I disagree that voting for a third party candidate is throwing your vote away for two reasons. 1. No matter who you cast your vote for, a single vote will NEVER matter. As such, you may as well cast it for the candidate you find most suitable.
2. The two party system is a self fulfilling prophecy. People say that only democrats or republicans will win and thus it happens because the votes are cast with that in mind. Since the two major parties both suck, I won't be voting for either.
im in va (a battleground state) unfortunately i turned 18 just a week before the cutoff date. and i didnt find out about the cutoff date till 3 days later. :( i was excited about voting as soon as i turned 18 too...
Still vote, dude. I can understand not wanting to go 3rd party when they are they least likely to win, but go Obama even if you are in Texas. He is the only one who has any chance to beat McCain and Palin in Texas.
IRV would be a huge improvement, but what we really need is condorcet voting. Also electronic voting machines, in addition to providing a paper trail, should keep a database and a record of each ballot cast. That way we can match the paper trail with the records to make sure it hasnt been altered.
I would prefer Borda count for voting, with the caveat that we include only a primary, secondary, and tertiary for 3, 2, and 1 vote.
This works with our current polarized political system and gives a real allowance for independents to seize control. Polarized voters will likely include potential independents as secondary votes in order to spite the opposition, as will informed voters.
An independent would be viable first year, utterly close second, and win third, I guarantee.
2036?! Still too early. So long as people in power today are still alive in the future, you will never have an atheist in the oval office. Simply because they are atheist.
Sad, kinda cynical - but I also think probably true.
I agree with you completely, RabidApe. Every time this scenario comes up in discussion, I just can't bring myself to "throw my vote away" in such a close race with such high stakes. If we had Instant Runoff, things would be a lot different.
Your a Nader/Kucinich boy, eh? Neither Obama nor McCain are winners. But McCain understands the most important issue, the war on terror and our necessity to finish our victory in Iraq and the region. Bring the boys home? INsanity.
Maybe you should try serving in the military. You know, since you think they need to stay over there and keep getting killed. I did 5 years; tag, you're it!
7$7 First thanks for serving. Voluntarily. Like the volunteer armed forces we have. Who willfully enlist to do their part and help give 6th century creatures their death wish.
The revolution which freed us from England was voluntary, too.
About 90% of the people I met in the military joined as a last resort, for money or education, or for the empty promises made by their recruiters. If recruiters were forced to stop tricking people into joining, then there would need to be a draft to sustain the military. Hell, we stay in Iraq long enough and there'll be a draft regardless.
The military is supposed to be used for protecting the country, not killing people.
...well, i also like Billy Connolly's take on the whole thing "dont vote, it only encourages the bastards" ;-)
anyway, as i said to someone else, good luck to all you Americanos come your election... i think you deserve better than the crap you have put up with for so long.
I am not some brain dead shit, so I vote for someone who is not going to fuck up this country. So there is no way in hell I voting for the two main parties. I am going third party! can you guess who? Anyone who listen to the third party debates its the most smartest logical one of the group. Now who it is now?
What you said is exactly wrong. It is because you live in a Red State that you should vote for a 3rd party, because the outcome is practically decided. If you lived in a battleground state and your vote could plausibly count, then you could make the argument that you should vote for Obama.
Actually every vote for the Zionist party is a vote for Zionism.
Though I can kinda see where you're coming from as every candidate supports Israel, but considering that Israel has already, unfortunately, been established as YET ANOTHER religious state, we can't really do anything about without resorting to violence, and that's just going to breed more violence in retort.
I like that I am continuing to like Kucinich even now that he's no longer in the race - I like what he said during the "debate" of the bailout and other issues on the floor of the house - which needs a good vacuuming!
Dang - you are postponing your campaign already?!?!?!?!?!!?
You do have plans to run for local and state government positions, don't ya? You could be at the fore-front of making the changes you're talking about - helping us from within!!
Electronic voting can work, but the implementations they have is crap. Perhaps that is what I should spend my time doing, as a IT security professional.
If I lived in a state like Texas or California, I would vote third party. Those states will always go democrat or republican. In a state like that voting against the majority is throwing your vote away, so why not throw it away on someone you support.
I am voting for Obama just because he is black. I think having a black president will influence children for the next four (maybe eight) and will be a great way to address social issues.
"In a state like that voting against the majority is throwing your vote away"
Okay, this is something I've never understood about that argument. If the outcome is already a foregone conclusion, wouldn't voting WITH the majority also be a useless exercise? I mean, clearly they don't need your vote. So unless you actually support that candidate, why bother?
I just don't understand how picking the winner suddenly makes your vote count, or how it makes sense to vote for anyone besides YOUR guy.
Rapidape said he was going to vote for Obama, yet he lives in Texas. Texas always goes to the republicans. Rapidape also said he does not agree that much with Obama. Therefore, in that case he is throwing is vote away anyways. I am saying that if he is going to throw his vote away he should at least throw it to someone that he agrees with. That was the point of my text.
I agree with you that it does not matter in states like Texas and California, which is why he should vote for the person he actually agrees with. and I feel you should always vote for the issues that are most important to you and not parties.
Anytime you vote for the person you think is best for the job, you are NOT throwing your vote away. It is that mentality that the two big parties count on.
Even if your state is so red you'd think your in a puddle of blood, voting for blue still should be done. there are probably others in that area that feel their votes wont count because the state is "red" SO the closet blues don't come out. It may only turn your state pink in the end, but that might help shift the color in future elections.
The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States — emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers.
Neither of these two parties were mainstream since the founding of America, they started as third parties, that's the point. You're saying that paradigm shifts aren't possible despite the fact that they have happened countless times in the past over a variety of political, philosophical and social issues.
The only thing that calls into doubt the likelihood of that happening again is fucktard wankers such as yourself.
I never said third parties win all the time. They happen rarely. They happen during paradigm shifts. The main parties win so much because they offer something valuable. Third parties because mainstream when they offer something more valuable than a mainstream party or people's values change. If you vote for a third party you believe in, others may too and you give the party a chance. If you only vote against the party you like least, you're ensuring that the party you actually believe won't win.
2) You can't run for office. You don't believe in God. Texas EXPLICITLY has a state constitution which requires this. So you won't be able to have a state position. Could you skip that and go straight for presidency?
When it comes to the electoral college it's clear to me that it was created because, when it comes to presidential elections, the people were not solely to be trusted with a position so important. There's too much riding on it. It needs to go, but unfortunately we do live in a country of free voting citizens who still vote based on ignorance and for ignorant reasons.
