Why would we want people to vote...

[Ivytalk]

This is the Age of the Internet. Libertarians dominate and control the Internet. Ergo, they should have kicked ass this year. But they didn't. Why? I'll tell you why. They all look like this:

If you want a third party, support one. But don't sit around wishing one would step up when has and is trying to break the cycle. Maybe we could get more independents in govt.

I'm not sitting around wishing for anything. Don't you have a baby to nurse?

[Ibanez]

Maybe we could get more independents in govt.

There hasn't been one yet.

exactly......

[Ibanez]

If you want a third party, support one. But don't sit around wishing one would step up when has and is trying to break the cycle. Maybe we could get more independents in govt.

I'm not sitting around wishing for anything. Don't you have a baby to nurse?

The little rascal is a night owl. It's killing me.

[kalm]

Maybe we could get more independents in govt.

There hasn't been one yet.

Hasn't there?

[89Hen]

There hasn't been one yet.

Hasn't there?

IINO... ok, doesn't have the same cache as RINO or DINO.

[Ibanez]

Hasn't there?

IINO... ok, doesn't have the same cache as RINO or DINO.

“IT’S GOT CACHE OUT THE YIN-YANG!”

[houndawg]

I don't think it takes balls or brians to vote third party. IMO it's more like a white flag. What kind of message is Cleets sending by casting a vote for Jill Stein?

Boiling down American politics to a heads or tails choice is a white flag in of itself

Exactly. We should finally admit that our system of government dowsn't work and scrap it for a Parliamentarian form of government.

[houndawg]

I don't know. But I'm pretty confident that a higher percentage of voters who vote Republican have at least some rudimentary understanding of that than the percentage of voters who vote Democrat do.

I frankly think that if all you did was say that in order to vote you had to name the three branches of government the Democratic Party would be devastated. I do indeed believe that it is the Party that benefits the most from voting by people who have absolutely NO clue. And I think it benefits "the most" by a lot.

Pew Research has some data showing republican voters are more informed than donk voters. Haven't been able to find anything direct from pew, but there are some other right-leaning sites reporting it.

What a surprise....

[BlueHen86]

Wow, you're all over the place.

Still not sure how your vote counts more than any other if you vote for a guy that wins by more than one vote. All votes count the same, not just those that went to the winner.

Maybe you're just dense. A vote for a candidate you know is going to garner 3% and will NEVER be remembered, is a wasted vote IMO. It sends NO message. It has NO staying power. It earns NO political capital (I'd still like to hear what kind of political capital you think they earn).

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.

[JohnStOnge]

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.

[BlueHen86]

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.

According 89knowitall, nobody remembers Ralph Nader.

[BDKJMU]

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.

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.

[BlueHen86]

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.

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.

How do you know that Clinton wouldn't have won in 1996?

[JohnStOnge]

How do you know that Clinton wouldn't have won in 1996?

It's hard to tell whether Bush would've won if Perot hadn't been in the race but I do think he hurt Bush more than he hurt Clinton. If you look at exit polling results at http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/electi ... ed_92.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; it looks to me like he drew more from Demographic groups that tend to favor Republicans than from those who favor Democrats.

For example: Perot only siphoned off 7 percent of the Black vote but he got 21 percent of the White vote. Also note that back then Whites were 87 percent of the vote while Blacks were only 8 percent. Another one is veterans. Clinton actually got more veteran votes than Bush did (41 to 37 percent). But Perot got 22 percent of the veteran vote. I don't think there's any way Clinton would've gotten more veteran votes than Bush if Perot hadn't been in the race.

[BlueHen86]

How do you know that Clinton wouldn't have won in 1996?

It's hard to tell whether Bush would've won if Perot hadn't been in the race but I do think he hurt Bush more than he hurt Clinton. If you look at exit polling results at http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/electi ... ed_92.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; it looks to me like he drew more from Demographic groups that tend to favor Republicans than from those who favor Democrats.

For example: Perot only siphoned off 7 percent of the Black vote but he got 21 percent of the White vote. Also note that back then Whites were 87 percent of the vote while Blacks were only 8 percent. Another one is veterans. Clinton actually got more veteran votes than Bush did (41 to 37 percent). But Perot got 22 percent of the veteran vote. I don't think there's any way Clinton would've gotten more veteran votes than Bush if Perot hadn't been in the race.

What does any of that have to do with 1996?

[Pwns]

I'd be okay with letting people rank their top 3 candidates. Of course, that might require evil electronic voting and liberal groups will complain it's too confusing to minority groups.

[DSUrocks07]

I'd be okay with letting people rank their top 3 candidates. Of course, that might require evil electronic voting and liberal groups will complain it's too confusing to minority groups.

Because it would require them to know about as many as two other candidates, which would be counterproductive for liberals most "loyal" voting block.

[Ibanez]

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.

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.

[Ibanez]

I'd be okay with letting people rank their top 3 candidates. Of course, that might require evil electronic voting and liberal groups will complain it's too confusing to minority groups.

Mostly old Jews in Florida.

[Skjellyfetti]

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.

[∞∞∞]

So JSO only wants "informed" people to vote?

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

[Pwns]

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.

[Skjellyfetti]

The right to vote is not explicit in the constitution.

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

It's explicit in four different amendments.

And it appears more often than any other right.

14th Amendment:

But when the right to vote at any election... is denied... or in any way abridged... the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

15th Amednment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

24th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote... shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

(I do agree on your second point, though)

[Baldy]

The right to vote is not explicit in the constitution.

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

It's explicit in four different amendments.

And it appears more often than any other right.

14th Amendment:

But when the right to vote at any election... is denied... or in any way abridged... the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

15th Amednment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

24th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote... shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

(I do agree on your second point, though)

There is no right to vote in the Constitution, period. The Constitution explicitly states that qualifications for candidates and elections are left up to the states.

The amendments are directives to the states saying they can't disqualify certain people from voting based on race, creed, gender, age, etc.

[∞∞∞]

I'm glad we have so many Constitutional experts here. Because I can't trust the Supreme Court cases in regards to voting rights. Because the Justices aren't qualified to interpret the Constitution.