Election Day Quandry

[Da Raider]

For those of you who don't like Obama or McCain, how are you going to vote? I don't like either of these men. I don't like either of their platforms. I'm a small government guy and they both want to increase the size of the government. Neither one of these guys comes anywhere near matching my preferences. And I'm sure that there are plenty of you in the same quandry. So what do you do?

This perspective isn't for all of you. No, there's plenty of you who swallowed the "Chosen One" coolaid. There's plenty of you who think we need to get back to "family values" as Conservative voters. Frankly, I'm not using "conservative" as an insult, like most liberals use it. That being said, you're forcing yourselves to vote for McCain. Hurts, doesn't it?

Why the obsession with having to vote for someone you think is going to win rather than who you think is most qualified? Anyone consider a write in candidate or a 3rd party candidate?

Let's post some thoughts on your reasoning for voting mainstream candidate. Or why you are not.

[freegood]

Write in ron paul

[Desperado]

View Poll Results: Who You Gonna Vote For?
Barack Obama http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar2.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar2-r.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/clear.gif 103 (http://forum.gorillamask.net/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=79)56.91%
John McCain http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar3.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar3-r.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/clear.gif 50 (http://forum.gorillamask.net/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=79)27.62%
AJ's anus http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar4-l.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar4.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar4-r.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/clear.gif 6 (http://forum.gorillamask.net/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=79)3.31%
Ron Paul http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar5-l.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar5.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/images/polls/bar5-r.gifhttp://forum.gorillamask.net/clear.gif 22 (http://forum.gorillamask.net/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=79)12.15%

http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=61

[spentrent]

Here's a nice article from 2004 that nicely sums up my position:


We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in 2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start mattering now.

Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in American history, your vote did not change the outcome.

Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.) What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided—meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry—the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That's about 1 in 3,100—roughly the same as the probability you'll be murdered by your mother.

And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power—approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row.



For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.


The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens of millions.



Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.


- http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/


But I'm still heading for the polls on Tuesday, because like the daily lotto player, I'm continuing to make the absurd leap that it matters.

I only advise that you not waste too much mindspace on it.

[NOTKyle]

If it wasn't just taking a vote away from Obama I'd vote for Cynthia McKinney.

It's just such a waste to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

[Jackcraver]

I'm in Texas so no matter how I vote, my electoral vote will end up in McCain's hands. But this year we can write in our own candidate so I will vote for Stephen Colbert!!!

[Da Raider]

I agree that your vote doesn't matter nearly as much on the Federal level, but keep in mind that you have an opportunity to influence things on a local level.

[atoms]

If it wasn't just taking a vote away from Obama I'd vote for Cynthia McKinney.

It's just such a waste to vote for a 3rd party candidate.


Have you ever heard Cynthia McKinney speak. I heard her interviewed, and frankly it was the worst interview I've ever heard. I'm not talking political interview....I'm talking any interview...except maybe that time Farrah Fawcett seemed so crazy on Letterman.

The interview was on NPR, I think on Talk of the Nation, And she had her talking points, and absolutely would not answer the question. She would only keep repeating here rehearsed talking points. Kind of like Sarah Palin only a magnitude worse. Her and the totally level headed NPR interview started really getting testy at each other. And even though she is the Green Party nominee, none of the talking points were "green"/environmental issues.

I could not believe this lady had ever been elected to anything, much less congress. Maybe it was a bad day, but damn....it was a bad interview for someone who gets so little national air time, and in what should have been a friendly setting.

Actually found a link to the interview
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95956631

I have nothing against the green party, or at least I didn't until I heard this lady speak and wondered how they could have chosen her to represent them.

[Da Raider]

Have you ever heard Cynthia McKinney speak. I heard her interviewed, and frankly it was the worst interview I've ever heard. I'm not talking political interview....I'm talking any interview...except maybe that time Farrah Fawcett seemed so crazy on Letterman.

The interview was on NPR, I think on Talk of the Nation, And she had her talking points, and absolutely would not answer the question. She would only keep repeating here rehearsed talking points. Kind of like Sarah Palin only a magnitude worse. Her and the totally level headed NPR interview started really getting testy at each other. And even though she is the Green Party nominee, none of the talking points were "green"/environmental issues.

I could not believe this lady had ever been elected to anything, much less congress. Maybe it was a bad day, but damn....it was a bad interview for someone who gets so little national air time, and in what should have been a friendly setting.

Actually found a link to the interview
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95956631

I have nothing against the green party, or at least I didn't until I heard this lady speak and wondered how they could have chosen her to represent them.

it was not a "bad day". She's that scatter brained.

[Feng]

No better way to waste your vote than to vote for a write-in or alternative party candidate. In that case, why vote?

[taters]

As I mentioned earlier, the two party system caters to peoples hate and fear.
This is a general list IMO, and of course there are exceptions, but generally:

Conservatives hate/fear:

Gays
Blacks
Mexicans
Liberals
Poor people
Arabs
Muslims
Unions
Educators/Higher Educated
Single Mothers
Jews (in older times)
Artists
People in the entertainment industry (music and tv)
Young people
Independent smaller companies
hippies
Environmentalists
Feminists
Big City people


Liberals Hate/Fear:

Older people
White Males
Rich People
Big Companies
Rednecks
Gun enthusiasts
Hunters
Racists
Uneducated People
Small town people
(for lack of a better term) Highly Religious Christians
Rural People
Big Business owners


That being said, I am not equating republican to Conservative and Democrat to Liberal. Party affiliation and political ideology are seperate things, despite what each side tries to argue when given opposing examples (Robert Byrd and Ron Paul for example).

[merlin13]

It is comonly thought that the President is the most powerful position in Congress. That is wrong. He can only veto and declare war. So why is that term limited to eight consecutive years. The policy makers are in the Senate and the House. Why can they have 20 - 30 years in service? If the government is so bad why are we trying to elect a new president? It would reason to elect a new supporting cast rather than replace an ineffective figure head. Wouldn't the president be considered ineffective if he did not further his parties agenda? Why not limit congressional service period? Wouldn't that eliminate the " Get Along Go Along" mentality that Congress now has.

[Kerjack]

Write in ron paul

Lucky for me he is might actually be on the ballot in MT so I won't have too.