Looks Like Another Bs Election In 08'

[Grandpa Harley]

for me none are perfect but the only one I could vote for would be Ron Paul. (even though the media will make sure that wont happen). He is the only one who would rid the country of its tax tyranny and the income tax scam. that is why the media tries to down play him or don't give him enough light. he stands for so much that I believe. He doesn't like socialism and its abuses neither do I .

 

The problem with voting for revenue in your pocket (no matter the party frock you put it in) is that it's that thinking that gets ever less palatable leaders.

[woodsmoke]

Running away solves nothing.

 

I find it ironic this is virtually always said by someone who's opposed to "running away" from the start. True, it doesn't solve anything for the nation being left behind, but I should think the mere fact an individual is willing to expatriate in the first place should be all the indication one should need to understand that individual isn't overly concerned with the fate of the nation s/he's leaving (or, at least, not enough to allow that concern to keep her/him there).

 

I'm willing to bet if you were to ask Vigile, HuaiDan and Jun, they'd tell you "running away" was exactly the solution they were looking for.

[RedPillAddict]

Running away solves nothing.

 

I find it ironic this is virtually always said by someone who's opposed to "running away" from the start. True, it doesn't solve anything for the nation being left behind, but I should think the mere fact an individual is willing to expatriate in the first place should be all the indication one should need to understand that individual isn't overly concerned with the fate of the nation s/he's leaving (or, at least, not enough to allow that concern to keep her/him there).

 

I'm willing to bet if you were to ask Vigile, HuaiDan and Jun, they'd tell you "running away" was exactly the solution they were looking for.

 

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.

Running away solves nothing as far as change for your current country(i.e. leaving America isn't going to help change the things you want changed in America).

 

If I had the money for it, I'd probably leave the country myself. Not because of any specific cause, just because I would like to see other parts of the world, and see how other systems and cultures work. I would love nothing more than to get away for at least a while. I recently started to learn German again(took it in high school) in the hopes that maybe I can visit Germany in the future. I also have some "teach yourself" books and software for Spanish and Mandarin Chinese that I hope I can one day put to use.

 

I have never said that I was "opposed" to running away...in fact, I think it takes a lot of intelligence and bravery to admit that sometimes it is the best option.

[WCrystal]

I voted in the last election, but I'm not voting in this one, or any other one that comes up after this. The only things I'm going to vote on are the propositions. My vote doesn't count, and I know it.

 

My main reason is because I chose to remember my high school government class. Electoral college anyone?

[RedPillAddict]

Been reading up on Ron Paul a bit more. Seems like a decent candidate if it weren't for things like this:

Church and State relationship

 

Ron Paul has consistently advocated that the federal government not be involved in citizens' everyday lives. This includes issues concerning religion. For example, he believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at the federal or state level. [131][132]

 

In a December 2003 article entitled, "Christmas in Secular America", (previously erroneously referred to as "The War on Religion") Paul wrote, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."[133]

 

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[123] If made law, this provision would allow displays of religious text and imagery by state, county, and local governments.[citation needed]

 

So...we get more freedom from the government, but the church will have more power? Seems like a losing situation either way.

For some reason I see prayer in the classroom and the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and it is enough to make me not vote for him.

[Evan]

Stephen Colbert

President for 2008

 

I'm voting for him over every other candidate. Why? because even though he won't win... I would still love to hope

[Japedo]

I voted in the last election, but I'm not voting in this one, or any other one that comes up after this. The only things I'm going to vote on are the propositions. My vote doesn't count, and I know it.

 

My main reason is because I chose to remember my high school government class. Electoral college anyone?

 

 

The EC is a more fair way to hold national elections. Small states would never have say and huge city's would run the entire nation if not for the EC. The popular vote of that particular state gets the EC vote for the national. I honestly don't understand people who argue against the EC, can you please clarify why you don't care for it? There are more to elections then presidents and props. What about for congress, senators, Governors, local governments, and, selectmen and so forth?

[Grandpa Harley]

Stephen Colbert

President for 2008

 

I'm voting for him over every other candidate. Why? because even though he won't win... I would still love to hope

 

It amused me to see him towed out by Uncle Sam on The Daily Show the other night...

[Grandpa Harley]

I voted in the last election, but I'm not voting in this one, or any other one that comes up after this. The only things I'm going to vote on are the propositions. My vote doesn't count, and I know it.

 

My main reason is because I chose to remember my high school government class. Electoral college anyone?

 

 

The EC is a more fair way to hold national elections. Small states would never have say and huge city's would run the entire nation if not for the EC. The popular vote of that particular state gets the EC vote for the national. I honestly don't understand people who argue against the EC, can you please clarify why you don't care for it? There are more to elections then presidents and props. What about for congress, senators, Governors, local governments, and, selectmen and so forth?