We still have citizens who refuse to look at issues and vote based on superficial nonsense. It's the old, "I'm not voting for him because he's black." "He refuses to wear a lapel pin." "His middle name is Hussein." or else it's "I'm voting for him because his VP is a MILF." We live in a country that is so free that the citizens, who are of age, are free to vote based on absurdity.
That being said, the electoral college is a good idea, but it's undoubtedly just as corrupt as our own government and no one's vote should hold that much weight. So what's the solution? Education?
Being president is the most restrictive job in the country, except for sex and kitchen slaves. I would never want to be president, cause I wouldn't want to be the most scrutinized man in the world. Papparazi to the max.
"Throwing you vote away" is a ridiculous concept - your vote isn't going to make any difference in whether or not Obama wins, either. The notion that the purpose of voting is to maximize the impact of your vote (at least apparently) rather than support the right candidate is a bastardization of democracy.
Rabid, Do a vote exchange. In other words, trade your vote with someone from a battleground or early state. In otherwords, using the honor system, have someone that would vote for a 3rd party in a battleground state, vote for Obama, and you vote for their 3rd party. This way a 3rd party might get representation while your vote winds up counting more in the state that matters. But I agree 'instant run-off voting' is the ultimate way to go.
Not only is the system completely flawed, but the politicians can only change laws and CANNOT CHANGE the power structure based around the FED and Corporations.
When you vote between 2 shit candidates, you ARE throwing your vote away anyway. If you are voting for someone who only very partial supports your stances, you are being insincere and, basically, selling out.
Support the change you WANT, and not the bullshit of politics.
more votes for the third parties means more money for them next time, so it does matter in the long run, it will be the only way to get a vaild third party it to convince people it matters. I do understand your point about this election though
Various people say that the video doesn't work but that can be fixed, at least it worked for me, it's by manually switching to a higher quality mode.
So I recommend that you put a link to this video with "&fmt=18" at the end of the original URL in the description box for those people who encounter the problem.
The URL would be like this at the end "...watch?v=9qYTV9X4lzs&fmt=18"
(Check this one out and notice the awesome stereo that you will get with adding that code,very useful for music on YT)
Don't forget there's other great voting systems besides IRV. I just recently got pointed to condorcet voting, which I think reflects majority opinion even better than IRV. IRV is simpler to understand and probably makes more sense to people, though. Either one would be great improvement on the current system.
"I just recently got pointed to condorcet voting, which I think reflects majority opinion even better than IRV."
America wasn't designed to be majority rules! This is not a direct democracy, and for a good reason. The majority of Americans are satisfied with voting for either McCain or Obama. That tells me a lot about the wisdom of the majority.
I don't understand why the USA has a two-party system in the first place, and no-one's ever really been able to point out the reason for it when I've asked... Even the IRV video forgets that in some cases the 'spoilers' may be better choices than the reps or dems, but since they're third parties, they get no respect and are forced to be considered spoilers.
We have many parties in Canada and it works out (our minority government did well) sometimes. I'd like to see IRV too, though.
How do you figure that our system works? We don't even vote for the leader of our country. We only get to vote for the person who represents us, and if they are not a part of the winning party, or the official opposition, they're not going to have much of a say.
I don't figure. As I said, I don't understand the two-party system at all. I was asking a question. It works the same way here, except that we have five parties in the running right now that the media are bothering to follow. The fifth party is the "Green Party", which compares to a third party in the US, no-one's taking it really seriously (at least, I don't think so), but it still has a place in the polls on TV.
man, we don't know why we only have 2 either. you guys got lucky, I guess; you have more realistic options. no true third party has ever won a national election here (by that, I mean I'm not counting the republican's first wins as third party wins; they replaced the whigs as on of the 2 main parties).
You won't win, you're an atheist who has previously made a video implying that you're a moral relativist, I don't know if you have or not but even if you've come to the realization that moral relativists just contradict themselves & basically relinquish the right to state that anything is actually right or wrong, you'll still be a moral relativist, just as Barack "is a Muslim" as they say because it was implicate at 1 point thus significantly damaging his chances.
RabidApe, I like you like a fat kid likes cake... but the music in this video got a little loud towards the crescendo and it made it difficult to hear what you were saying, I love Chopin as much as the next guy but it dominated the video a little, maybe have it a little quieter so the video still gets the melody in the background but we can still hear you? Then towards the end where it fades to black you can turn the volume back up...
I'm having difficulty in bringing myself to vote for Obama. The reason? He voted for the Patriot act, and the telecommunications act earlier this year.
As for 3rd party voting, my feelings are very mixed: 1) A vote for a third party shows the other two what your feelings are, and they *may* respect them in the future, and 2) I think the only reason a 3rd party can't win is because everyone *says* they can't win. If *everyone* voted his conscience, then the candidate may have a chance.
Well, you *might* be right about that. To be honest, I'm not sure. Those numbers, however, are probably based on previous elections, and because people are dissuaded from voting for third parties, I firmly believe that the numbers *are* skewed.
That's because people are resistant to real change. They've grown up with a 2 party system and they think in 2 party ways. But without IRV we will continue to have this duopoly and unfortunately a duopoly is a system that within which it is fairly easy to maintain corruption.
I've talked to many progressive democrats myself (the ones that actually make up the bulk of the democratic party, oh why oh why don't they demand more of their leaders?) and most of them WOULD actually like to vote for a third party progressive, they just say to themselves they won't *win*. But I guess I just met different people....
It also has to do with how much media time they are given. After all, look at Perot, he was actually allowed into the debates, and given fair time in the media (I'm talking his 1992 run), and he was pretty close to winning, until he sabotaged his run by dropping out for several weeks. People don't seem to realize how strongly the media affects their opinion on politics.
"People don't seem to realize how strongly the media affects their opinion on politics."
The media also propagates the lie that it's not worth voting for someone who won't win. The spend all their time speculating who will win and how and all this useless BS because they are instilling the idea that it's pointless to vote for someone who won't win, and that you have to pick a "winner". Well, the flaw in that logic of course is the fact that almost half the people who vote WILL pick the loser.
Very true. I was (and still am to a point) a Ron Paul supporter, and that was mainly due to his views and the massive support I saw for him on the internet. Sadly, however, the media saw fit to exclude him from a good chunk of the debates, which rather sickened me. Another reason I'm finding it difficult to get behind Obama. My dream ticket? Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinnich.
