Don't forget to vote!

[battousai16]

oh no, don't get me wrong, i'm not a nader supporder, and i'm not complaining he about his not getting a full percent. i laughed, myself. but think about it. bush and kerry spent a billion dollars on advertising alone. that dosen't include rallys and other events. what did nader or badnarik get? the whole system is set up for a democratic candidate and a republican one, with very little breathing room inbetween.... or on the outsides, as it were. NOT DEBATING, JUST SHARING FACTS AS I KNOW THEM! i've already been slapped on the wrist a few times for that

[tommarker]

I think the 3rd parties got a really bad rap in the 2000 election with the whole "A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush" thing.

 

In reality, if people voted more for their principles instead of the guy they think has the best chance of winning, maybe we could have some surprises.

 

Even if a 3rd party gets 10% of the vote, it has the potential to shake up the next election.

 

I voted Libertarian, and I felt good about the fact that I wasn't having to sell out half of my core beliefs just to vote for "the lesser of two evils" as so many people feel inclined to do.

 

Let's face it, while each group has its hardcore supporters, there were plenty of people who voted for Kerry because he wasn't Bush, and plenty of people who stuck with Bush because they thought he'd be a little less worse than Kerry.

 

I think 3rd parties need to get a few more local offices established. They are getting a good start, but they don't have a good voice out there that Americans recognize and respect yet. Perot, Nader, Ventura... they were all just a little too..... "wacky" for the mainstream to catch on to.

 

I have to say I'm very pleased with how this discussion is going.

[Drunken Monkey]

um, please excuse the ignorant brit but i find it kinda disturbing that the whole election seems like a game/competition.

 

(but i could just be infuenced by the media portrayal of things)

 

also,

 

i'm not sure if i like the fact that the winning party/person gets to have total say afterwards.

 

i.e after winning, he has no opposition.

[DLopez]

um, please excuse the ignorant brit but i find it kinda disturbing that the whole election seems like a game/competition.

 

(but i could just be infuenced by the media portrayal of things)

 

also,

 

i'm not sure if i like the fact that the winning party/person gets to have total say afterwards.

 

i.e after winning, he has no opposition.

 

Well, it is a competition of sorts, but you do have to admit, that as hotly contested this election was, there were no reports here of rioting, looting, and bombings before, during, or afterwards (that I know of).

 

I guess that differs slightly in that regard as say, an equally hotly contested British game of soccer, which we've heard on this side of the ocean, often results in chaos and hooliganism!

 

Besides, the President does not get total say in our form of government, believe it or not, thanks to The Constitution, which provides the checks and balances between the three branches to prevent either branch from becomming unaccountable.

 

The Founding Fathers were very deliberate in NOT modeling our government after the British model, so I understand how it appears strange how it works to y'all.

[battousai16]

well, with a republican dominated house, it wont be the fully ideal set of checks and balances.

[DLopez]

well, with a republican dominated house, it wont be the fully ideal set of checks and balances.

 

Sure it will. The President still cannot write laws (Bills actually), he can only sign them into law or veto them. The Judicial branch can still declare any law unconstitutional regardless if the President and the Congress want the law. The Senate still has to approve any cabinet and judicial appointees by the President. And so on and so on.

 

I think you are confusing "checks and balances" with policy. If a particular party dominates the Legislative and Executive branches, then chances are they will get their way with policies, but I don't see the problem with that because that is what the majority of the people want, else they wouldn't have elected all those representatives from that party into office in the first place.

 

Now, if you don't believe that the majority should get it's way with policy, then you simply don't believe in democracy.

[steveb]

Sorry, but the USA is not a democracy, it is a republic. This is illustrated in part by the use of the Electoral College. In a pure democracy you run the risk of oppression by the majority. The founding fathers specifically set up our government to prevent mob-type rule. That is the whole point of having the judicial branch to act as a brake on the possible dominance of one group of people.

[foreveryoung001]

And what of becoming a voter, thus you are tagged to serve jury duty that doesn't compensate your income? Would that be another complaint not to vote?

 

Actually, in several states now, they use your drivers licence for requiring jury duty. Hence, even if you never register to vote, you could still be called to serve on a jury. People were refusing to register to vote for this very reason, and that is why they have started to do away with it. Now, you could always decide not to drive... or at least not to drive legally.

[delta1]

OooooK! Guess I'll check in here...

 

We are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC! We are NOT a democracy! The definition of a democracy is simply 'majority rules'! Our system of government, as was pointed out, protects the individual from the majority in many ways, one of which is that a simple majority does NOT elect our president.

 

The Electoral College was set up to insure that the major population areas do not control the presidential election. The Washington DC slang for everything between California and the Northeast coast is "Flyover Country!" This is what they think of your vote, even with the EC. If not for the EC, you'd hardly see a candidate outside those areas, except for maybe Chicago, DFW, or maybe a few other major metro areas. They wouldn't need your vote, so they wouldn't court yur vote. Do you think they'd represent you, or the folks in NYC and LA? Next time NYC gets close to bankruptcy, or even has problems paying its bills, think about the effect of the EC on policy!

 

As for how the delegates to the EC can cast their votes, that is up to the individual states.

 

Control- whoever wins the election does NOT have total control. Our system was set up with many checks and ballances. The three branches ballance power in many, many ways. And our politicians are also accountable to the electorate in more ways than just the vote at election time. We have a recall process, and if we are awake enough to realize it, the people have absolute control in our court system. We can nullify any law, in individual cases, just because we don't like it! And if the Grand Jury doesn't like the way a judge treats them, an accused, or a witness, they can haul his backside off the bench and investigate and charge him! They can simply remove a judge from the courtroom temporarily because they don't want the judge to hear a particular testimony!

 

The reason it seems like we have no power, or that a politician or judge has control of our lives, is because the vast majority of Americans are butt ignorant, and just as happy to be that way! Too few understand the how or why of institutions like the Electoral College, or their rights and responsibilities as VOTERS and JURORS, which are ONE AND THE SAME! Jurry duty is part of your voting rights, NOT part of your driving privilages!

 

Elections were never meant to be a game or competition, either. But how many people today even know what a principle is? How many people ask for the principles that a candidate will use in making decissions? They are instead asked how they'll vote on one issue, or how they'll fix a problem. Any politician who is not an incumbent that tells you'I'll vote this way on this, that way on that, and I'll do this and that' is lieing through his teeth! He can't know what he'd do on most things until in the position and in possesion of all the 'facts'. Until we start making informed choices, asking intelligent questions, and voting for leaders instead of the guy that promises us the most goodies, we'll have a circus every fur years instead of an election.

 

So THERE!

 

Oh yeah, I'm an independant. But I will say that I havn't supported a Democrat in so long that, well, if Christ was a Dem, I'd probably have voted for the Devil!

 

And here's the only poem I ever memorized:

 

A statesman is an easy man, he tells his lies by rote!

 

A journalist makes up his lies, and grabs you by the throat!

 

So stay at home, and drink your beer, and let the neighbors vote!

 

By Keats

[47MartialMan]

Nice point Delta.

 

I freak out on people who say "if you don't vote-don't complain".

 

I talk to many foreigners and students not of ability to vote, they complain about Amercian politics and presidents, so perhaps they shouldn't?

 

Complaining is the right and vocal opinion of anyone.

 

"Jury duty is part of your voting rights, NOT part of your driving privilages! "

 

Yeah, but the country is becoming so PC, that voters were getting upset that they were "singled-out" or called and not non-voters. Voting is just another way for government to tag and track you.