How Do You Vote?

[Scott_In_Michigan]

With the coming elections, I find myself increasingly pissed off by just how ignorant some of my family and co-workers are about the candidates. Here's a list of most of the approaches people I've talked to will take at the election. I'm curious to see how people here fit in.

 

Hopefully this poll works. I've not set one up before.

 

EDIT: Sorry if this is not the correct forum for this post/poll. I wrote it with a feeling of intense frustration, so this seemed like a good place.

[woodsmoke]

I guess I'm the first to actually bother responding with a post.

 

Practically speaking, I don't vote because I live in Utah, and my political leanings and the system we have in place for deciding national elections make my voice literally worthless on the national political level.

 

More personally, I just don't see as it really changes anything. Democans and Republicrats are just two essentially identical sides of the same corruption-riddled coin. Any "differences" between them are merely token dissimilarities exaggerated for the benefit of the consumer's bread and circus.

 

Not just something therein, but Denmark itself is rotten, and in a truly fantastic deception it has convinced its citizens the cure is worse than the disease.

[Megara]

I take pretty much everything into account when voting. My first priority is voting for the person that I find best fit to run the country well. I listen to friends in debate, pay attention to the news, read what the candidates say on their websites, read ontheissues.org... If I am adamantly against a particular candidate, I will vote against him/her however, that is of less importance than voting for a particular candidate.

[Jedah]

The poll lacks the most important option: Cross referencing what the media has to say about them with non-mainstream information and observing them in debates, or just generally using all of the above as information resources.

[Ro-bear]

There needs to be another section.... I vote for the candidate who most closely aligns with my ideological position, regardless of party.

 

Burned is right. We agree for the second time in one week.

 

 

Which, unless I'm mistaken, is one of the signs of the Apocalyse.

[♦ nivek ♦]

RKBA/2A period.

 

There are no other issues for me.

 

 

 

 

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

[Japedo]

My vote is important, I take it with huge responsibility and vote out of duty, even if I have dingelberrys to choose from.

 

I have in the past actually went to see many candidates when they come to NH to campaign. I have met and listened to presidential candidates from Gary hart, Jessy Jackson to G.H. Bush to name a few.. I went to see W as well but had to sit in the second seat and watch him on a big screen. This is the first year I have not done so. My kids have, I'm surprised to see the vast amount of passion and interest 3 of them have. My twins will not be voting tomorrow but will be voting in the general they will be 18 by then and are jumping on the campaigning wagon. My youngest child isn't able to vote, although he sat on Sat night with the rest of us and we watched and discussed the 4 hour long debate like it was a play off game.

 

I'm usually up on the latest congress session, and find C-span to be a source of entertainment at times. It is no secret here I am a political junkie of sorts. I have always put a lot of thought in my vote. I have been an undecided this entire process. I would have to say this year a collection of your reasons apply. I don't base my vote on one way thinking. I also don't have a pet cause other then the Bill of Rights and constitutional issues, but in this day and age.. it's just a 'goddamn piece of paper'.

 

I am only able to vote in the Republican election tomorrow in the NH primary. Good news is... I'm only worth one vote. LOL! I have reasoned my supporting Paul, while It might be faulty I have decided to look at it this way.

 

I am not inspired by anyone on the RNC ticket. Paul is the closest to my ideology politically. He gave impressive answers in the debate on Saturday, and it's shameful he was not allowed to participate in Faux snooze debate even tho he's pulling better numbers then either Rudy or Thompson who are now in single digits. Paul in on the heels of horrific Huckabilly, and in 4th place. My vote will go to paul in an attempt to stall Huckabillys momentum going into super Tuesday. If Huck doesn't pull 3rd in NH it will do SOME damage, although watching the debate, he will win voters there is NO doubt in my mind as much as I detest him.

[Wertbag]

Politics never works to put the best person in any position, its a choice between a few equally bad choices. I'd much rather see them run it like a business (eg best qualifications, interview process, skills related to the position etc), currently its just a waste of time.

[Vigile]

My vote is important, I take it with huge responsibility and vote out of duty, even if I have dingelberrys to choose from.

 

Do you feel that perhaps your vote really is more important than those who live in other geographical areas of the US? Living in NH, you not only live in a state with a lot of independant voters who truly do pay attention to the issues and a state that is truly capable of changing its opinion from election to election, but you also live in a state whose primary is heavily watched by the rest of the nation and that helps establish momentum.

 

Those from Idaho, Alabama, and a myriad of other states have virtually no effect on the election. Idaho, for e.g., has two measily electorals and it is a given that they will go to the Republican nominee. Likewise, the state has virtually no power to effect the direction of the primaries. Being from Idaho, I think I can say without reservation that my vote is not important. Not all votes are created equal.