 

EC works fine in principal, but they fail in that they often ignore the majority in the state and apply their mandate to vote in the direction of the Government they think will win... thus, in 2000, states that had a voter majority for Gore cast for Bush (ignoring the whole Hoop-La over Florida)

 

At least that's my hazy understanding of what went on...

[Japedo]

EC works fine in principal, but they fail in that they often ignore the majority in the state and apply their mandate to vote in the direction of the Government they think will win... thus, in 2000, states that had a voter majority for Gore cast for Bush (ignoring the whole Hoop-La over Florida)

 

At least that's my hazy understanding of what went on...

 

The 2000 election debacle was mainly because of Diebold and the hanging and dimpled chads. The heated debate was over a few counties and not the entire state. I believe there was another state in question that should have gone to Gore, but at the moment that escapes me.

[pandora]

I voted in the last election, but I'm not voting in this one, or any other one that comes up after this. The only things I'm going to vote on are the propositions. My vote doesn't count, and I know it.

 

My main reason is because I chose to remember my high school government class. Electoral college anyone?

 

 

The EC is a more fair way to hold national elections. Small states would never have say and huge city's would run the entire nation if not for the EC. The popular vote of that particular state gets the EC vote for the national. I honestly don't understand people who argue against the EC, can you please clarify why you don't care for it? There are more to elections then presidents and props. What about for congress, senators, Governors, local governments, and, selectmen and so forth?

 

EC works fine in principal, but they fail in that they often ignore the majority in the state and apply their mandate to vote in the direction of the Government they think will win... thus, in 2000, states that had a voter majority for Gore cast for Bush (ignoring the whole Hoop-La over Florida)

 

At least that's my hazy understanding of what went on...

 

Well, I'm no expert in politics, but I do not believe that the EC works like that. The factor that makes it unfair, IMO, is that each state gets so many votes based on the population of that state... and while I think some states have considered changing how they divide up the EC votes, this is how it works in most large state. I might be forgetting something, but I think that's how it works. Thus, I believe twice in history it has happened: Gore won the popular vote overall but Bush won the EC and the election. There is also suspicion of vote fraud in FL and OH, two major states key to the EC vote.

 

Maybe what you're thinking of is the fact that primaries are not all at the same time for the presidential race, so people in states voting later in the process may change their vote based on who is winning or who they think is going to win.

[Japedo]

Well, I'm no expert in politics, but I do not believe that the EC works like that. The factor that makes it unfair, IMO, is that each state gets so many votes based on the population of that state... and while I think some states have considered changing how they divide up the EC votes, this is how it works in most large state. I might be forgetting something, but I think that's how it works.

 

Right, it's based upon the number of senators plus the number of its representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Which is the only reason we're suppose to have a census every 10 years. CA is the jackpot consisting of 55 EC Votes while small states like mine (NH) only counts for 4. I know that Maine and another state I forget which one now is able to break up their EC Votes according to district. I believe it's only two states that can do this I forget why and how tho? I need to brush up on my Voting history.

[Guest bdp]

I believe there was another state in question that should have gone to Gore, but at the moment that escapes me.

 

That was the problem I had with the 2002 election - why the recount in just a few counties in one state? If it's that close and in dispute recount everything. I know some people believe that that opens everything up for even more fraud but such a selective recount as what happened seems silly to me.

[woodsmoke]

The EC is a more fair way to hold national elections. Small states would never have say and huge city's would run the entire nation if not for the EC. The popular vote of that particular state gets the EC vote for the national. I honestly don't understand people who argue against the EC, can you please clarify why you don't care for it? There are more to elections then presidents and props. What about for congress, senators, Governors, local governments, and, selectmen and so forth?

 

I personally dislike the EC because it quite literally makes my vote meaningless in national elections.

 

As you know, I live in Utah, which, to put it mildly, is dominated by conservatives. The EC, as you also know, functions on the basis of democratic majority of a state's votes. This means whenever a national election rolls around, no matter how strongly I believe in the pipe-dream of American Democracy I'm going to be deafeningly shouted down by the majority population of my state who hold diametrically opposed political views, and our EC representatives are going to do as the system dictates and vote unanimously for the Republican candidate(s).

 

Given this is the current system, the result, as I said above, is I have literally no voice on the national level.

 

Yet I'm still taxed. I seem to recall a very messy conflict in our nation's history which had its roots in a very similar problem.

 

EC works fine in principal, but they fail in that they often ignore the majority in the state and apply their mandate to vote in the direction of the Government they think will win... thus, in 2000, states that had a voter majority for Gore cast for Bush (ignoring the whole Hoop-La over Florida)

 

At least that's my hazy understanding of what went on...