"There are MASSIVE amounts of people that really do prefer democrats and republicans over the third parties."
The only reason is because they know nothing about them. The media casts a blackout over anyone but the two chosen candidates. The only reason we have two instead of one is to maintain the illusion of choice.
If you got rid of Obama and replaced him with Nader (given the same press coverage Obama gets), Nader would get at least as many votes as Obama will.
While I support Barack, I think it's of absolute vital importance that we can campaign to get the voices of all third party candidates heard. Most of the time they have far better ideas and more substance than the mainstream candidates.
If RabidApe wants to have any chance he'd best agree.
Unless you live in a swing state, you aren't throwing your vote away. And even then, the odds of being the sing vote are less likely then being struck by lightening twice.
Check out Shanedk's video on the subject. With a little math he shows how voting for either of the two parties IS throwing your vote away!
Check it out: /watch?v=FjUtYQ1dvuA
If you don't vote for Nader, the Democrats won't know you disapprove of them!
Instant Runoff Voting sure sounds nice, but I still would prefare if the u.s. would have a real democracy and not a 2 party dictatory enforced through the various election-systems. :>
Something I wondered about IRV, it sounds like such a great system, very balanced, etc, but if it were implemented that means the 2 most powerful political parties would lose their monopoly, suddenly they would have more than one opponent to deal with in every election. Do you really think the powers that be in government now would put such a system into place knowing it would limit their power?
I'm not opposed to IRV or anything, but I simply feel it still would not be a solution to the problem of crappy two-party candidates. It likely would be better than the current situation.
Lesser of two evils is not at all an option for me. In 2004, I thought Kerry was the lesser, and Bush still won. So as long as the rest of America is still dumb enough to vote for the greater of two evils, I'm not compromising my beliefs and my voice in order to ease the suffering just slightly.
The comment that I always hear about third party votes being "wasted" never made any sense to me. What is more of a waste: voting for someone you don't actually want in office, or voting for someone you like but know will not win? Your vote is your voice. The more that people vote for a third party, the more people will see a valid reason to do so.
As for IRV, there are a couple major misconceptions that the video bases itself on.
I think the most glaring one would be that our government was designed to be majority rule; it was not. How about we return to the idea of being a REPUBLIC (instead of a democracy) and then maybe picking a president wouldn't be such a huge deal?
If this were an IRV election, I'd still be stuck with one of the two people that I would NEVER vote for. I think most independents would still be unsatisfied.
For the third party the have to take so many votes or a percentage votes to remain on the ballot. So if you live Texas, Utah, or Oklahoma I would say vote third party to keep them on the ballot. I live in swing where in 2004 Kerry won by .4% in 200 Gore took it by .2% in 2000. So I dont have a choice of voting third party.
I would love to have IRV. Sadly, my lack of faith in the intelligence of the American people leads to to suspect we would be in for a massive cluster fuck if this happened.
"If Nader actually gave a shit about starting and propping up a third party, he's pour his time and money into local elections."
While I agree that third parties and independents need to start locally, and I mean the bare beginnings of locally (city elections), that's not really a license to support the two parties in the meantime. Like what happened in SF, when a Green party official came VERY close to winning the mayoral seat, national democrats stepped in and made sure that DIDN'T happen.
"Until I see him doing that, I consider him nothing more than an ego like Perrot was. "
Perot* would have actually probably won in 1992 if he hadn't sabotaged his campaign by dropping out for several weeks and returning again. Regardless, I think he actually made a positive contribution by ensuring the deficient stayed a top issue in the debates which both the republicans and democrats wanted to ignore.
I'd read "Would Ross Perot Have Won the 1992 Presidential Election under Approval Voting?" It is a very interesting take on what could have been a very real outcome in 1992 if one fatal mistake wasn't made.
Keep in mind neither two parties are going to accept IRV without a fight. You're going to have to drag them both kicking and screaming if you seriously want that to become a reality. As Frederick Douglass said "Power concedes nothing without demand. If people demand nothing, that is precisely what they will get.
Well Rabidape, it all depends on what state your in. I believe your currently in...Texas? Your vote for Obama then is practically useless, since your electoral college will overwhelmingly go towards Obama. If you're in a swing state, then yes, vote for whom you think is less "dangerous", but if you're in a safe state, you might as well vote for whom you really like. I also agree IRV would be fantastic.
Remember, if a third party actually got up to 5% of the vote, they'd get federal fund access and with that, eventually become a realistic alternative. I think one of the strategies third parties need to adopt is educating American's on how their vote is pretty much useless if they are in a solid state, and how if they agree with said third party, vote for them in that election if they are in a solid state, since their vote can help them then become an alternative in the future.
The problem with america is too many people like RabidApe who perpetuate the two party system by being complacent and thinking their vote matters but only when they vote for a democrat/republican. Voting for the lesser of two evils perpetuates evil.
no, his mentality is something that we call rationality. he KNOWS that a third party candidate WILL NOT WIN. so, he must choose between a theocrat and a socialist.
1. Your vote doesn't count anyway. Even if you live in a swing state, you still have about a 1 in a million chance of making a difference.
2. A vote for a third party isn't worthless. It helps keep third party candidates on the ballot. And it makes a powerful statement "I do not approve of either candidate". A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
"The third party will not win because most people aren't interested enough, thus I will not even consider voting third party."
In this way people will always vote for the two party system. But if, say, I convince you to vote third party and between you and me we get a lot more people to "throw their vote away". BY that point we can have 10-20% of people voting third party. And then arguing that a third party could win would be easier.
"BY that point we can have 10-20% of people voting third party."
-yeah, good luck with that. but right now, none of the alternatives to the two major parties have any chance of winning. I'm tired of political party loyalty and absolutism myself; I just pick the lesser of the two evils each time.
In all likelyhood he means the mentality of following the pre-established protocol of voting for one of the two major parties.
And it is wrong for america because so far switching between these two parties hasn't helped the situation much.
It's like an argument wherein you're told that everyone is either Islam or Catholic and you have to choose between them. By continuing to choose between them you eliminate innovation.
Okay, I didn't think you'd argue. I figured you, like the rest of the rational community sees major problems with the two party system. But I will answer you.