[Scott_In_Michigan]

Thanks for the replies. Yeah, I knew I wasn't covering all of the options that people would look for. But the ones I did put in were the things people I've spoken to stated were their ways of thinking. Sadly I got the sense that most of them were either under the assumption that the mainstream media is portraying every possible candidate very accurately, or that they didn't give a rip about the election because of either apathy or due to a feeling that their vote didn't matter.

 

I wish the election was just a one time event (every four years) instead of this prolonged process of campaigning and elimination. Leading up to that election the candidates would have some sort of avenue (a website would be perfect) from which they could communicate their goals as president, their past and credentials, and why they should be president. None of them would have these enormous budgets to spend on media blitzes, mudslinging campaigns, and party propaganda. And debates would be held in a manner where each candidate would be given equal time to speak on all of the questions. The election itself would allow citizens to vote for any candidate rather than having these silly primaries and stuff where some are eliminated.

 

It is stupid that a worthy candidate should not have a chance because he/she doesn't have the funds to produce advertisements and hire an extensive staff. They should all have equal representation and footing in the entire process.

 

The way I see it, our electoral process is a farce, even aside from what I just described. The fact that the votes of the people are not what is used to determine the final outcome is complete bullcrap. Why do we have an electoral college? Why not just count the actual votes and determine the winner? I see the electoral college as both a means to control the outcome and a potential way to give victory to a candidate who may not have had the majority of the actual votes.

 

And I do agree the democrats and republicans are pretty much the same. I like to refer to them as republicrats.

[ShackledNoMore]

I hate to sound cynical about this, but in Florida, my vote really doesn't count.

 

When I was very young, and not yet thinking things through so well, I bought into the idea that a single vote could make the difference. I'm pretty sure I was even taught this, with city elections where a candidate won by either a single vote or a small number of votes given as an example. "Yeah," I simplistically thought.

 

Well I didn't need for this to actually happen to realize now that it was simplistic, so it is ironic that it already has happened to me, twice. For all I know, I may have cast the deciding vote to elect G. W. Bush's opponent into office instead of him, at least once and possibly twice. I understand it's hard to count millions of votes, but there certainly was no interest in truly getting an accurate tally. Now for the primaries, my vote is officially not counting now that the states delegates have been taken away as punishment, as though I had control over whether Florida moved its primary up too early or not. I marvel that it's legal to strip ANYBODY'S vote (if it is) given our national history and issues of earlier generations with the black and female vote. I know, I'll still have a choice between two sleezeballs that somebody else selected for me so that we can pretend that my vote counts in the national election.

 

Yeah, I still vote, even though my vote doesn't matter and I understand that elections are sociological in that they deal with with patterns and a societal decision, so an individual vote is one drop in the ocean, but getting people to participate in large numbers is the powerful wave that gets one person elected instead of another. It's even more dismaying in a winner take all system, such as we have: all representation for you goes to the candidate/platform/philosophy you opposed. And in effect, I voted for Bush twice, since all our delegates went to him. Unfortunately, the Bush's and the Huckabees are the ones who can better mobilize their malleable ignorant masses.

[Jillian]

In Australia, it is obligatory to vote and last November we had federal elections. My vote went to the new PM as I went by the past PM's track record of lies, deceit and Dubya toe-sucking!!! :-P

 

I know that doesn't relate specifically to the US election/voting etc...but, just my two bobs worth anyway! lol

 

J.

[Vigile]

Yeah, I still vote, even though my vote doesn't matter and I understand that elections are sociological in that they deal with with patterns and a societal decision, so an individual vote is one drop in the ocean

 

You actually raise an interesting issue here. Statistically, 1024 (if I remember correctly) is the magic number. If you can get a random sample from a group of 1024, you can get a fairly accurate reading of the intent of the population as a whole. This is what polsters do. Polls are less accurate as they can manipulate the results with the questions. Voting, however, is pretty straight up or straight down, so taking away accuracy due to the fact that the type of people who show up to vote do not necessarily represent the desires of those who don't bother to show up to vote, and you can get a accurate read on what everyone wants.

 

So why is it important to "get out the vote"? If 1024 show up or if 1,000,024 show up, the results should be virtually the same.

[Japedo]

Do you feel that perhaps your vote really is more important than those who live in other geographical areas of the US? Living in NH, you not only live in a state with a lot of independant voters who truly do pay attention to the issues and a state that is truly capable of changing its opinion from election to election, but you also live in a state whose primary is heavily watched by the rest of the nation and that helps establish momentum.

 

Hmm Vigile, I never really looked at it that way? I suppose you're right. I've lived in NH my entire adult life and I was raised in a very political family so perhaps it's a mix of the two? This state is not afraid to break from the police state hysteria. We as a state made a law against a national ID. We refused to be railroaded and comply. We might be a small state, but we take our politics seriously. I have the same opinion about my vote when there are no cameras and it's a state election and when it's the general.

