Voting for someone you don't want to do the job is a wasted vote. The President is elected by an electoral college anyway, everyone else is just a straw vote. A better influence would be to find your electorate & call him or her to try & influence their vote. People who only vote in the presidential elections are wasting their time. The key to fixing Americas problems is state & local elections where we can actually make a difference.
Start by reading your state's constitutions, starting with the first one through to the current one, & vote for liberty. It seems that around here there's at least one constitutionalist in every election. It's important that they get into office. Judges & the law makers that are fair & honest are first & foremost the necessity for improving daily life, lowering taxes, & reducing fines.
The best way to have a fatal downfall for republican would be to have elected Palin. The best path forward I can see that is reasonable is to have less conservatives so that the "must vote against" impulse is not so strong. Also we should educate people to think critically to see for instance Palin was not Hillary and to detect the ploy.
We could also stop using Red/Blue speech and just talk about the individuals.
Accepting the obvious drawbacks of the two party system, don't you think that a vote for a third party could cause the democratic party to incorporate certain "third party issues" to gain the majority of votes in coming elections? The dems wouldn't be too eager to lose their monopoly on the left side of the political spectrum.
Good point. I don't know if it actually works that way but it sounds like a good argument to get people to vote third party. It would be nice if the people actually made threats to vote third party if their party didn't make some change.
I agree. Well, almost. I am glad that it turned out the way it did, obviously. But instead of people voting "against" McCain I would have preferred fewer people voting for McCain.
Barr? Isn't he he guy that said that Humanism and Wicca are causes of violence and should be banned from the military?
Oops, yeah, Gore. I don't know why I thought Kerry. Oh, well, the point was still the same. Third party voters should have voted for Gore. "Should" in quotes.
Your dupoloy is fundamentally corrupt. The USA needs an instant-runoff voting type of system as well as various other serious changes in the way politics is done.
Until that happens, there will still be no democracy in the USA.
04:50 - You brought up the voting for Nader in a past election. You might want to look up on that, or even check Nader's YouTube channel for his response to this. He explains the situation well, and that little rumour is said to be quite wrong.
Alright, let's change the voting system to allow negative voting. A voter would be allowed one vote per race and it may be cast either for or against any candidate. The candidate that was least negative would win. So the two major party voters would be voting against the other major candidate and a third party candidate might win because of fewer negative votes.
Seriously, I agree there are major problems with the voting system.
It be simpler if everyone could cast two positive votes. 1st choice and 2nd choice. The two candidates who have most 1st choice votes compete and everyone who had neither of those two candidates as their first choice will have their second choice candidate counted if it is for one of the two competing candidates that is left.
ok, not simpler, but more democratic as it will lead to a president who most people believe are best suited to run the country. Negative vote doesn't tell who you believe are competent to run the country. Two votes would make everyone who really believe a third party candidate is most competent would actually dare to vote as they feel, which would make it more fair.
Yeah, I think that wold be a good compromise between the current voting system and run off voting. At least it would git rid of the manipulation that people put into it. Obama would get my 2nd. Yeah, that would be much better. Not perfect.
Actually, my suggestion is like here in Finland. Or close to it. If Obama and Mac Cain were running here and where the two strongest candidates (they wouldn't be, lol) you could safely vote on someone else the first round anyway. If no one gets 50% or more of the votes, then a second run of voting starts where the two strongest candidates are the only option to vote on. So we get our ass to vote two times for the President, though they hold office 6 years here instead of 4.
I like to compare of the two Major Parties to Mcdonalds and Burger King. Even though they are the two "Major" one's doesn't really mean they are the best.
Are you from Cali?
IronHorsez88 1 year ago
Do you regret choosing Obama now?
TheMaskedBastard 2 years ago
What do you mean by "choosing Obama"?
DayfallKat 2 years ago
Voting for someone you don't want to do the job is a wasted vote. The President is elected by an electoral college anyway, everyone else is just a straw vote. A better influence would be to find your electorate & call him or her to try & influence their vote. People who only vote in the presidential elections are wasting their time. The key to fixing Americas problems is state & local elections where we can actually make a difference.