1. It has 3 components
A. You hold the idea that your vote can make a difference if you vote for Obama.
B. You think a vote for Nader is a wasted vote.
C. You think this election is somehow more important or closer than elections in the past.
2. The two party system. Look at government spending over the last 100 years. D R makes no diff.
Oui, I'm so sick of this spoiler accusation bullshit that I'm beginning to rip my hair out whenever I hear it. One, in 2004, nader didn't even receive 1% of the vote, so that doesn't even make any sense. And to address the other spoiler accusation...
the chief reason Bush won in 2000 was that his co-chair deliberately blocked careful checking of the list of felons, with the result that thousands of Black people who were not felons and were legally entitled to vote were blocked from voting. There is also the fact Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, which he would have won if he won that state, also the fact that all seven of the other third-party candidates on the ballot in Florida each received more than 537 votes.
Keep in mind my attack on the accusation Nader was a spoiler in 2000 and 2004 isn't necessarily a defense of him, but rather just a defense of what is true. I agree that Obama is more palatable than McCain.
This has been flagged as spam show
Full video here __HOSTSILO(.)COM__
a lnie skirts
99669x2 3 years ago
I disagree that voting for a third party candidate is throwing your vote away for two reasons. 1. No matter who you cast your vote for, a single vote will NEVER matter. As such, you may as well cast it for the candidate you find most suitable.
2. The two party system is a self fulfilling prophecy. People say that only democrats or republicans will win and thus it happens because the votes are cast with that in mind. Since the two major parties both suck, I won't be voting for either.
thedork01 3 years ago
haha im naked!!! who wants a strip tease msg me! W
ajphoenix91 3 years ago
obama is a terrorist
mose84 3 years ago
Your mom..
VandpipeMesias 3 years ago
im in va (a battleground state) unfortunately i turned 18 just a week before the cutoff date. and i didnt find out about the cutoff date till 3 days later. :( i was excited about voting as soon as i turned 18 too...
TheChristianAtheist 3 years ago
You could make up for your oversight by volunteering for the campaign, maybe... ;D
RabidApe 3 years ago
Still vote, dude. I can understand not wanting to go 3rd party when they are they least likely to win, but go Obama even if you are in Texas. He is the only one who has any chance to beat McCain and Palin in Texas.
generaleskimo 3 years ago
IRV would be a huge improvement, but what we really need is condorcet voting. Also electronic voting machines, in addition to providing a paper trail, should keep a database and a record of each ballot cast. That way we can match the paper trail with the records to make sure it hasnt been altered.
Mutex50 3 years ago
I would prefer Borda count for voting, with the caveat that we include only a primary, secondary, and tertiary for 3, 2, and 1 vote.
This works with our current polarized political system and gives a real allowance for independents to seize control. Polarized voters will likely include potential independents as secondary votes in order to spite the opposition, as will informed voters.
An independent would be viable first year, utterly close second, and win third, I guarantee.
Cacovangor 3 years ago
2036?! Still too early. So long as people in power today are still alive in the future, you will never have an atheist in the oval office. Simply because they are atheist.
Sad, kinda cynical - but I also think probably true.
TheNeognostic 3 years ago
Never is a dangerous word...
Evegeek 3 years ago
I agree with you completely, RabidApe. Every time this scenario comes up in discussion, I just can't bring myself to "throw my vote away" in such a close race with such high stakes. If we had Instant Runoff, things would be a lot different.
Vinifera7 3 years ago
Your a Nader/Kucinich boy, eh? Neither Obama nor McCain are winners. But McCain understands the most important issue, the war on terror and our necessity to finish our victory in Iraq and the region. Bring the boys home? INsanity.
johnnyk2112 3 years ago
Define "Win."
likmahdik12 3 years ago
"Bring the boys home? INsanity."
LOL! Wow. That really says it all, doesn't it?
Maybe you should try serving in the military. You know, since you think they need to stay over there and keep getting killed. I did 5 years; tag, you're it!
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
7$7 First thanks for serving. Voluntarily. Like the volunteer armed forces we have. Who willfully enlist to do their part and help give 6th century creatures their death wish.
johnnyk2112 3 years ago
The revolution which freed us from England was voluntary, too.
About 90% of the people I met in the military joined as a last resort, for money or education, or for the empty promises made by their recruiters. If recruiters were forced to stop tricking people into joining, then there would need to be a draft to sustain the military. Hell, we stay in Iraq long enough and there'll be a draft regardless.
The military is supposed to be used for protecting the country, not killing people.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
if your vote isnt going to count anyway... then why not vote for who you really want to vote for?
i dont get your logic on this RabidApe
the reason you vote isnt so that you vote for the guy who wins, its to vote for the guy you WANT to win, whether he wins or not.
throwing your vote away is when you dont do this.
tarose71 3 years ago
Yeah, I kinda muddied it up...
For the most part, I'm speaking about people in general, regarding my feelings in general about third-party candidates, throwing your vote away, etc.
I do understand that the likelihood of Texas going Obama is slim, so I should feel free to vote free of these awkward "constraints", yes.
So who I "endorse" depends on the circumstances...
I'm not sure who I'll actually VOTE for, that being said.
does that help?
XD
RabidApe 3 years ago
...well, i also like Billy Connolly's take on the whole thing "dont vote, it only encourages the bastards" ;-)
anyway, as i said to someone else, good luck to all you Americanos come your election... i think you deserve better than the crap you have put up with for so long.
tarose71 3 years ago
Good vid, but you might want to turn the music down a weeeee bit
churchofstfu 3 years ago
I am not some brain dead shit, so I vote for someone who is not going to fuck up this country. So there is no way in hell I voting for the two main parties. I am going third party! can you guess who? Anyone who listen to the third party debates its the most smartest logical one of the group. Now who it is now?
Darkphoenix3450 3 years ago
What's with the 2girls1cup music on the background...?
loekskywalker 3 years ago
What you said is exactly wrong. It is because you live in a Red State that you should vote for a 3rd party, because the outcome is practically decided. If you lived in a battleground state and your vote could plausibly count, then you could make the argument that you should vote for Obama.
inersphobia 3 years ago
Actually every vote for the Zionist party is a vote for Zionism.
Though I can kinda see where you're coming from as every candidate supports Israel, but considering that Israel has already, unfortunately, been established as YET ANOTHER religious state, we can't really do anything about without resorting to violence, and that's just going to breed more violence in retort.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
Not sure how IRV helps to focus the candidates on this issues rather than each other - can someone explain?
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago
The electoral college was established to combat Democracy, that is why it is valid and that is why it is still in use today.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
Woo Nader! :D
sumfamousperson17 3 years ago
With IRV, would it be required to state a secondary candidate?
crawtyler1 3 years ago
I want cookies.