 

People start campaigning one full year before primary day. NH is an extremely political state. We are also as you say very independent and vote more then any other state collectively. We have many town meetings and vote a lot in them, even if it's just a show of hands. We also vote for Governor every two years. A large majority of this state watches and listens to everyone. Having said that, I have not ever seen the atmosphere in a primary so passionate and driven as I am seeing this time around. I was indifferent and cynical, as if the American people would ever change from their fear and entitlements. As if anyone would really vote other then what personal benefit they stood to gain. But there is something in the air here that is inspiring and even those of us not voting in a particular party are beginning to see things different.

 

People are free to disagree but this is what I've seen about the nose dive Hillary has taken. Checkmate and game over for her she ran from the start of being the only inevitable Dem. She was going thru the motions and not looking at how things have drastically changed. She had no plan B, the DNC had no plan B. The republicans have No plan B. Everyone has been talking about Hillary being the front runner for 8 long years.

 

Hillary damaged herself beyond repair a few ways. One she didn't separate herself from her husband, campaigning with his old cabinet, both here and Iowa, you can not go backwards, this isn't the 90s. She can not talk about a new direction when she has all these old re-do's, No one fresh, no one new. Nothing inspiring what so ever, just the same old same old. Her husband also campaigns for her and is saying some off the wall things, Such as she's not getting any younger, and he can't make her New, Personally I think bills ego is to large to allow anyone to over shadow him. I don't understand any other reason why he would say these things.

 

The large new young energized base has no idea who bills cabinet members are, they all look old and come across as very lackluster. These young people were not raised with the mindset of being a victim because you're a women. Electing a women just because she's a women is not right in their eyes. Bill is her albatross as much as the people love him, we've already had 8 years of him. She's pushing him and then we read in the news of his possible selection as a United States Supreme court appointment if Hillary is elected.

 

Her campaign before her polls were tanking was about the Clinton's continued legacy. She delivers the same old predictable rhetoric of being angry and being the giver of all good gifts. Her NH Adds here during Christmas had her sitting on the floor surrounded by gifts with labels of government programs all gift wrapped, with her saying.. Now where did I put that health care. It was borderline Obscene, as if government pork is a gift to give the people when we are the one's paying for it. That might work in a strong welfare state, but it won't fly in NH. We take less government funds because of our refusal to be run by the nanny state. Such as seatbelt laws and the like. Lastly, The only time she shows emotion is when her polls are dropping, then she all of a sudden finds her public human side, on the last stitch possible second,the voters might feel sorry for her but will not give her votes for it. The conversation of her being passionate is a no fly the people have seen her her lack of warmth for 8 long years. The question that lead to the moving performance was how does she motivate and go on every day, who does her hair and so forth. The press is leaving that part of the question out. Most of the people here saw the question before it was edited. Looks like she's cracking under pressure of things not going her way, along with her angry outburst during the debates toward Obama. She was slapped down by Edwards who's dropped in the polls because of it, while Obama got to rise above the bickering looking like the adult. He's a masterful politician and knows when to argue a point and when to allow the attack to speak for itself.

 

Well see the election isn't over... but at this point it's Obama's to lose.

[Vigile]

People are free to disagree but this is what I've seen about the nose dive Hillary has taken. Checkmate and game over for her she ran from the start of being the only inevitable Dem

 

Well, if you're right here, I guess that makes me a sage as I called it a year ago.

 

Unless something dramatically changes over the course of the election process, I think Hilary doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the nom. As Dave mentioned, progressives hate her for voting for the war and conservatives, even the middle of the roaders who swing elections, have always hated her. And did I read right? Terry McAuliffe is her campaign chair? This is the genius that led the Dems to such a sweeping victory over the past two Congressional elections (prior to the last one) by failing to give the party a coherent platform. America didn't know what the dems stood for under this guy, so they voted for the reps even though they were disgruntled with them.

 

Obama:

 

Just an initial, totally uninformed opinion about him. I think he has legs and can go all the way. Why isn't anyone talking about an Edwards/Obama ticket yet? North/South mix. Both are likeable. Obama has political charisma and charm that seem to equal Hilary's husband. It's unlikely that after Bush the reps can win the exec this next term so why not?

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...st&p=252095

 

I agree with Japedo. Shock. They treated him like he was a rock star. Whoever is ahead in the polls now is not necessarily going to be ahead in the polls once the real campaigning starts. The front runners change all through the race.

 

The main reason I think he has a real shot is that people aren't for the most part rational. Who cares if Hillary has experience? If a truly charismatic figure runs for office (it would be a first since Bill ran) they have the potential to overwhelm the competition. Smear tactics won't make a difference if he knows how to respond with snappy comebacks and a positive feel good message.

