Election day poll

[Turbo D]

I did not vote, but why am I slime for not voting? 

I thought we were calling Guyjin a slime with that poll option.   

[guyjin]

I did not vote, but why am I slime for not voting?  What if I do not like the candidates I have to vote for because I think they are backed by similar lobbyists.

Then vote for other ones. if there are no other ones, write something in. (I'm personally fond of "Ficus".)

[Black Tiger]

None of our major parties are worth voting for, so I always just vote for an independent so that my vote is counted.

[rag-time4]

I did not vote, but why am I slime for not voting?  What if I do not like the candidates I have to vote for because I think they are backed by similar lobbyists.

Like it or not, voting is a civic duty.  If you want to just sit back and let everyone else make the decisions, then you have no right to bitch about the outcome.  Besides, there's always local issues on the ballot that are just as important as voting for president.

So if I'm not ipressed by any of the candidates enough to vote for any of them, I lose my right to be unimpressed?

That's rediculous.

The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment, and it applies whether or not people choose to vote. Furthermore, the declaration of independence, which outlines the core beliefs of the founding fathers, stipulates that men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which includes liberty.

It's my right to vote and it's also my right to abstain, and whether or not I vote I still have an unalienable right of liberty to voice my opinion, which nobody can put a lien on and take away.

heh. I missed the deadline to register to vote. I hadn't really cared to vote in the past, but I was considering it this year. Oh well.

Same here!!!!

I was really impressed by Obama early on but as the campaign went on I became more and more skeptical. It will take a lot more than promises of change to make me vote for someone from the party of segregation and the Vietnam war.

[nodtveidt]

rag-time4 is correct. Our right to vote also includes our right to abstain from voting, just as our right to freedom of religion also grants us the freedom from religion. However, it is rather foolish to say that they are the party of segregation and the Vietnam war...these are very old issues that have no bearing on modern politics, only on the minds of those who either experienced them or remember them.

[rag-time4]

rag-time4 is correct. Our right to vote also includes our right to abstain from voting, just as our right to freedom of religion also grants us the freedom from religion. However, it is rather foolish to say that they are the party of segregation and the Vietnam war...these are very old issues that have no bearing on modern politics, only on the minds of those who either experienced them or remember them.

Not that old....  the Iraq war was widely supported by Democrats, and the Clinton administration bombed several African countries, as well as Iraq...

I feel that little has changed with the Democrat party since the Vietnam war ... The Democrat party, I think, is still very much a militaristic party. Obama has promised change, yet he remains a staunch supporter of Israel. I think that Israel needs to be held accountable for her actions and held to a much higher standard of peaceful behavior before I would be willing to support being an ally of theirs.

EDIT ~ Just want to add: Of all the Democrat Presidents, one of the best in my opinion was Jimmy Carter. He has a book called "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid" which I have here but haven't read yet. Ironically, Israel had a very long relationship with the racist apartheid government in South Africa. I would love to see Obama follow through on his promises for change, but follow through seems decidedly rare among politicians.... Also I hope that God protects him and keeps him safe though his term.

[nodtveidt]

Keep in mind that politicians, especially presidential hopefuls, also have the delicate (and often dangerous) task of appealing to the masses, and that includes other politicians of their own party. A presidential hopeful has to portray themselves as going along with the status quo, but just enough to be believable. If the country says that Israel is our friend, the presidential hopeful has to state the same. If the country says that marriage is between only a man and a woman, the presidential hopeful has to state the same. When they take office, however, things tend to change...their true colors come out, and we see what they're really made of. People were slagging McCain for saying and doing whatever it took to win the White House, but in reality, Obama did the same...he just did it with far more eloquence and three times as much money. In eight weeks, we'll see what his real motives are.

[Sinistron]

I voted- for Obama- but I don't know about this whole "civic duty" thing.  The popular vote means next to nothing.  Wondering exactly how the electoral college works- I found this- "The electors generally cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in their respective states, but are not required by law to do so".  So it's really just a big forking joke.  Only reason I voted is because I've become so disgusted with Republicans (and lame old white motherf*ckers (and yes, I'm white)) that it made me feel better to actually pull the lever- in an act of defiance- regardless of how inconsequential that act was.
Other than that- I don't know if Bam is the "best man for the job" but I'll take him over McCain any day.  Personally I could care less about McCain being a war hero- anyone who blinks that much and starts every sentence off with "My friends" is feeding you horseshit- even his left cheek looks like it's stuffed with it.  Revolting.

[Golgo13]

Exactly, its designed to give you the feeling you have a choice, so you have no body to blame.

[Necromancer]

So if I'm not impressed by any of the candidates enough to vote for any of them, I lose my right to be unimpressed?

That's ridiculous.

The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment, and it applies whether or not people choose to vote. Furthermore, the declaration of independence, which outlines the core beliefs of the founding fathers, stipulates that men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which includes liberty.

It's my right to vote and it's also my right to abstain, and whether or not I vote I still have an unalienable right of liberty to voice my opinion, which nobody can put a lien on and take away.

Thanks, Mr. Constitutional Scholar. 

