-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Whom will you vote for on Nov. 2?
- Thread starter retrorich
- Start date
retrorich
SUPER NOT-A-MOD
Engyo said:
I'm really not familiar with any of the candidates other than the three I named. Although, I did a questionnaire thing a while back that told me the candidate who agrees with me on the most issues was the guy named Brown. I don't recall which party he is aligned with.
meogi
Well-Known Member
Nader is on the ballot, so I don't see what you're trying to accomplish. I agree with a lot of what Nader says, so I'll vote for him. If he wasn't on the ballot, I'd write him in.
Huh? I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't understand what you're saying... how could voting for someone besides kerry help re-elect bush? And the thing about texas? Gah, brain... hurting.
I'll be voting for John Kerry this year. My vote is largely a vote against Bush. I think Kerry will do an alright job, but what I'm most concerned about is not how good John Kerry is, but how bad George Bush is. I disagree with Bush on most issues. I disagree with Kerry on fewer issues. Hence, I'm voting for Kerry.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
John Kerry.
meogi
Well-Known Member
So don't vote for bush... or kerry. Vote who you think would best support your ideals. I don't understand this 'lesser of two evils' vote thing. WHY ARE THERE TWO EVILS TO BEGIN WITH? We need rid of this 2 party system, and we need rid of it quickly. At the very least, I think the electoral college should be based on percentages... if not just use a popular vote.Sunstone said:
*Hates politics*
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
You may be right, meogi. But that's not going to happen, not soon, if ever.
retrorich
SUPER NOT-A-MOD
It's all well and good to vote for a candidate that best supports one's ideals. But to be practical, rather than idealistic, voting for a candidate such as Nader, who can't possibly win, is a wasted vote. If one recognizes that one of two candidates (even if one doesn't particulary like either one of them) will definitely prevail, it is wise to vote for the best ("least bad") candidate.meogi said:
As for Nader, while I agree with many of his alleged principals and ideals, I believe he has become a total hypocrite and a traitor to his own professed ideals in order to feed his ego. He cost Al Gore the presidency in the last election and could well cost Kerry the presidency in this election--even though both of those men more closely match his professed ideals and principals than did George Bush.
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Because Texas will almost assuredly go well above 60% for Bush, anyone who votes for someone other than John Kerry does not potentially jeopardize Mr. Kerry's electoral college vote count. In so-called "battleground states", anyone wanting Mr. Bush out of office who votes for any of the 3rd party candidates enables those candidates to take a "spoiler" role, by allowing Mr. Bush to take all of that state's electoral votes. Confused yet?meogi said:
meogi
Well-Known Member
Why do we even bother, as a democracy, to put him on the ballot, if we know he has no chance at winning? This is what confuses me. How can a democratic vote for someone, be wasted? Need a change here...retrorich said:
So it's Nader's fault that Bush is in office? If you honestly think that, then this is only more support for a change in how our democratic process works.retrorich said:
Even more support!Engyo said:
Not confused enough, I guess. I don't see how we can consider ourselves a democracy.Engyo said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
A vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote at all. Voting for a third party candidate will bring the issues/values of that third party to the attention of the two main parties, who will try as best they can to appeal to those issues and grab more votes (before the other party gets to them!) If you like Nader, but don't vote for him because you don't think he can win, you are sending the Democratic party the message that they can ignore many of the issues you care about and still get your vote. I would argue the same about Ross Perot back in the 90's.
So I have to disagree that voting for third party candidates is a waste. The voter's goal is to influence public policy, and even if your guy can't get elected, you are effectively influencing public policy in the long run by voting for him.
About the two party system...I for one see several bright sides to it. For one, candidates in two party systems tend to be much more moderate and supported by more people than candidates in multiple party systems. In multi party systems, you tend to get more extremists elected who do not have as widespread support as our candidates. Even though I'm voting for Bush, I would much rather John Kerry get elected than a candidate whose party appeals only to a small percentage of the population (i.e. "the Catholic party" "The Labor Union party" or "the Senior Citizens party"....wouldn't that be a nightmare
)
So I have to disagree that voting for third party candidates is a waste. The voter's goal is to influence public policy, and even if your guy can't get elected, you are effectively influencing public policy in the long run by voting for him.
About the two party system...I for one see several bright sides to it. For one, candidates in two party systems tend to be much more moderate and supported by more people than candidates in multiple party systems. In multi party systems, you tend to get more extremists elected who do not have as widespread support as our candidates. Even though I'm voting for Bush, I would much rather John Kerry get elected than a candidate whose party appeals only to a small percentage of the population (i.e. "the Catholic party" "The Labor Union party" or "the Senior Citizens party"....wouldn't that be a nightmare
)
retrorich
SUPER NOT-A-MOD
I respectfully disagree, Mr_Spinkles. If Bush wins due to votes cast for Nader, it will only serve to encourage the Republican party to continue its obnoxious right-wing policies (i/e., If it it works, don't fix it).Mr_Spinkles said:
A vote for Nader is worse than wasted--it is harmful.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
The Republican party needs no encouragement, retrorich. Republicans will continue to do the best they can to get their policies enacted whether or not Bush is elected. Yes, if Bush is elected that will help the Republican party get their policies enacted--for the next four years, that is.
But while this is happening, the Democratic party will start taking notice of issues raised by the Green party and try to appeal to those voters by taking on these issues. Even while Bush is in office, Democrats in local, state, and federal legislatures will start paying attention to what Green party voters are saying (losing the Presidential election to Bush because of disenchanted Green voters will definitely get their attention). In the long run, the Democratic party will be forced to get future Presidential candidates who appeal to voters like meogi. Such was the case with the Bull Moose and Reform parties, for example. So I have to stick with what I said earlier, that third parties definitely do influence public policy a great deal, whether their candidates are elected or not.
Republicans will continue to do the best they can to get their policies enacted whether or not Bush is elected. Yes, if Bush is elected that will help the Republican party get their policies enacted--for the next four years, that is. But while this is happening, the Democratic party will start taking notice of issues raised by the Green party and try to appeal to those voters by taking on these issues. Even while Bush is in office, Democrats in local, state, and federal legislatures will start paying attention to what Green party voters are saying (losing the Presidential election to Bush because of disenchanted Green voters will definitely get their attention). In the long run, the Democratic party will be forced to get future Presidential candidates who appeal to voters like meogi. Such was the case with the Bull Moose and Reform parties, for example. So I have to stick with what I said earlier, that third parties definitely do influence public policy a great deal, whether their candidates are elected or not.
retrorich
SUPER NOT-A-MOD
All that is not worth having trigger-happy George in office for another four years. The world can't risk that. He's done too much damage already!Mr_Spinkles said:The Republican party needs no encouragement, retrorich.
But while this is happening, the Democratic party will start taking notice of issues raised by the Green party and try to appeal to those voters by taking on these issues. Even while Bush is in office, Democrats in local, state, and federal legislatures will start paying attention to what Green party voters are saying (losing the Presidential election to Bush because of disenchanted Green voters will definitely get their attention). In the long run, the Democratic party will be forced to get future Presidential candidates who appeal to voters like meogi. Such was the case with the Bull Moose and Reform parties, for example. So I have to stick with what I said earlier, that third parties definitely do influence public policy a great deal, whether their candidates are elected or not.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Amen, brother! :jam:retrorich said: