2004 Election
dr_d
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Younger voters</div> By Nem's command I bring you the NS Forums You Decide 2004 thread.
Well on the serious note I've noticed a lot of young voters (myself included) are planning to vote this year, I along with some of my friends are voting for Nader. Do you think that with many more young people voting a third party president may be in office in the next few terms? Also if you plan on voting who are you voting for?
Well on the serious note I've noticed a lot of young voters (myself included) are planning to vote this year, I along with some of my friends are voting for Nader. Do you think that with many more young people voting a third party president may be in office in the next few terms? Also if you plan on voting who are you voting for?
Comments
If you are speaking in the scales of 'the next few terms' as opposed to this election, I can see good chances for a third party candidate. The total amount of voters for either established party is receeding - if a third party - be that the Greens or any other - was capable of convincing a sufficiently big number of frustrated non-voters of its sincerity, it could have a chance.
I'm serious. If it wasn't an option I would write it in myself.
Honestly with what has happened in the last 4 years I think not voting is no longer the statement it used to be, voter percentages are reaching the below 60% range and by now if the whole Omish community voted to ban computers it might just fly because most of us wouldn't bother to vote against it.
Also considering that when a third party candidate gets votes they also get an increase in their campaign funds the following year it allows you to have at least some influence in gaining support for third parties. Now with all that in mind who would you vote for, and if you still will not vote what is your reason?
That said, I do like third parties, if only because they break up the Republican/Democrat stranglehold on the government. I tend to agree with Independents (moderates who are neither Repubs or Demos) or Libertarians. Nader's positions on the economy and on things in general seem pretty unrealistic.
It should be interesting to see what effect Nader has on the election. He has to know he's got zero chance of actually winning the election and he probably won't get on the ballot in all 50 states. Most Green Party members would probably vote Democratic in the absence of a GP candidate.
<span style='color:white'>Be nice, will you?</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-Bosnian Cowboy+Feb 27 2004, 08:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian Cowboy @ Feb 27 2004, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
To those people who won't vote since they believe no one on the ballot is deserving of a vote, you're stupid people. Nothing personal, but you just are. Go to China and have a good time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My parents aren't stupid...stupidity is hating something and falling in line anyway <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:white'>No double posting, please.</span>
To those people who won't vote since they believe no one on the ballot is deserving of a vote, you're stupid people. Nothing personal, but you just are. Go to China and have a good time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are much better reasons not to vote, like the fact that your vote wont matter anyway, see my other posts in similar topics for more informations.
If I do vote, I think I'll vote for TR. Even dead I'm sure he could do better than any of the mainstream candidates.
Did you know there were over 20 thousand absentee ballots in the 2000 election, that's 20 thousand people that could have voted for someone other than our current president, think about that.
Also before cursing every candidate running read some third parties compaign platforms, like I said there are some interesting platforms out there if you want to make a statement. <a href='http://www.politics1.com/swp04.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.politics1.com/swp04.htm</a>
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHA
Kerry's voting records show him to be hypocrite and another dance to the middle Democrat. I'm starting to wonder if these people come off of an assembly line somewhere. His war record is impressive, but records don’t make a good president, any semblance of life he may have once had must have died awhile ago. He reminds me of a zombie from Resident Evil.
Edwards I really like on a personal level, but I really just can't see him as our president.
Nadar is crazy, but hey being Republican I have to thank him for helping us with another election <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Still wont matter. Face it, the US is structured such that the likelyhood of a non-democrat, non-republican candidate ever getting any electoral votes, let alone get elected, is aproximately 1/10^8. Perot came the closest (at least in recent memory), but he was very very popular. Liberals are probably a little edgy about voting for third partys after what happened in the last election. Its just never going to happen. It a waste of my time to seriously try to find a third party candidate, and it is certainly a waste of my time to try and choose the lesser of the Two Evils. So, like I said, if I'm going to vote (and I probably wont) it may as well be for TR, he has just as much of a chance of winning as any third party, and since he is dead he couldn't possibly make any wrong descisions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Did you know there were over 20 thousand absentee ballots in the 2000 election, that's 20 thousand people that could have voted for someone other than our current president, think about that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great, so we'd have Gore instead of Bush, woopdie friggen doo.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Also before cursing every candidate running read some third parties compaign platforms, like I said there are some interesting platforms out there if you want to make a statement. <a href='http://www.politics1.com/swp04.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.politics1.com/swp04.htm</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't curse every candidate, just the ones that have a snowball's chance in hell or better.
Btw, Nader is closer to Yurp than to China, considerig his policy.
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHA <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush.
Kerry's voting records show him to be hypocrite and another dance to the middle Democrat. I'm starting to wonder if these people come off of an assembly line somewhere. His war record is impressive, but records don?t make a good president, any semblance of life he may have once had must have died awhile ago. He reminds me of a zombie from Resident Evil.
Edwards I really like on a personal level, but I really just can't see him as our president.
Nadar is crazy, but hey being Republican I have to thank him for helping us with another election <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nader.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for these outstanding examples of posts devoid of any argumentation, or care for the actual initial question of the topic, for that matter. I'm getting a little angry at this partisan spirit jumping up on every occasion the American political landscape is being discussed. Either try to contribute something of meaning or stay away.
On the subject of third parties in presidential elections, I'm still torn.
What I like:
Third parties can bring up subjects that are typically ridiculed/ignored by the mainstream press and usually do a better job of presenting working solutions to problems. They are the voice of groups who aren't normally in everyday politics. They are typically steadfast in their beliefs and they know exactly what they stand for.
