I don't really agree with number 7. I think if a person knows that they're making a potentially detrimental uninformed decision, not voting can be the right thing.

That said, excellent DD post, Ana. I don't like it when people are just too lazy to be active with the forces that help shape their lives.

Great post! Hehe #1 is my favorite one since it's so true

You took the words right out of my mouth (or fingers if you will) Duplex, with so many of my classmates saying "I'm voting for Kerry because I don't like Bush." I ask them what do you like a Kerry, they typically answer "He's not Bush" They can't tell me where Kerry stands or anything, you should vote someone into office, not out of it. I'm stepping off of my soapbox now...

Everything else is right on the money.

If you feel that way about number 10, follow the advice of "Pearls Before Swine" and write in Rat.

Normally I would agree, but everyone is making an exception this time around, ya' know bush has gotta' go.

Voting for Kerry tomorrow.

Quote: You took the words right out of my mouth (or fingers if you will) Duplex, with so many of my classmates saying "I'm voting for Kerry because I don't like Bush." I ask them what do you like a Kerry, they typically answer "He's not Bush" They can't tell me where Kerry stands or anything, you should vote someone into office, not out of it. I'm stepping off of my soapbox now...

...and that is exactly why the electoral college is there, because society as a whole can not seem to make a logical decision because they don't know enough when it comes to politics. Fine example there.

Well seeing as New England lost for the first time in a year and some change (to the Steelers for that matter, and that was only because Dillon was out), that means that subsequently Kerry will lose and therefore a vote for Kerry will be null and void thus I am voting Bush.

Quote: Originally Posted by j-dogg Well seeing as New England lost for the first time in a year and some change (to the Steelers for that matter, and that was only because Dillon was out), that means that subsequently Kerry will lose and therefore a vote for Kerry will be null and void thus I am voting Bush.

You mean, you've never heard of the Washington Redskins curse?

Let's hope that it isn't broken this year.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kage ...and that is exactly why the electoral college is there, because society as a whole can not seem to make a logical decision because they don't know enough when it comes to politics. Fine example there.

but it doesn't work that way.

The amount of electoral votes a party gets is determined entirely by the number of popular votes. In most states it works like this:

State has x number of votes, let's say 12.

Candidate A wins with 51% of the popular vote.
Candidate B has 48% of the popular vote, and 3% goes to people nobody cares about.

Due to the state electoral college rules, the party of Candidate A gets 12 electoral college votes, while the others don't get any. The voters are selected by the party and will always be the most faithful party members.

Seems a little unbalanced to me.

I hope both the Redskins AND the New England curse remain "steadfast".

err... so you'd rather people make an un-educated choice than no choice? Seems more responsible to admit that you really dont know what the hell is going on and thus not pollute the process with whats probably a coin-flip decision

Quote: Originally Posted by DuplexEmotions but it doesn't work that way. The amount of electoral votes a party gets is determined entirely by the number of popular votes. In most states it works like this: State has x number of votes, let's say 12. Candidate A wins with 51% of the popular vote. Candidate B has 48% of the popular vote, and 3% goes to people nobody cares about. Due to the state electoral college rules, the party of Candidate A gets 12 electoral college votes, while the others don't get any. The voters are selected by the party and will always be the most faithful party members. Seems a little unbalanced to me.

ssshhh..... You aren't supposed to point out flaws inherent in the system.
THEY might come to get you.

The Russians are more progressive than the U.S., hilarious, huh?

not everyone sees the electoral college as flawed, it gives the areas of the country that aren't so densely populated a voice too. if we used the popular vote, candidate would only need to visit the top five to ten cities and win there in order to win the election, this way they have to speak to the entire country. It has some quirks, but it works.

Quote: Originally Posted by Peng Lord not everyone sees the electoral college as flawed, it gives the areas of the country that aren't so densely populated a voice too.

But it's not a good system if they get MORE of a voice than anywhere else. I don't think we should be biased by state or local districts. It's the people of this great country, the WHOLE country, that should have an equal voice in the direction of our country.

Plato said that the best rulers would be the enlightened, and that the job of ruling should be one nobody wants to do, but instead have to do out of civic duty. That way the leader is smart enough to do a good job, but doesn't abuse their station.

I think it would be in the nation's best interest to change the way the presidency is presented to the american people; we don't want people who have always dreamed of being president since they were little; we need people who understand that they have the tools to help the nation, and though it's not something they would like to do, are willing to accept the responsibility of making the world a better place.

Politicians are alike in that none are fit for politics.

Quote: Politicians are alike in that none are fit for politics.

So incredibly true...

People in my family have done a lof more for democracy & freedom than voting (e.g my Grandad {or rather the ship he was on} got sunk be the Japanese in WW2), so I always make a point of voting.

I can understand why people feel disenchanted with politics & even disenfranchised, but even voting negatively (voting for the candidate most likely to defeat the one you despise most) is better than not voting at all.

Quote: Originally Posted by Peng Lord not everyone sees the electoral college as flawed, it gives the areas of the country that aren't so densely populated a voice too. if we used the popular vote, candidate would only need to visit the top five to ten cities and win there in order to win the election, this way they have to speak to the entire country. It has some quirks, but it works.

Yes that is right, they concentrate on the states with the most electoral votes.
And as we all know, the number of electoral votes is derived by the number of people in the state.
DOH!