Now.
Kunado 3 years ago
I like that I am continuing to like Kucinich even now that he's no longer in the race - I like what he said during the "debate" of the bailout and other issues on the floor of the house - which needs a good vacuuming!
Dang - you are postponing your campaign already?!?!?!?!?!!?
You do have plans to run for local and state government positions, don't ya? You could be at the fore-front of making the changes you're talking about - helping us from within!!
Elaina43 3 years ago
If your vote is not going to matter in TX, are you not throwing it away by voting for Obama?
Your vote is all you have.
Vote for the campaign that speaks to the change you want.
Obama is going to lose TX. The popular vote means nothing.
So vote NADER
davisfleetwood 3 years ago 2
Congratulations on what is possibly the longest YT title EVER! =)
ulthea 3 years ago
i feel the exact same way. grim reality.
i live in ohio, so i can't give my vote to a third party as much as i want to.
neveruse513 3 years ago
Electronic voting can work, but the implementations they have is crap. Perhaps that is what I should spend my time doing, as a IT security professional.
IdleGod 3 years ago
I'm so glad that we do have a three party race here in Canada. :) Don't vote for conservative Canada! Vote for either Liberal or NDP!
Justinfh2point0 3 years ago
If I lived in a state like Texas or California, I would vote third party. Those states will always go democrat or republican. In a state like that voting against the majority is throwing your vote away, so why not throw it away on someone you support.
I am voting for Obama just because he is black. I think having a black president will influence children for the next four (maybe eight) and will be a great way to address social issues.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
"In a state like that voting against the majority is throwing your vote away"
Okay, this is something I've never understood about that argument. If the outcome is already a foregone conclusion, wouldn't voting WITH the majority also be a useless exercise? I mean, clearly they don't need your vote. So unless you actually support that candidate, why bother?
I just don't understand how picking the winner suddenly makes your vote count, or how it makes sense to vote for anyone besides YOUR guy.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
Rapidape said he was going to vote for Obama, yet he lives in Texas. Texas always goes to the republicans. Rapidape also said he does not agree that much with Obama. Therefore, in that case he is throwing is vote away anyways. I am saying that if he is going to throw his vote away he should at least throw it to someone that he agrees with. That was the point of my text.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I agree with you that it does not matter in states like Texas and California, which is why he should vote for the person he actually agrees with. and I feel you should always vote for the issues that are most important to you and not parties.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Anytime you vote for the person you think is best for the job, you are NOT throwing your vote away. It is that mentality that the two big parties count on.
Moonteeth62 3 years ago 4
Well stated.
In Canada, parties receive funding based on votes received, so no vote is wasted.
As soon as you're voting for a lesser evil, and not in your own best interests, Democracy has failed.
wildsanity 3 years ago
Even if your state is so red you'd think your in a puddle of blood, voting for blue still should be done. there are probably others in that area that feel their votes wont count because the state is "red" SO the closet blues don't come out. It may only turn your state pink in the end, but that might help shift the color in future elections.
lydiasaintjohn 3 years ago
Third parties can win:
The Republican Party was created in 1854 in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a progressive vision of modernizing the United States — emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers.
Abe Lincoln was their first president.
lordcheetah 3 years ago
Wow, I'm sure the political climate was exactly the same 154 years ago as it is today.
richardshort2001 3 years ago
So what? The voting process is mostly the same.
lordcheetah 3 years ago
You're right, political climate probably has nothing to do with it, that's why 3rd parties keep winning every election cycle.
Oh wait...
richardshort2001 3 years ago
You're an idiot.
Neither of these two parties were mainstream since the founding of America, they started as third parties, that's the point. You're saying that paradigm shifts aren't possible despite the fact that they have happened countless times in the past over a variety of political, philosophical and social issues.
The only thing that calls into doubt the likelihood of that happening again is fucktard wankers such as yourself.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
I never said third parties win all the time. They happen rarely. They happen during paradigm shifts. The main parties win so much because they offer something valuable. Third parties because mainstream when they offer something more valuable than a mainstream party or people's values change. If you vote for a third party you believe in, others may too and you give the party a chance. If you only vote against the party you like least, you're ensuring that the party you actually believe won't win.
lordcheetah 3 years ago
O.o
Holy crap...what happened to the titles?
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
Dude totally...
CBUEngineer 3 years ago
interlaced video, QQ
WiseWeeabo 3 years ago
Lol @ the background music being all dramatic when you say you'd be more relaxed :p
~NSF
NoirShadowFall 3 years ago
economy is ok if you get highly complex. little polotics mostly foriegn
automaticAEV 3 years ago
fuck polotics man.
automaticAEV 3 years ago
hey man can you do a video where you talk about abiogenisis?
automaticAEV 3 years ago
to bad the popular vote doesn't count if the electoral collage doesn't want to
nailo1 3 years ago
1) Voting for the lesser of two evils?
2) You can't run for office. You don't believe in God. Texas EXPLICITLY has a state constitution which requires this. So you won't be able to have a state position. Could you skip that and go straight for presidency?
sy1234 3 years ago
When it comes to the electoral college it's clear to me that it was created because, when it comes to presidential elections, the people were not solely to be trusted with a position so important. There's too much riding on it. It needs to go, but unfortunately we do live in a country of free voting citizens who still vote based on ignorance and for ignorant reasons.
Cont...
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
We still have citizens who refuse to look at issues and vote based on superficial nonsense. It's the old, "I'm not voting for him because he's black." "He refuses to wear a lapel pin." "His middle name is Hussein." or else it's "I'm voting for him because his VP is a MILF." We live in a country that is so free that the citizens, who are of age, are free to vote based on absurdity.
Cont...
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
That being said, the electoral college is a good idea, but it's undoubtedly just as corrupt as our own government and no one's vote should hold that much weight. So what's the solution? Education?
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
Yes. Education. Unfortunately, I don't believe your leaders are interested in educating it's citizens.
Evegeek 3 years ago
Being president is the most restrictive job in the country, except for sex and kitchen slaves. I would never want to be president, cause I wouldn't want to be the most scrutinized man in the world. Papparazi to the max.
daswann14 3 years ago
"Throwing you vote away" is a ridiculous concept - your vote isn't going to make any difference in whether or not Obama wins, either. The notion that the purpose of voting is to maximize the impact of your vote (at least apparently) rather than support the right candidate is a bastardization of democracy.
danno1111 3 years ago 2
Sadly Obama is the best America can do so everyone with a small interest in the country's future should vote for him.
qanazir 3 years ago
Just a note...not everyone with an interest in America's future gets to vote.