What I don't like:
The possibility that a president can be elected by a small minority of the voting public (no 2000 snides please. that horse is long dead) leaving a large majority of voters who chose someone else. If too many parties get involved, our electoral system could be used to divide the States and pit us against each other (far fetched maybe but possible).
I would also like to go on record saying that an "Anyone but Bush" attitude on its own is nothing short of reckless. Whether you believe it or not, it can get much, much worse. We, as voters, have a very heavy responsibility to analyze and critique the individuals we select in an election. When I was first eligible to vote, I neglected my chance because I thought my vote was meaningless. Fortunately, I've learned just how wrong I was back then. I hope that if nothing else good comes out of the history of the US over the past 3-4 years, that new voters will understand just how critical the ability to vote really is. Unlike other nations, you are not required to vote. It's a step that you must take for yourself.
Choose wisely.
So when you vote for a third party candidate, you're not just voting for them but for your policies, if there's a good amount of votes for that candidate you can be sure that you just got a plank on the Republican platform, or you just got a plank on the Democratic platform.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thanks for these outstanding examples of posts devoid of any argumentation, or care for the actual initial question of the topic, for that matter. I'm getting a little angry at this partisan spirit jumping up on every occasion the American political landscape is being discussed. Either try to contribute something of meaning or stay away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my post I stated who I was voting for, why I'm not voting for the others, and I think my comment on Nader pretty much tells you my opion on whether or not we'll have a third party president any time soon. Get a better example.
America is a two party system, always has been (aside from the very beginning, and a shaky point or two when one of our parties dissolved) even during those periods a third party canadate couldn't pull it off. It's really not worth wondering if Nader can do it, we all know the answer. The only thing he is going to do is take votes away from the democrats and as I said that’s fine by me.
Bush is a war time president, an administration change now would be a mess. Then again if something good doesn’t come of Iraq by November I may just change my mind. Also don't count out the Osama factor if we catch him say late August and things in Iraq go well, I think you can guess the outcome.
Although Kerry says he's going to fight terrorism, I honestly don't think he feels the same way Bush does on the matter. I think Bush takes terrorism much more seriously then Kerry does. Kerry wants to return to the Clintonian thinking that allowed 9/11 to happen- "Terrorism is a crime, not an act of war. Militaries should not be invovled, nor should fighting terrorism be an active thing."
On the other side, I'm mad at Bush's domestic policy. I think the debt he has put the nation in, while neccesary to an extent, is dangerous.
Nader, I think, is simply an egomaniac at this point. If he really, really cared about changing the direction of the country, he wouldn't be running. He's not going to win. He's only going to help Bush.
Kerry... He's the most liberal senator according to some Liberal Institution (something like a 96% liberal voting record). He also seems to be spending his time talking in vague attacks on the president. He may have been in Vietnam, but that has little relevance now.
I am seriously alarmed by the attacks Bush(and his Administration) is making on civil liberties(the foundation of the Constitution) and the way Bush is religionizing(I granted myself the power to make up words) the government. I dislike his economic policies. For someone coming from a party that claims to spend conservatively, Bush is quite the hypocrite.
Third parties are appealing, but thinking realistically, I place a greater priority on getting Bush out of office than on creating effective third parties. If lots of people vote for Nader, a realistic vote guesstimation is 48% Kerry, 49% Bush, 3% Nader. Most Nader voters would probably vote for Kerry if they couldn't vote for Nader.
EDIT: I'm a younger voter. I think this will be the first election I'll be eligible to vote in.
The problem with Republicans, is they vote everytime. democates. dont. thats why we lost last time cause to many floridans didn't know how to vote, and they thought the third party need some more votes.....
i be thte country is more democrat than republican..
in other words. Ill be happy when the world dies, I can move onto other things then. ahhahahahah
A don't matter which one of the two major parties win anyway, it's all the same. It's as simple as that.
Doesn't matter anyways, I live in Connecticut, so the democrats ALWAYS get it....
The problem with the one-vote-per-race methodology is that it cannot reflect a situation where, of 3 candidates, two would be fine in your book but one would be absolutely horrid. The two similar candidates fight over a share of the vote, while the genuinely opposing candidate runs effectively uncontested.
So, instead of a single-vote system, the two most common alternatives I've seen are vote by approval and vote by ranking. By approval just means that you can select as many candidates as you think can do the job, and whoever has the highest approval wins (ie, you could "approve" of both the third party and one primary party, but not approve of the other primary party). When two very mediocre candidates are running against each other, it's pretty much a tie (one of the main disadvantages here), but at least it usually ensures that no horrible candidates get into power by dividing the competition's vote. <a href='http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/aprove.html' target='_blank'>one system, heady reading</a>
And that brings us to ranking, which has marginally stronger margins of victory in close contests, but even more complicated voting/counting procedures. You simply rank the candidates in order of preference. By putting that candidate you can't stand in last place, and either the other primary or 3rd party candidate in first, the vote is again not divided. The real differences come in tiebreakers, for which there are all sorts of different systems for figuring out who actually won the election. <a href='http://www.braindoll.net/vote/' target='_blank'>more info (called "preferential voting" here), also quite heady</a>
The disadvantage of either is that is requires change (which costs money), and they're more complicated than the current system. As Florida has proven last presidential election, things are already too complicated for some people.
Also an interesting side note: by current US election law, third parties have to get a certain % vote in the presidential election to get government funding for the next one. I think it's 10%, but I can't promise. So, if you do vote for a third party, your vote is not thrown away, but rather goes toward funding a stronger showing the next round.
AllUrHive, please tell me you're referring to the Labatt Blue bear <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
edit: oh, right, I just wanted to mention that some parts of the electoral college system need to be revised as well (mainly 51% of a vote in one state gives the whole state worth of electoral votes, not 51%).