complain either.
Articjedi said:
The checks and balance of power you refer to is designed to limit the power of the three branches of government (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative), rather than limit the power of any political party.
And sneaselsrevenge:
Thats one of the better posts on this thread. Don't vote if your uninformed and don't complain if you don't vote.
Nick15
Member
Well, no system is perfect, the American system is set up so that no single entity should gain all of the power. But apparently it happened when the Republicans swept both the white house and congress. So essentially the last check the Dems have is that they have to watch for and pick up every single mistake that the Republicans make, in order to gain support for the next election.
Well, there's also more than just the US Govt which has some level of power in the country. Aside from the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of the US Government, there's also District Courts (The Ninth District Court system in California is EXTREMELY liberal, in contrast to the currently GOP run US Gov't), State Supreme Courts, Governors, County governments, and City governments. The power is spread so evenly out between every area of the US that no single one party has ultimate control over the people, even at the top levels of the US Government. ... Particularlly when you get down to the County and City levels... those governments, I feel, have more of an effect on the people than the US Government does.
California is a perfect example of this... sure we have a conservative Republican president and most of congress is GOP majority (if I'm not mistaken), but California's senators are Democrats, most representatives are Democrats (like my representative, Tom Lantos), our Governor Schwarzenegger is a moderate Republican, and San Francisco's Mayor, Gavin Newsom, is a Democrat. My city's government officials range from Republican to Green to Democrat to other Independant parties... no one single party has control.
Joshman
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.
Someone I've talked to in the past said it should be made a law to force people into voting. I think that's even far more dangerous than NOT voting... because as much as voting is a right, the choice to NOT vote is also a right. sneaselsrevenge isn't the only person 'round here who isn't too pleased with our choices this year, why force people to vote for someone they don't like?
It's a shame that the voting numbers in the US have decreased over the years (40%-50%, if I recall correctly), while voting numbers in Europe are pretty high (80%-90%). This can either mean that American voters aren't being presented with anyone who they feel is worth voting for (who could blame them)... or that Americans feel that no matter who is in power, life couldn't get any better or worse. .... I honestly feel it's the later.
Well, there's also more than just the US Govt which has some level of power in the country. Aside from the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of the US Government, there's also District Courts (The Ninth District Court system in California is EXTREMELY liberal, in contrast to the currently GOP run US Gov't), State Supreme Courts, Governors, County governments, and City governments. The power is spread so evenly out between every area of the US that no single one party has ultimate control over the people, even at the top levels of the US Government. ... Particularlly when you get down to the County and City levels... those governments, I feel, have more of an effect on the people than the US Government does.
California is a perfect example of this... sure we have a conservative Republican president and most of congress is GOP majority (if I'm not mistaken), but California's senators are Democrats, most representatives are Democrats (like my representative, Tom Lantos), our Governor Schwarzenegger is a moderate Republican, and San Francisco's Mayor, Gavin Newsom, is a Democrat. My city's government officials range from Republican to Green to Democrat to other Independant parties... no one single party has control.
Joshman
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.
Someone I've talked to in the past said it should be made a law to force people into voting. I think that's even far more dangerous than NOT voting... because as much as voting is a right, the choice to NOT vote is also a right. sneaselsrevenge isn't the only person 'round here who isn't too pleased with our choices this year, why force people to vote for someone they don't like?
It's a shame that the voting numbers in the US have decreased over the years (40%-50%, if I recall correctly), while voting numbers in Europe are pretty high (80%-90%). This can either mean that American voters aren't being presented with anyone who they feel is worth voting for (who could blame them)... or that Americans feel that no matter who is in power, life couldn't get any better or worse. .... I honestly feel it's the later.
sneaselsrevenge
New Member
Another reason Nick, could be that we've taken our Democratic system of government for granted. This is fairly new to alot of European countries, such as the satellite countries of the former Soviet Union. So, they take advantage of the right to vote more than we do.l Although you're right too, I voted for Gore in 2000, although I feel we haven't had a quality candidate since 1996(although I think John McCain would have made a very good President, if not for being voted out in the 2000 primaries)
Nick15 said:
'Eh? The government is completely made up of the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches (not including the Shadow branch... oh.. wait.. I didn't say that...). Now you can divide the government between the State and the Fed, but all courts fall under the Judicial branch, all "rule makers" fall under the Legislative branch and all "enforcers" fall under the Executive branch...
And on an aside, to clear up my last post, I only feel a vote is wasted if you vote for someone whom you don't believe in. I think not voting is a better option, because, in a small way, you're sending a message that says "forget you" to the politicians... make 'em actually *work* to get your vote instead of giving one politican or the other handouts because some... individual tells you "You can't complain if you don't vote!".
