Why would we want people to vote...

[Grizalltheway]

So JSO only wants "informed" people to vote?

I'm glad he's informed about Constitutional rights.

The right to vote is not explicit in the constitution.

And constitutional rights don't have to be unconditional, anyways.

Typical conk. The 2nd Amendment is completely untouchable, but the ones that don't jive with their prejudices are subject to interpretation and conditions.

[JohnStOnge]

And if you are going to vote for a party that contributes to the dysfunction that you bitch about, you're the prime example of insanity.

If you are presented with two realistic choices one of them is going to be the better or, at least, the "less bad" choice. If you vote for a third alternative that has no shot you are wasting your vote. You are removing yourself from any influence on the better or, at least, "less bad" scenario being realized. You would do just as well not to vote at all.

[houndawg]

As opposed to your method, which is to vote for a guy that you know is going to win. You still haven't explained how that makes your vote count more than any other.

I think the idea is to vote for someone who has a reasonable CHANCE to win. I'm sorry, but if you vote for somebody that you know has no chance to win you are wasting your vote.

It's like people who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 Presidential election. I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of those people would rather have had Al Gore as President than George W. Bush. But it's very possible that, had those people all voted for Al Gore, he'd have been President. Actually it's pretty likely since Nader got over 97,000 votes in Florida.

Those people were idiots. It was obvious from the polls that Nader had no shot. They COMPLETELY wasted their votes when their votes could have made a difference. They voted for something that had NO chance of happening instead of looking at what the two realistic alternatives were and choosing between the two. Dumbasses. I'm glad it turned out like it did. But they were still dumbasses.

You're wrong about Nader hurting Gore, in this universe at least; could be different in yours. Gore won the popular vote by about half a million votes; the Supreme Court would have appointed Bush regardless. Gore lost the election because he couldn't win his home state, John. I wish you'd pay more attention when I'm talkin' to ya, son, I won't always be here to help ya through life...

[kalm]

And if you are going to vote for a party that contributes to the dysfunction that you bitch about, you're the prime example of insanity.

If you are presented with two realistic choices one of them is going to be the better or, at least, the "less bad" choice. If you vote for a third alternative that has no shot you are wasting your vote. You are removing yourself from any influence on the better or, at least, "less bad" scenario being realized. You would do just as well not to vote at all.

It's a duopoly, John and that's exactly how the monied interests like it. You're participating in a sham election if you vote for either party at this point. Enough people voting 3rd party can eventually have an influence. Campaign finance reform would see quicker change.

[JohnStOnge]

You're wrong about Nader hurting Gore, in this universe at least; could be different in yours. Gore won the popular vote by about half a million votes; the Supreme Court would have appointed Bush regardless. Gore lost the election because he couldn't win his home state, John. I wish you'd pay more attention when I'm talkin' to ya, son, I won't always be here to help ya through life...

Good GRIEF. You know darned well that if Nader hadn't been in there Gore would've won that election. For PETE'S sake.

Yes, Gore not being able to win his home State was a factor. But that doesn't change the fact that if Nader hadn't been in there Gore would've won.

[JohnStOnge]

It's a duopoly, John and that's exactly how the monied interests like it. You're participating in a sham election if you vote for either party at this point. Enough people voting 3rd party can eventually have an influence. Campaign finance reform would see quicker change.

You're kidding yourself. There is no way, in either of our lifetimes, that a third Party is going to make significant inroads. And "Campaign finance reform," which is really just denying people the right so support the point of view the want supported, wouldn't change that.

[BDKJMU]

Just like 92' with Perot getting 19%, and Clinton won the elction with 43%. No Perot, and HW likely wins, and Clinton is never President.

Myth.

Bush probably would have won Ohio without Perot. But, that's it.

Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

In most states, the second choices of Perot voters only reinforced the actual outcome. For example, California, New York, Illinois and Oregon went to Clinton by large margins, and Perot voters in those states strongly preferred Clinton to Bush.

Link?

[BDKJMU]

Myth.

Bush probably would have won Ohio without Perot. But, that's it.

Link?

Nevermind. I see why you didn't post the link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 32x2441231" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;