Evegeek 3 years ago
IRV! IRV! IRV!
RabidApe! RabidApe! RabidApe!
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
Rabid, Do a vote exchange. In other words, trade your vote with someone from a battleground or early state. In otherwords, using the honor system, have someone that would vote for a 3rd party in a battleground state, vote for Obama, and you vote for their 3rd party. This way a 3rd party might get representation while your vote winds up counting more in the state that matters. But I agree 'instant run-off voting' is the ultimate way to go.
RosieDesire 3 years ago
Voting is pointless anyway.
Not only is the system completely flawed, but the politicians can only change laws and CANNOT CHANGE the power structure based around the FED and Corporations.
When you vote between 2 shit candidates, you ARE throwing your vote away anyway. If you are voting for someone who only very partial supports your stances, you are being insincere and, basically, selling out.
Support the change you WANT, and not the bullshit of politics.
AzureFlameElk 3 years ago
MUSIC TOO LOUD
AnonSumy 3 years ago
more votes for the third parties means more money for them next time, so it does matter in the long run, it will be the only way to get a vaild third party it to convince people it matters. I do understand your point about this election though
vaskew 3 years ago
Various people say that the video doesn't work but that can be fixed, at least it worked for me, it's by manually switching to a higher quality mode.
So I recommend that you put a link to this video with "&fmt=18" at the end of the original URL in the description box for those people who encounter the problem.
The URL would be like this at the end "...watch?v=9qYTV9X4lzs&fmt=18"
(Check this one out and notice the awesome stereo that you will get with adding that code,very useful for music on YT)
ELStalky 3 years ago
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE
AnonSumy 3 years ago
Uhm, i'm sorry, what?
ELStalky 3 years ago
Don't forget there's other great voting systems besides IRV. I just recently got pointed to condorcet voting, which I think reflects majority opinion even better than IRV. IRV is simpler to understand and probably makes more sense to people, though. Either one would be great improvement on the current system.
BTheHeretic 3 years ago
"I just recently got pointed to condorcet voting, which I think reflects majority opinion even better than IRV."
America wasn't designed to be majority rules! This is not a direct democracy, and for a good reason. The majority of Americans are satisfied with voting for either McCain or Obama. That tells me a lot about the wisdom of the majority.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
I dont understand... do any presidents actually get ellected wiith no political experience in america?
antonyneal 3 years ago
I don't understand why the USA has a two-party system in the first place, and no-one's ever really been able to point out the reason for it when I've asked... Even the IRV video forgets that in some cases the 'spoilers' may be better choices than the reps or dems, but since they're third parties, they get no respect and are forced to be considered spoilers.
We have many parties in Canada and it works out (our minority government did well) sometimes. I'd like to see IRV too, though.
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
How do you figure that our system works? We don't even vote for the leader of our country. We only get to vote for the person who represents us, and if they are not a part of the winning party, or the official opposition, they're not going to have much of a say.
Evegeek 3 years ago
I don't figure. As I said, I don't understand the two-party system at all. I was asking a question. It works the same way here, except that we have five parties in the running right now that the media are bothering to follow. The fifth party is the "Green Party", which compares to a third party in the US, no-one's taking it really seriously (at least, I don't think so), but it still has a place in the polls on TV.
What I don't get is, why only two parties.
EdwardHowton 3 years ago
man, we don't know why we only have 2 either. you guys got lucky, I guess; you have more realistic options. no true third party has ever won a national election here (by that, I mean I'm not counting the republican's first wins as third party wins; they replaced the whigs as on of the 2 main parties).
bl4ckd0g187 3 years ago
Okay. In regards to how many parties, our system is better. It still needs works though.
Evegeek 3 years ago
ugh! have you ever sneazed and shit your pants a little? gross!
5amGordon 3 years ago
Hi man, the music at the end was too loud for me he to here what you were saying.
Disthron 3 years ago
if you start saving your beer cans now... yeah, i agree, 2036 looks like a reasonable time table ;)
what's with chopin... second person using it as background noise in the last 24 hours...
jogayot 3 years ago
i feel your pain, man...
obama's not a bad pick though.
sheepwshotguns 3 years ago
You won't win, you're an atheist who has previously made a video implying that you're a moral relativist, I don't know if you have or not but even if you've come to the realization that moral relativists just contradict themselves & basically relinquish the right to state that anything is actually right or wrong, you'll still be a moral relativist, just as Barack "is a Muslim" as they say because it was implicate at 1 point thus significantly damaging his chances.
Naw, you'll win (hopefully)
MassZombicide 3 years ago
What is with the music bro?
raiman 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
don't vote black
DCxxRay 3 years ago
"don't" breed
MassZombicide 3 years ago
what the fvck is your problem with "don't"
DCxxRay 3 years ago
Ralph Nader is a douche.
Kucinich was awesome though!
flamablesteve 3 years ago
RabidApe, I like you like a fat kid likes cake... but the music in this video got a little loud towards the crescendo and it made it difficult to hear what you were saying, I love Chopin as much as the next guy but it dominated the video a little, maybe have it a little quieter so the video still gets the melody in the background but we can still hear you? Then towards the end where it fades to black you can turn the volume back up...
WhatisaJugallo 3 years ago 2
I'm having difficulty in bringing myself to vote for Obama. The reason? He voted for the Patriot act, and the telecommunications act earlier this year.
As for 3rd party voting, my feelings are very mixed: 1) A vote for a third party shows the other two what your feelings are, and they *may* respect them in the future, and 2) I think the only reason a 3rd party can't win is because everyone *says* they can't win. If *everyone* voted his conscience, then the candidate may have a chance.
DionysusVoice 3 years ago
your number 2 premise is wrong.
There are MASSIVE amounts of people that really do prefer democrats and republicans over the third parties.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
Well, you *might* be right about that. To be honest, I'm not sure. Those numbers, however, are probably based on previous elections, and because people are dissuaded from voting for third parties, I firmly believe that the numbers *are* skewed.
But again, I don't *know*. You *may* be right.
DionysusVoice 3 years ago
what the hell is with all the stars?
I don't know the people youve met, but most people I meat sincerely prefer one of the two parties.
flamablesteve 3 years ago
That's because people are resistant to real change. They've grown up with a 2 party system and they think in 2 party ways. But without IRV we will continue to have this duopoly and unfortunately a duopoly is a system that within which it is fairly easy to maintain corruption.