This is, of course, where the "None of the Above" box should come into play.
Nick15
Member
sneaselsrevenge
I voted for Gore in 2000, although I feel we haven't had a quality candidate since 1996(although I think John McCain would have made a very good President, if not for being voted out in the 2000 primaries)
McCain? I totally agree. Here's hoping for 2008, baby!
UncleBob
'Eh? The government is completely made up of the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches (not including the Shadow branch... oh.. wait.. I didn't say that...). Now you can divide the government between the State and the Fed, but all courts fall under the Judicial branch, all "rule makers" fall under the Legislative branch and all "enforcers" fall under the Executive branch...
OK, so I got a bit mixed up, but it's not to say that even then, the power is still pretty spilt up evently between the parties (with the Dem's controlling a lot of California, for example). But, I don't think city and country elected officials make up a part of the US Government, do they? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
And on an aside, to clear up my last post, I only feel a vote is wasted if you vote for someone whom you don't believe in.
That's a very VERY good point.
This is, of course, where the "None of the Above" box should come into play.
I'm thinking more along the lines of "First Choice", "Second Choice" and "Third Choice". At least it might help show some more support for other candidates.... if it was like this in 2004, I would choose Bush as my 1st and Badnarik as my second.
I voted for Gore in 2000, although I feel we haven't had a quality candidate since 1996(although I think John McCain would have made a very good President, if not for being voted out in the 2000 primaries)
McCain? I totally agree. Here's hoping for 2008, baby!
UncleBob
'Eh? The government is completely made up of the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches (not including the Shadow branch... oh.. wait.. I didn't say that...). Now you can divide the government between the State and the Fed, but all courts fall under the Judicial branch, all "rule makers" fall under the Legislative branch and all "enforcers" fall under the Executive branch...
OK, so I got a bit mixed up, but it's not to say that even then, the power is still pretty spilt up evently between the parties (with the Dem's controlling a lot of California, for example). But, I don't think city and country elected officials make up a part of the US Government, do they? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
And on an aside, to clear up my last post, I only feel a vote is wasted if you vote for someone whom you don't believe in.
That's a very VERY good point.
This is, of course, where the "None of the Above" box should come into play.
I'm thinking more along the lines of "First Choice", "Second Choice" and "Third Choice". At least it might help show some more support for other candidates.... if it was like this in 2004, I would choose Bush as my 1st and Badnarik as my second.
Last edited:
Nick15 said:
They're part of the State Government, but not part of the Federal Government - although, in most cases, they still answer to the Fed.
Nick15 said:And on an aside, to clear up my last post, I only feel a vote is wasted if you vote for someone whom you don't believe in.
That's a very VERY good point.
Heh, I *only* make good points.
Nick15 said:
Well, except for that part about choosing Bush, I could see something like this happening. Although it might be too confusing for many people, I think this could be kinda neat... I'd love to see how this would play out. But I'm thinking we'd have to dump the electorial college first...
I plan to vote. To bad Pikachu isn't running for president though. We wouldn't have to worry about any other country mouthing off to our president then. Pikachu would just thunder bolt them
[Edit]
Wait, can I change my vote to Mewtwo, then we could control the minds of our friends and enemies :thumb:
[Edit]
Wait, can I change my vote to Mewtwo, then we could control the minds of our friends and enemies :thumb:
Last edited:
sneaselsrevenge
New Member
UncleBob - I think we should eliminate the Electorial College anyway.
farbsman - Too bad Pikachu is from Kanto, and not the U.S.
farbsman - Too bad Pikachu is from Kanto, and not the U.S.
Nick15
Member
sneaselsrevenge
UncleBob - I think we should eliminate the Electorial College anyway.
I agree. I've been sick to death for the past 3.5 years hearing "Bush stole the election!" from people who don't understand how the system works. It's not to say that the law sucks, but, it still is the law. Repeal it, I say, just to prevent the whole "who won?" controversy from happening again. Not to mention the reason why it was created is no longer an issue in the 21st century.
I also believe we should get rid of that "you must be American born" Presidential requirement. [crosses fingers for PRESIDENT Schwarzenegger]
UncleBob - I think we should eliminate the Electorial College anyway.
I agree. I've been sick to death for the past 3.5 years hearing "Bush stole the election!" from people who don't understand how the system works. It's not to say that the law sucks, but, it still is the law. Repeal it, I say, just to prevent the whole "who won?" controversy from happening again. Not to mention the reason why it was created is no longer an issue in the 21st century.