Well, I'm no expert in politics, but I do not believe that the EC works like that. The factor that makes it unfair, IMO, is that each state gets so many votes based on the population of that state... and while I think some states have considered changing how they divide up the EC votes, this is how it works in most large state. I might be forgetting something, but I think that's how it works. Thus, I believe twice in history it has happened: Gore won the popular vote overall but Bush won the EC and the election. There is also suspicion of vote fraud in FL and OH, two major states key to the EC vote.

 

Maybe what you're thinking of is the fact that primaries are not all at the same time for the presidential race, so people in states voting later in the process may change their vote based on who is winning or who they think is going to win.

 

I believe Gramps is actually right on that point. From Wikipedia:

 

An electoral college is a set of electors, who are empowered as a deliberative body to elect a candidate to a particular office. Often these electors represent a different organization or entity with each organization or entity by a particular number of electors or with votes weighted in a particular way. Many times, though, the electors are simply important persons whose wisdom, it is hoped, would provide a better choice than a larger body. The system can ignore the wishes of a general membership whose thinking may not be considered. When applied on a national scale, such as the election of a country's leader, the popular vote can on occasion run counter to the electoral college's vote, and for this reason there are some who feel that the system is a distortion of true democracy in a democratic society.

 

Looks an awful lot like what he's saying to me, and it leads into another beef I have with the EC. Unlike elected officials are supposed to be, there's nothing in our nation's government structure to hold EC reps accountable to the will of the people. It's all well and good to say they're supposed to have the "wisdom" a much larger electorate would lack, but one need only look at the debacle of the U.S. national government over the past seven years to see just how dubious that claim is.

 

Much like the SCotUS, it may seem to make a lot of sense to have parts of the national government beyond accountability to the will of the citizenry, but in practice it all too often falls apart.

 

Right, it's based upon the number of senators plus the number of its representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Which is the only reason we're suppose to have a census every 10 years. CA is the jackpot consisting of 55 EC Votes while small states like mine (NH) only counts for 4. I know that Maine and another state I forget which one now is able to break up their EC Votes according to district. I believe it's only two states that can do this I forget why and how tho? I need to brush up on my Voting history.

 

And here we have my last point of contention. Simply put, the legal framework of the EC itself is flawed, in that there's nothing to ensure fair representation of all of a state's population. In Utah, the candidate(s) with the majority of the popular vote are given the unanimous support of the state's EC, regardless of how close or contested the vote may actually have been. So, say we have 4 EC representatives and the Republican candidate beats out his Democratic rival 51%-49% in the pop vote. That candidate will then be given all four of the state's EC votes, rather than the 2-2 split which would have been a true representation of the pop vote. Yet the system says this is totally okay. Now, granted, Utah is a bad example, as political uniformity is such here that most conservative candidates are actually going to get enough of an overwhelming popular vote to justify unanimous support in the EC. However, I know there are other, more truly diverse states wherein the system is the same. In "swing states" like Florida and Ohio, this has and will continue to lead to huge controversies like those seen over the past 7 years.

 

Once again, the minority of the state's population (no matter how sizable) is marginalized and muted by the majority vote and the very system which is supposed to protect its rights and ensure fair, proportionate representation.

 

Yet they, too, are still taxed.

 

Amerikan Demokracy truly is alive and well.

[Japedo]

 

Woody, I understand what you're saying. Republicans in Mass have the same gripe. There is no perfect system but the EC is better then most IMO. If we did away with the EC, the cities would control every single National election. There would be no need for anyone to campaign in Utah, NH, or most of the country for that matter. Only places with huge populations would be pandered to. Small states would be irrelevant and would have virtually no voice. Farmers, and small town issues would no longer matter on a national level.

 

I can say as far as town politics goes I feel the same as you it's not fair and my voice doesn't count. The population of my town goes against my vote, Even though I live in a mainly democrat state, my town and county are strongly fascists republicans ( ) I don't let that blow the wind out of my sails and prevent me from voting. I disagree with how my town is distributing funds, but I still show up to town meetings and still vote even though I know I'll lose. Spending unreal amount of town money on things not needed such as armored cars and swat trucks and cutting programs in the school and town is outrageous to me. Our school is so small it's only approx 350 students, our town doesn't need all this bullshit police state stuff yet election after election our money is voted to go toward this shit, By paranoid authoritarians. Speaking up and becoming involved and convincing people why they are wrong is what it's all about. We did manage to save a teachers job last year, we are a minority but sometimes we win. If I didn't bother to vote because I felt as tho it didn't matter anyway... Well I'd see that as part of the problem.