SoullessAtheist 3 years ago
I've talked to many progressive democrats myself (the ones that actually make up the bulk of the democratic party, oh why oh why don't they demand more of their leaders?) and most of them WOULD actually like to vote for a third party progressive, they just say to themselves they won't *win*. But I guess I just met different people....
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
It also has to do with how much media time they are given. After all, look at Perot, he was actually allowed into the debates, and given fair time in the media (I'm talking his 1992 run), and he was pretty close to winning, until he sabotaged his run by dropping out for several weeks. People don't seem to realize how strongly the media affects their opinion on politics.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
"People don't seem to realize how strongly the media affects their opinion on politics."
The media also propagates the lie that it's not worth voting for someone who won't win. The spend all their time speculating who will win and how and all this useless BS because they are instilling the idea that it's pointless to vote for someone who won't win, and that you have to pick a "winner". Well, the flaw in that logic of course is the fact that almost half the people who vote WILL pick the loser.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
Zombie Thomas Paine would be spitting in his grave if he saw what was happening.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
Very true. I was (and still am to a point) a Ron Paul supporter, and that was mainly due to his views and the massive support I saw for him on the internet. Sadly, however, the media saw fit to exclude him from a good chunk of the debates, which rather sickened me. Another reason I'm finding it difficult to get behind Obama. My dream ticket? Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinnich.
DionysusVoice 3 years ago
"There are MASSIVE amounts of people that really do prefer democrats and republicans over the third parties."
The only reason is because they know nothing about them. The media casts a blackout over anyone but the two chosen candidates. The only reason we have two instead of one is to maintain the illusion of choice.
If you got rid of Obama and replaced him with Nader (given the same press coverage Obama gets), Nader would get at least as many votes as Obama will.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
You noticed that too eh?
While I support Barack, I think it's of absolute vital importance that we can campaign to get the voices of all third party candidates heard. Most of the time they have far better ideas and more substance than the mainstream candidates.
If RabidApe wants to have any chance he'd best agree.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
Unless you live in a swing state, you aren't throwing your vote away. And even then, the odds of being the sing vote are less likely then being struck by lightening twice.
Check out Shanedk's video on the subject. With a little math he shows how voting for either of the two parties IS throwing your vote away!
Check it out: /watch?v=FjUtYQ1dvuA
If you don't vote for Nader, the Democrats won't know you disapprove of them!
FlowCell 3 years ago
I would vote for RabidApe!
HauntingMemory 3 years ago
Fucking right, Ape.
Be realistic!
Xenithan 3 years ago
Instant Runoff Voting sure sounds nice, but I still would prefare if the u.s. would have a real democracy and not a 2 party dictatory enforced through the various election-systems. :>
bwhahrhr 3 years ago
It's a damn grim reality, eh? Scarey stuff, all over.
xxxild 3 years ago
Something I wondered about IRV, it sounds like such a great system, very balanced, etc, but if it were implemented that means the 2 most powerful political parties would lose their monopoly, suddenly they would have more than one opponent to deal with in every election. Do you really think the powers that be in government now would put such a system into place knowing it would limit their power?
wakeangel2001 3 years ago
I'm not opposed to IRV or anything, but I simply feel it still would not be a solution to the problem of crappy two-party candidates. It likely would be better than the current situation.
Lesser of two evils is not at all an option for me. In 2004, I thought Kerry was the lesser, and Bush still won. So as long as the rest of America is still dumb enough to vote for the greater of two evils, I'm not compromising my beliefs and my voice in order to ease the suffering just slightly.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
The comment that I always hear about third party votes being "wasted" never made any sense to me. What is more of a waste: voting for someone you don't actually want in office, or voting for someone you like but know will not win? Your vote is your voice. The more that people vote for a third party, the more people will see a valid reason to do so.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago 2
As for IRV, there are a couple major misconceptions that the video bases itself on.
I think the most glaring one would be that our government was designed to be majority rule; it was not. How about we return to the idea of being a REPUBLIC (instead of a democracy) and then maybe picking a president wouldn't be such a huge deal?
If this were an IRV election, I'd still be stuck with one of the two people that I would NEVER vote for. I think most independents would still be unsatisfied.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
IT WORKS!!!!!!!!!!
palmtreez101 3 years ago
For the third party the have to take so many votes or a percentage votes to remain on the ballot. So if you live Texas, Utah, or Oklahoma I would say vote third party to keep them on the ballot. I live in swing where in 2004 Kerry won by .4% in 200 Gore took it by .2% in 2000. So I dont have a choice of voting third party.
maciolek1980 3 years ago
If, in this election, you vote 3rd party then you are supporting McCain by default. Period. That's just how it is here now.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
Crap, I wanted to see porno
palmtreez101 3 years ago
I would love to have IRV. Sadly, my lack of faith in the intelligence of the American people leads to to suspect we would be in for a massive cluster fuck if this happened.
FSBlueapocalypse 3 years ago
Thanks for bringing the "instant runoff" vid to my attention. It makes sense. I HATE electoral college by the way.
gorikuri 3 years ago
How drunk did you get last night, RabidApe?
EmoKidsScott 3 years ago
Quite!
I had about 10.5 beers over the 90-minute debate.
And didn't do my calculus homework.
But I did it during precal, so it's all good. :)
RabidApe 3 years ago
If Nader actually gave a shit about starting and propping up a third party, he's pour his time and money into local elections.
Until I see him doing that, I consider him nothing more than an ego like Perrot was.
I'd love to see more than two parties but we all have to realize that you don't build a pyramid from the top down.
CynicalSavior 3 years ago
"If Nader actually gave a shit about starting and propping up a third party, he's pour his time and money into local elections."
While I agree that third parties and independents need to start locally, and I mean the bare beginnings of locally (city elections), that's not really a license to support the two parties in the meantime. Like what happened in SF, when a Green party official came VERY close to winning the mayoral seat, national democrats stepped in and made sure that DIDN'T happen.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
Though, I do also agree Nader should be doing far more productive methods to try to enact "change" within this nation.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
"Until I see him doing that, I consider him nothing more than an ego like Perrot was. "
Perot* would have actually probably won in 1992 if he hadn't sabotaged his campaign by dropping out for several weeks and returning again. Regardless, I think he actually made a positive contribution by ensuring the deficient stayed a top issue in the debates which both the republicans and democrats wanted to ignore.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
I'd read "Would Ross Perot Have Won the 1992 Presidential Election under Approval Voting?" It is a very interesting take on what could have been a very real outcome in 1992 if one fatal mistake wasn't made.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
Perot lost my vote because of his running mate.
pakratmak 3 years ago
Which race, and what did you feel about said running mate that turned you off from Perot?
