I’m probably voting for Michael Badnarik. If you don’t know who he is I wouldn’t be suprised, he’s thrid party (Libertarian). Personally I think both Bush and Kerry are equally illqualified to be president, and even thought I know the guy I’m voting for as about a -100% chance of winning I just can’t bring myself to vote for somebody who I don’t actually want to be president.
But the big factor for me was that Mr. Badnarik hasn’t really been in politics and therefore shouldn’t have had enough time to be corrupted by other politicians (yes power corrupts in most cases). And he’s an extremely smart guy with who’s views I share in for the most part (there are always issues you won’t agree with but he shares my viewpoints in the most important issues to me).
[quote author=“MegaManXcalibur”]But the big factor for me was that Mr. Badnarik hasn’t really been in politics and therefore shouldn’t have had enough time to be corrupted by other politicians (yes power corrupts in most cases).
No need. He’s been corrupted already. He’s a computer consultant!
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]Re-Read my post they are voting for Bush I have no evidence, I am relying on their personal knowledge of intimate dealings with the man.Erik
Yes, I understand your statement - I was just hoping you could name names or point to their public statements about who they support. Without that it is much less compelling evidence for me even if it is good enough for you since you know them.
[quote author=“grisjuan”][quote author=“tifosiv122”]Re-Read my post they are voting for Bush I have no evidence, I am relying on their personal knowledge of intimate dealings with the man.Erik
Yes, I understand your statement - I was just hoping you could name names or point to their public statements about who they support. Without that it is much less compelling evidence for me even if it is good enough for you since you know them.
I didn’t ask for specific examples…it’s like a die-hard Coke fan is drinking Pepsi because he says Coke has a problem in it’s bottling plant…I just trusted their judgement since they have first hand knowledge and all seem to agree…
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]I didn’t ask for specific examples…Erik
I’m not concerned with examples either - I am just curious to know who you are talking about. It would be interesting to research whether their public statements match their true feelings and voting intentions.
[quote author=“grisjuan”][quote author=“tifosiv122”]I didn’t ask for specific examples…Erik
I’m not concerned with examples either - I am just curious to know who you are talking about. It would be interesting to research whether their public statements match their true feelings and voting intentions.
I don’t think they want it public knowledge that they are voting against the party (or at least telling people to vote against the party) IMO thats political suicide.
[quote author=“tifosiv122”]I don’t think they want it public knowledge that they are voting against the party
In my experience, most partisans vote for the general principles of their party rather than the specific nominee. They believe their party will move the country in a direction they agree with more than the others.
Crossing party lines might make sense with an internationalist like Bush I, but Bush II is really far from Democratic principles. Large numbers of high-powered Democrats secretly defecting to Bush seems truly unlikely to me.
[quote author=“grisjuan”]Large numbers of high-powered Democrats secretly defecting to Bush seems truly unlikely to me.
Might be unlikely, but in the Tri-State area, it’s true.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to convince anyone here to vote one way or another…I am explaining why I am voting for Bush…the reason for the thread.
I have never really heard of a US election where more than 2 active candidates ever get to compete… its always just 2 !!! Most of these “accessory” candidates are preferred by a whole lot of people are this thread proves or is just a sham ?
[quote author=“writetovarun”]I have never really heard of a US election where more than 2 active candidates ever get to compete… its always just 2 !!! Most of these “accessory” candidates are preferred by a whole lot of people are this thread proves or is just a sham ?
It’s a function of the bizarre method we use to elect the president. What people are really voting for when they select Bush, Kerry or Nader is a slate of electors, the people that do the actual voting for the president. Most states give their entire allocation of electors to one candidate’s party (the statewide popular winner), so it’s virtually impossible for a 3rd party to get any electoral votes, even if they get a decent number of popular votes. Ross Perot, for example, got 19% of the national popular vote but no electoral votes.
On one hand, it’s harder for smaller parties to get in the door, but on the other, fringe parties don’t hold nearly the power in the US that they do in most Parliamentary systems.
[quote author=“writetovarun”]I have never really heard of a US election where more than 2 active candidates ever get to compete… its always just 2 !!! Most of these “accessory” candidates are preferred by a whole lot of people are this thread proves or is just a sham ?
At least in the UK you have the LibDems - even though I don’t think the PM is often (ever?) from that party.
The fundamental problem is that we don’t have run-off elections here. Voters cannot just vote for their preferred candidate since they would often be “throwing their vote away” if their candidate does not win. So we have to choose the most “electable” candidate that we can tolerate. For example, Kerry would likely be my 3rd choice, yet I will probably vote for him.
A small change in the elections law to allow run-offs (usually implemented as “instant run-offs” where you rank all the candidates instead of just voting for one) would eliminate this problem.
[quote author=“OnMyWayUp”]Bush
Kerry favors abortion and gay-rights… anyone that sick should is no way be allowed in office. This country is already more F***ed up than it needs to be. :|
Bush just said:
“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.”
[quote author=“grisjuan”]A small change in the elections law to allow run-offs (usually implemented as “instant run-offs” where you rank all the candidates instead of just voting for one) would eliminate this problem.
That doesn’t make sense without eliminating the Electoral College. Even in an instant runoff election, Kerry would most likely win New York State. A Republican vote in New York would then be “wasted” because all the electoral votes would go towards Kerry. Changing that would require a Constitutional amendment, which isn’t going to change as long as the smaller states have anything to say about it.
[quote author=“Drachen”]That doesn’t make sense without eliminating the Electoral College. Even in an instant runoff election, Kerry would most likely win New York State. A Republican vote in New York would then be “wasted” because all the electoral votes would go towards Kerry. Changing that would require a Constitutional amendment, which isn’t going to change as long as the smaller states have anything to say about it.
Sure, but a least a Libertarian voter whose 2nd choice was Bush would get their vote counted toward Bush giving Bush a better chance to win NY.
I wonder what would happen if Kerry loses the popular vote but wins the election? Both parties might be motivated to change the electoral college system