[woodsmoke]

Oh, certainly. Had I not been doped up on decongestants and halfway to dead bed I would have remembered to include the last bit I'd meant to with that previous post. Essentially, for all my gripes with the EC, I'll freely admit I don't know of a better solution*. However, I don't hold with the platitude so often lobbed against cynics like myself to "not complain unless I have a solution." I may not be the one to fix the problem, but another may be inspired to thought or action through hearing me; and if everyone simply kept silent the problem would never be recognized, let alone solved.

 

*Though I do think requiring electors' ballots to proportionately reflect the popular vote of their state and creating some kind process whereby they can be held accountable for failing to do so would do a lot to improve the institution. I'd still be hosed living in Utah, but at least I could take comfort in the knowledge there's at least a chance a liberal candidate could get one of my state's EC votes if enough of the population votes for him.

 

That said, I've realized in previous years I'm one of those lazy, self-interested SOBs the founders probably would have thought so poorly of. As Ro-bear once explained it (and rather beautifully, I might add), I lack the self-sacrificial component necessary to stick around and "fight the good fight." My life and happiness are worth infinitely more to me than some grand ideal, regardless of how positive and/or benevolent it may be. Democratic advocacy just isn't my thing. I don't give two shits what the rest of the community/state/nation decides to do with themselves as long as I'm left alone to live as I see fit. And if they decide they don't want me to have that privilege, it's time to leave and find another community/state/nation that will.

[WCrystal]

I voted in the last election, but I'm not voting in this one, or any other one that comes up after this. The only things I'm going to vote on are the propositions. My vote doesn't count, and I know it.

 

My main reason is because I chose to remember my high school government class. Electoral college anyone?

 

 

The EC is a more fair way to hold national elections. Small states would never have say and huge city's would run the entire nation if not for the EC. The popular vote of that particular state gets the EC vote for the national. I honestly don't understand people who argue against the EC, can you please clarify why you don't care for it? There are more to elections then presidents and props. What about for congress, senators, Governors, local governments, and, selectmen and so forth?

 

Well, it's not just the Electoral College thing.

In the last election (2004), when I voted, they gave me a paper with a number to call to see if my vote "counted"... I looked at them like "what the hell? How the fuck can my vote not count?"... anyways, 72 hours later, like the paper said, I called, and the recorded message said, "Thank you for participating in the 2004 election. Unfortunately your vote was not counted in this election."

 

So you know what? To hell with it when it comes to the president. Because my vote for the president may not count.

 

Sure, I vote for the local things, such as mayor, senators, congressmans, district representatives, state laws, and so on (Well, I'm iffy on the governor voting because Arnold the Governator came to my city, spoke at a luncheon, but charged HUNDREDS per person which means he sure doesn't want us po' folk gathering 'round him).

[Grandpa Harley]

Whaa?

[WCrystal]

yeah, that was my thought exactly when I saw the piece of paper.... and that smiley with the ruffled brow sure does convey my facial expression at that time very well.

[Grandpa Harley]

but how does that work...

[Japedo]

 

I've never heard of such a thing. Did you contact your Secrtery of state? Here is some info for ya!! I see you live in CA... Here's a start. Good luck! CA Secretary of State

 

 

There is a phone number also to talk to someone directly. I don't live anywhere near CA but I can 99.9% say they aren't allowed to throw out valid votes. It's a private ballot, how can they even tell what you voted or that it was yours thrown out..?? I'm dumbfounded beyond words. They mark you when you go in and when you leave but have no idea what you voted, or at least aren't suppose to.

[Vigile]

It sounds like a psychological tactic by a PAC.

[Japedo]

It sounds like a psychological tactic by a PAC.

 

I'm sorry Vigile, I just want to clarify.( PAC = Political action committee) Do you mean something along the lines if their pet piece of legislation doesn't pass they say the 'votes' didn't count or some such? In reality it has nothing to do with the actual vote?

 

I'm sorry I have no idea why i'm finding it hard to word this question.

[Mongo]

Obviously more specific facts need to be supplied to get to the root of that phone response like who is the sponsor and such. As VDF suggests it may be a prankish/irresponsible PAC. If it is government sponsored then one would need to understand the intended meaning of the message. I think there could be (somewhat)rational explanations.

 

...

 

However... I cannot accept any stance that says that not voting is a reasonable response to poor government. Too freaking many people died in WWII for us to accept that.

 

I hope the apathetic people rethink this position.

 

Mongo

[Vigile]

Sorry, I used the wrong phrase. I meant party organizations. Dem party orgs, for instance, might try a stunt like this to protest the failure to count all votes.