 

I still think that Hilary has way too much hate against her to make her a viable candidate. The right hated Bill as much as the left hates Bush. And those who hate Bill hate Hillary 2-squared. Why do the Dems need to run someone that will rally the opposition base with such fury? It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...st&p=252816

[Japedo]

For those interested in Ron Paul, he is doing something that could win him the nomination but in a very unorthodox way. =

 

 

Agree Burned, Paul is the wild card and might be an upset. Paul won in the Nevada Straw poll. with a 39% First placement. McCain came in second with 15 % there. Source Also, there seems to be a Paul movement in NH picking up, although it's taking a back seat to the Obama wave.

 

Rudy will not win anywhere except maybe NY. He is in single digits here and we're in the northeast and he's not even in the top tier of placements. Huckabilly is even beating him in a secular state, Rudy has no chance.

[Japedo]

 

Wow Vigile, what a sobering read, I guess you did call it!! I'm impressed.

[SWIM]

I really could not vote on this poll.

 

There was no choice for the way I do it.

 

First, I take a look at what they say, on their websites, or other internet media. I use the internet a lot. I look at their religion, not just what their label is, but how strongly they believe. Why? Because I don't want any presidentual decisions based on religion to occur.

 

Then I listen to the debates.

 

So, there is really no options in this poll that fit me... ;(

[Japedo]

Japedo,

 

The fact in NH that the Paul movement is taking a backseat to Obama may be a good thing as it will keep Paul under the radar and allow him to work mostly unmolested. Plus, the Fox News snubbing of him will actually work in his favor. That will piss off his activists and win some support from people who were admirers but not active...that would kick some people into working for him purely out of anger and spite. In my book, I don't care how somebody wins, be it by anger or by admiration...just so long as they win. ...LOL

 

Paul should have done what Duncan Hunter did yesterday. That was a classic move, Hunter has zero chance but he was able to give the Main stream media the finger on live TV. It was classic. That was a very savvy political move, I was kind of Jealous Paul didn't think of it first.

[Robbobrob]

Since graduating college, my vote has always gone on strict party lines....if there is an option other than Democrat or Republican, that is the one I am voting for. This one party system (with two halves) sucks.

[Amethyst]

The poll lacks the most important option: Cross referencing what the media has to say about them with non-mainstream information and observing them in debates, or just generally using all of the above as information resources.

 

Yes, that is generally what I do as well. I use many sources, not just one or two. And I also look to see what the other side has to say about them.

[godlessgrrl]

If a candidate has a political career (as most do), I find that looking up their actual track record is immensely useful. If they were governor, what kinds of legislation did they authorize or veto? What issues did they support or call for? What kinds of political jobs have they held and what did they do there? Were they congress members, or involved in state gov, or did they head the CIA, or what? What papers did they sign and when? If they were members of congress, what was their voting record there?

 

I'm more impressed (or dismayed) by a politician's real nuts-and-bolts track record than I am by what they say about themselves, or what anyone else says about them.

[Skiergirl24]

I look at the issues. The Iraq war, women's rights, stem cell research, the environment etc. are all important to me. I narrow down a list of candidates and then I start researching them. I watch the debates but honestly just because someone is a superior debateer does not mean they will be a good president. But, right off the bat I eliminate the hyper-religious..that's numero uno!

[trashy]

Having moved from right-wing fundamentalist conservative to libertarian, to neo-libertarian to.......well, I don't have a category now. I just generally don't give a fuck. There are only a few rare circumstances that would cause me to make the effort to go to the polls. One would be legislation that was supremely worthy (like banishing all liquor sales restrictions) or that was supremely stupid (like banning gay marriage). The other would be a candidate who threatens my pursuit of happiness, especially a local election. Other than that, it just doesn't make a god damned bit of difference who is in office. Politicians are to be tolerated, not supported.

[MathGeek]

*snip* Politicians are to be tolerated, not supported.

 

I agree with your observations for the most part. I have swung toward a moderate libertarianism recently, from a somewhat liberal opinion before that. I will vote mostly out this illusory belief that I think my vote will matter. I have been pushing for Bill Richardson mostly of his track record in politics, but after some comments on here, he is really not more than a holdover from the Clinton era, and I haven't really been able to pin down where his support is at. Considering his fourth place finish in New Hampshire, Super Tuesday is likely 'do or die'. The only other candidate I could conceivably vote for is Ron Paul, but his stances are too divisive. If he was against Barack Hussein "[Can of] Rockstar" Obama (who I think may just win this primary season), Paul would likely see defeat at the end. Lately, the right-wingers have been pushing Obama's "radical Muslim" background, which is likely a smoke screen scare tactic, but comparing that to Ron Paul's stances would make Obama the likely choice for President in that race.

 

Still, there are too many unknowns to consider, and that hurts my head.