KenMacMillan 2 years ago
Start by reading your state's constitutions, starting with the first one through to the current one, & vote for liberty. It seems that around here there's at least one constitutionalist in every election. It's important that they get into office. Judges & the law makers that are fair & honest are first & foremost the necessity for improving daily life, lowering taxes, & reducing fines.
KenMacMillan 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA!!!!!!
timerssarah 2 years ago
you look like a gay. no wonder u talk rubbish.
Mummydearest15 3 years ago
Your reasoning is hard to follow. If it is reasoning.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
The best way to have a fatal downfall for republican would be to have elected Palin. The best path forward I can see that is reasonable is to have less conservatives so that the "must vote against" impulse is not so strong. Also we should educate people to think critically to see for instance Palin was not Hillary and to detect the ploy.
We could also stop using Red/Blue speech and just talk about the individuals.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
Accepting the obvious drawbacks of the two party system, don't you think that a vote for a third party could cause the democratic party to incorporate certain "third party issues" to gain the majority of votes in coming elections? The dems wouldn't be too eager to lose their monopoly on the left side of the political spectrum.
Donkeyboy020 3 years ago
Good point. I don't know if it actually works that way but it sounds like a good argument to get people to vote third party. It would be nice if the people actually made threats to vote third party if their party didn't make some change.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
No Arnie for Pres. He dreams of being a dictator like Bush. Dont let him fool you.
Childrenscneterh 3 years ago
I agree. Well, almost. I am glad that it turned out the way it did, obviously. But instead of people voting "against" McCain I would have preferred fewer people voting for McCain.
Barr? Isn't he he guy that said that Humanism and Wicca are causes of violence and should be banned from the military?
Decision '08 - You ain't got much of a choice.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
Oops, yeah, Gore. I don't know why I thought Kerry. Oh, well, the point was still the same. Third party voters should have voted for Gore. "Should" in quotes.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
At this point, I think we've gotta eat what's served to us at the table, not what we're really hungry for.
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
Your dupoloy is fundamentally corrupt. The USA needs an instant-runoff voting type of system as well as various other serious changes in the way politics is done.
Until that happens, there will still be no democracy in the USA.
sy1234 3 years ago
04:50 - You brought up the voting for Nader in a past election. You might want to look up on that, or even check Nader's YouTube channel for his response to this. He explains the situation well, and that little rumour is said to be quite wrong.
sy1234 3 years ago
Ok, I was just using that as an example that I got from wikipedia. I'll check it out.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
Alright, let's change the voting system to allow negative voting. A voter would be allowed one vote per race and it may be cast either for or against any candidate. The candidate that was least negative would win. So the two major party voters would be voting against the other major candidate and a third party candidate might win because of fewer negative votes.
Seriously, I agree there are major problems with the voting system.
xwidget 3 years ago
It be simpler if everyone could cast two positive votes. 1st choice and 2nd choice. The two candidates who have most 1st choice votes compete and everyone who had neither of those two candidates as their first choice will have their second choice candidate counted if it is for one of the two competing candidates that is left.
Censeo 3 years ago
ok, not simpler, but more democratic as it will lead to a president who most people believe are best suited to run the country. Negative vote doesn't tell who you believe are competent to run the country. Two votes would make everyone who really believe a third party candidate is most competent would actually dare to vote as they feel, which would make it more fair.
Censeo 3 years ago
Yeah, I think that wold be a good compromise between the current voting system and run off voting. At least it would git rid of the manipulation that people put into it. Obama would get my 2nd. Yeah, that would be much better. Not perfect.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
Actually, my suggestion is like here in Finland. Or close to it. If Obama and Mac Cain were running here and where the two strongest candidates (they wouldn't be, lol) you could safely vote on someone else the first round anyway. If no one gets 50% or more of the votes, then a second run of voting starts where the two strongest candidates are the only option to vote on. So we get our ass to vote two times for the President, though they hold office 6 years here instead of 4.
Censeo 3 years ago
You should never vote for the lesser of two evils. I hate how people think since I don't like Obama, I like Mccain.
PepsiownsCoke 3 years ago
Thats a good point. I myself would have thought that. We are all so brainwashed.
DayfallKat 3 years ago
I like to compare of the two Major Parties to Mcdonalds and Burger King. Even though they are the two "Major" one's doesn't really mean they are the best.
PepsiownsCoke 3 years ago