I also believe we should get rid of that "you must be American born" Presidential requirement. [crosses fingers for PRESIDENT Schwarzenegger]
Last edited:
NoTime4LoveDrJ
New Member
Nick15 said:I also believe we should get rid of that "you must be American born" Presidential requirement. [crosses fingers for PRESIDENT Schwarzenegger]
Personally, I think that would be a horrible idea.
He'd slip one day and be like, "We need to TERMINATE North Korea!" And Kim Jong-Il may be a film buff and all, but I doubt he'd sit for that, and we would likely be nuked.
Schwarzenegger's all lines, and frankly, it wasn't funny to begin with, much less after he keeps with the shtick in every speech he makes.
Last edited:
Captain Chronic
New Member
anybody who doesnt vote is a freakin' moron. voting is a privelege that we have. not everybody gets to choose their leader, so despite the fact that i dont really have a great affinity for either candidate, i'll suck it up and pick the one i like most.
EDIT: i am also a bit against the electoral system, because if i want to vote for candidate A, but most (or even just 51%) of my state wants to vote for candidate B, then my vote officially means nothing.
EDIT: i am also a bit against the electoral system, because if i want to vote for candidate A, but most (or even just 51%) of my state wants to vote for candidate B, then my vote officially means nothing.
Last edited:
sneaselsrevenge
New Member
I disagrree with that first line. Why should I vote for someone I don't believe in? I shouldn't and I won't.
Captain Chronic
New Member
by not voting, you are saying that you dont care who leads you and how they do it. i agree that our political system is flawed, because it favors the wealthy and there has never been a third party president (though teddy roosevelt came close). that isn't the point, though. the point is, one of those candidates could be a dictator waiting to take office or a greedy businessman just trying to take money or a vicious bloodthirsty old coot who just wants to fight everybody that opposes him. if you choose not to vote, you allow a person like that to take office. even if you dont like the candidates, you can choose the lesser of two evils in hopes that some good will come of it. by not voting, however, you are saying that you dont care who wins, and if you dont care who runs the most powerful armed force in the world, then you, my friend, are indeed a freakin' moron.
Do you (general 'you') _only_ vote for candidates you completely agree 100% with on all issues?
It'll be close to 30 years since I first voted, and I think it's safe to say that there's NEVER been a candidate that I've agreed with on ALL issues....but there's always been one I preferred to the other. People need to inform themselves and make the comparisons and then pick...but what I seem to be hearing/reading is that since people don't agree 100% with either/any candidate, they're not going to vote. Please tell me I'm wrong...
'mom
It'll be close to 30 years since I first voted, and I think it's safe to say that there's NEVER been a candidate that I've agreed with on ALL issues....but there's always been one I preferred to the other. People need to inform themselves and make the comparisons and then pick...but what I seem to be hearing/reading is that since people don't agree 100% with either/any candidate, they're not going to vote. Please tell me I'm wrong...
'mom
I (general _I_) don't think you have to agree with any particular canidate 100% in order to vote for them... However, voting for someone just because you don't want some other particular canidate to win or because you don't "waste" your vote on someone you like more because they're not going to win is nothing but BS (IMHO) at least. The point of voting is to pick the canidate *you* think will do the best job of leading the country. Not picking the canidate you think has the best chance of winning or such...
NoTime4LoveDrJ
New Member
So you don't vote at all.
So nothing ever changes, and your apathy, too, will remain.
Why not at least try to make some slight difference? Does it hurt you that much to take a little time out of your day a couple of times every few years? It's not that hard. Yet voter turnout is pitiful. This is what is supposed to differentiate us from the dictatorships we always complain about, yet we fail to exercise that right, time and time again.
So yeah, let's be pessimistic, not go out and vote, and watch Bush get reelected and start World War III, or at least try and put some other candidate into office. It's not the will of the people if half the people don't even bother to vote. It's disgusting to see how many people die to "preserve the American way of life". What, like not giving a damn what happens to this country or the rest of the world? People die for that? No, I'd like to think otherwise.
So nothing ever changes, and your apathy, too, will remain.
Why not at least try to make some slight difference? Does it hurt you that much to take a little time out of your day a couple of times every few years? It's not that hard. Yet voter turnout is pitiful. This is what is supposed to differentiate us from the dictatorships we always complain about, yet we fail to exercise that right, time and time again.
So yeah, let's be pessimistic, not go out and vote, and watch Bush get reelected and start World War III, or at least try and put some other candidate into office. It's not the will of the people if half the people don't even bother to vote. It's disgusting to see how many people die to "preserve the American way of life". What, like not giving a damn what happens to this country or the rest of the world? People die for that? No, I'd like to think otherwise.