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
The 'I'm all ears' Presidential run, said running mate was a whack job.
pakratmak 3 years ago
Ok, which run was the "I'm all ears" run? 1992 or 1996?
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
If I could remember which I would've said. Sorry.
pakratmak 3 years ago
Keep in mind neither two parties are going to accept IRV without a fight. You're going to have to drag them both kicking and screaming if you seriously want that to become a reality. As Frederick Douglass said "Power concedes nothing without demand. If people demand nothing, that is precisely what they will get.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
neither two parties are not**** Damn, I really wish you could edit your comments....
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
Wait, UGH, I had it right the first time......
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
bump
RabidApe 3 years ago
"bump"?
What does that mean? Sorry for my ignorance lol...
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
Video's working again.
ghostofperdition2188 3 years ago
RABIDAPE IN 2036!
bl4ckd0g187 3 years ago
Well Rabidape, it all depends on what state your in. I believe your currently in...Texas? Your vote for Obama then is practically useless, since your electoral college will overwhelmingly go towards Obama. If you're in a swing state, then yes, vote for whom you think is less "dangerous", but if you're in a safe state, you might as well vote for whom you really like. I also agree IRV would be fantastic.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
texas' electoral college will vote for obama? I thought it was a red state.......
bl4ckd0g187 3 years ago
Oops, my bad. I meant to say will vote for McCain*
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
Remember, if a third party actually got up to 5% of the vote, they'd get federal fund access and with that, eventually become a realistic alternative. I think one of the strategies third parties need to adopt is educating American's on how their vote is pretty much useless if they are in a solid state, and how if they agree with said third party, vote for them in that election if they are in a solid state, since their vote can help them then become an alternative in the future.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
Working now!
jessie74 3 years ago
yes we have 2 very bad choices. Go smaller governemt no obama.
automaticAEV 3 years ago
I <3 IRV
endr117 3 years ago
haha, you actually think we'll still have any rights in 2036?
we barely have any left now.
Bodobaas 3 years ago
IRV would be bipartisianly opposed, as with the bail out, it would spell death for both parties.
TheScrewOnHead 3 years ago
I've lost a lot of respect for you man. You KNOW that your mentality is PRECISELY what is wrong with America.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
You'll need to be more specific.
What is it about this video that's irked you?
RabidApe 3 years ago
The problem with america is too many people like RabidApe who perpetuate the two party system by being complacent and thinking their vote matters but only when they vote for a democrat/republican. Voting for the lesser of two evils perpetuates evil.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
no, his mentality is something that we call rationality. he KNOWS that a third party candidate WILL NOT WIN. so, he must choose between a theocrat and a socialist.
bl4ckd0g187 3 years ago
FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCKKKKK you.
1. Your vote doesn't count anyway. Even if you live in a swing state, you still have about a 1 in a million chance of making a difference.
2. A vote for a third party isn't worthless. It helps keep third party candidates on the ballot. And it makes a powerful statement "I do not approve of either candidate". A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
"The third party will not win because most people aren't interested enough, thus I will not even consider voting third party."
In this way people will always vote for the two party system. But if, say, I convince you to vote third party and between you and me we get a lot more people to "throw their vote away". BY that point we can have 10-20% of people voting third party. And then arguing that a third party could win would be easier.
seivren 3 years ago
"BY that point we can have 10-20% of people voting third party."
-yeah, good luck with that. but right now, none of the alternatives to the two major parties have any chance of winning. I'm tired of political party loyalty and absolutism myself; I just pick the lesser of the two evils each time.
bl4ckd0g187 3 years ago
The man who looks up at the sky and says, "reaching the moon is impossible. We cannot even fly." Never gets anywhere.
Meanwhile it took just over half a century from Wright bros to the moon.
Work for the future.
seivren 3 years ago
"You KNOW that your mentality is PRECISELY what is wrong with America."
I don't think so.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that I do. The confidence with which you make your claim means you should be able to explain:
1) What my mentality is
2) Precisely why it is "wrong" for America
...please, briefly do so, for the greater YouTube audience if nothing else.
But I don't know what you're talking about and am eager to hear an elaboration.
RabidApe 3 years ago
In all likelyhood he means the mentality of following the pre-established protocol of voting for one of the two major parties.
And it is wrong for america because so far switching between these two parties hasn't helped the situation much.
It's like an argument wherein you're told that everyone is either Islam or Catholic and you have to choose between them. By continuing to choose between them you eliminate innovation.
seivren 3 years ago
Okay, I didn't think you'd argue. I figured you, like the rest of the rational community sees major problems with the two party system. But I will answer you.
1. It has 3 components
A. You hold the idea that your vote can make a difference if you vote for Obama.
B. You think a vote for Nader is a wasted vote.
C. You think this election is somehow more important or closer than elections in the past.
2. The two party system. Look at government spending over the last 100 years. D R makes no diff.
Libertarianist 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We're sorry, this video is no longer available.
jessie74 3 years ago
I'd vote for you. :)
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
*Instant Runoff Voting. ^^;;;
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago
that's why nader and most other 3rd parties are only helping mccain, that is going against the majority of people.
matereymate 3 years ago
*nod*
I recall that being a reason why Bush won for two years in a row.
Surhotchaperchlorome 3 years ago 2
Oui, I'm so sick of this spoiler accusation bullshit that I'm beginning to rip my hair out whenever I hear it. One, in 2004, nader didn't even receive 1% of the vote, so that doesn't even make any sense. And to address the other spoiler accusation...
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
the chief reason Bush won in 2000 was that his co-chair deliberately blocked careful checking of the list of felons, with the result that thousands of Black people who were not felons and were legally entitled to vote were blocked from voting. There is also the fact Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, which he would have won if he won that state, also the fact that all seven of the other third-party candidates on the ballot in Florida each received more than 537 votes.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
Keep in mind my attack on the accusation Nader was a spoiler in 2000 and 2004 isn't necessarily a defense of him, but rather just a defense of what is true. I agree that Obama is more palatable than McCain.
TiradeFaction 3 years ago
So there should be no dissenting opinion.
You know besides the fact that nmader brings people to the p[olls that wouldn't vote otherwise.
seivren 3 years ago