I didn't claim that voting is compulsory by law, so your entire argument is moot (and foolish).  It's my right to free speech that allows me to call you a apathetic laggard for failing to vote, so get over it and don't bitch about the decisions made by elected officials if you can't be bothered to vote.  And remember, there's more to voting than just picking a president; many of the other ballot issues don't require you to be 'impressed' before you can form an opinion.

I voted- for Obama- but I don't know about this whole "civic duty" thing.  The popular vote means next to nothing.  Wondering exactly how the electoral college works- I found this- "The electors generally cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in their respective states, but are not required by law to do so".  So it's really just a big forking joke.

The Electoral College is certainly not ideal, but rogue electors have never changed the outcome of an election; furthermore, 26 states (plus D.C.) do have laws requiring electors to vote according to the popular vote.  There's only a few instances where electors voted contrary to the popular vote, but mostly because the candidate died before the Electoral College met.

I think the biggest problem with the Electoral College is that it entirely discounts the minority vote, except in Maine and Nebraska (holy shit, we did something right!).  Since almost every state's electoral votes are awarded 'all or none', close races can lead to the election of a president that failed to win the popular vote.  True, it's only happened three time (Hayes, Harrison, and Bush - coincidentally all Republicans), but the last occurrence proved disastrous. 

[nectarsis]

rag-time4 is correct. Our right to vote also includes our right to abstain from voting, just as our right to freedom of religion also grants us the freedom from religion. However, it is rather foolish to say that they are the party of segregation and the Vietnam war...these are very old issues that have no bearing on modern politics, only on the minds of those who either experienced them or remember them.

Not that old....  the Iraq war was widely supported by Democrats, and the Clinton administration bombed several African countries, as well as Iraq...

I feel that little has changed with the Democrat party since the Vietnam war ... The Democrat party, I think, is still very much a militaristic party. Obama has promised change, yet he remains a staunch supporter of Israel. I think that Israel needs to be held accountable for her actions and held to a much higher standard of peaceful behavior before I would be willing to support being an ally of theirs.

EDIT ~ Just want to add: Of all the Democrat Presidents, one of the best in my opinion was Jimmy Carter. He has a book called "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid" which I have here but haven't read yet. Ironically, Israel had a very long relationship with the racist apartheid government in South Africa. I would love to see Obama follow through on his promises for change, but follow through seems decidedly rare among politicians.... Also I hope that God protects him and keeps him safe though his term.

To be honest expecting the US to "dump" Israel will prob never happen.  Your looking at it from a religious standpoint.  The US has very few REAL allies in that region, and has been a staunch supporter of Israel since it's inception.  Israel pulls crap (just like every other nation) yet you expect them to be "to a much higher standard of peaceful behavior." Ironic for such a war torn region, you may not agree with how Israel is set up "stolen" if you will, they do have a right to defend themselves (whether there actions are always correct is of course open for debate).  Religion won't decide the US alliance with Israel. the US has ties for military reasons #1 (hey we "need" someone over there that doesn't tottaly think we're the GREAT WESTERN DEVIL)   

[Sinistron]

Not trying to be argumentative for argument's sake necro- nor am I trying to bust balls- but aren't these statements at least in part contradictory?

rogue electors have never changed the outcome of an election

Since almost every state's electoral votes are awarded 'all or none', close races can lead to the election of a president that failed to win the popular vote.  True, it's only happened three time (Hayes, Harrison, and Bush - coincidentally all Republicans), but the last occurrence proved disastrous. 

Personally though I do think the entire system is flawed- I am happy about the outcome this time- but only given that there were only two parties with chances here.  I wish there were more choices- and I harken back to the day when Perot took a good percentage of the vote for a third party.  I mean- a choice between Coke and Pepsi isn't a choice at all- is it?  It leaves no room for Dr. Pepper.

[nectarsis]

Yet Mt Dew would crush them ALL 

[guyjin]

Personally though I do think the entire system is flawed- I am happy about the outcome this time- but only given that there were only two parties with chances here.  I wish there were more choices- and I harken back to the day when Perot took a good percentage of the vote for a third party.  I mean- a choice between Coke and Pepsi isn't a choice at all- is it?  It leaves no room for Dr. Pepper.

Yeah, I wish there were more choices - the Democrats are too disorganized; means some of them are too conservative, and they often seem spineless - but until a 3rd party becomes viable, I'm stuck voting for the lesser evil more often than I'd like.

Since the GOP seems to be imploding at the moment, I'm sort of hoping the Libertarians emerge as 'the real party of small government', even though I mostly hate 'em. That way, the Democrats could split into their populist and liberal wings, and we get a 4 party system 

[Necromancer]

Not trying to be argumentative for argument's sake necro- nor am I trying to bust balls- but aren't these statements at least in part contradictory?

rogue electors have never changed the outcome of an election

Since almost every state's electoral votes are awarded 'all or none', close races can lead to the election of a president that failed to win the popular vote.  True, it's only happened three time (Hayes, Harrison, and Bush - coincidentally all Republicans), but the last occurrence proved disastrous. 

No, they're not contradictory; they're two different issues.  Rogue electors vote contrary to the rules of their state (i.e. - if an elector were to vote for one candidate when the other candidate took the majority of votes in their state).  The second issue is the unfairness of said rules.  It rarely occurs, but it just shouldn't be possible for a candidate to be elected without winning the popular vote.