Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

with the electoral college and the winner take all system, dems/gop will keep winning. it's the system that is broken which makes voting in many places useless.

for instance, romney is never going to win new york or california, obama is never going to win texas. if you happen to live in a battleground state, your vote matters if you plan on picking from dems/gop. if you vote 3rd party or live in a historically decided state, vote is meaningless. we should have a system like many other countries where the percentage of the vote for whatever party allows them to get that percentage reps in congress and just have the presidency decided by popular vote

  On 8/7/2012 at 10:48 AM, eugene said:

i'll personally blame you no confidence/3rd party/ctulhu 2012/"sticking the pinky inside the penis hole instead of voting" fucks if the iranian scuds will start flying over my home when romney green lights the op. if you honestly don't see the difference between obama and neo-cons just murder yourself.

Meanwhile, every conservative and orthodox jew in America will be voting for Romney. Guess you're fine with that, and with Romney and Netanyahu making out for the cameras. It's really the tiny fraction of Americans who will vote for a third party you should blame.

Go fuck off with that rhetoric. That's about the cuntyish thing a human being can say. Seriously, fuck the hell off.

  On 8/7/2012 at 2:56 PM, Iain C said:

Be that as it may, I wouldn't want to live there. I still don't think it's an argument for reform from within. If anything it makes my point - you're basically trading a shit system for a similar system that's perhaps slightly less shit, for some people at least.

 

And as it wasn't instituted by the ballot box (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong) I think it's of limited relevance to whether compson's vote helps or not. I would imagine the reforms were more likely instituted for economic reasons - or to quell the possibility of popular revolt. Again I'm speculating here, I don't know the history.

Just curious but what are you actively doing then to promote your idealism?

LOL

I side with Obama

*ducks*

http://www.isidewith...esults/43170875

I side with Barack Obama on most issues in the 2012 Presidential Election.

Candidates you side with...

91%

Barack Obama

on economic, foreign policy, social, healthcare, science, and environmental issues.

88%

Jill Stein

on economic, foreign policy, social, science, environmental, immigration, and domestic policy issues.

67%

Stewart Alexander

on social, immigration, and environmental issues.

52%

Gary Johnson

on social and immigration issues.

37%

Jimmy McMillan

on healthcare and social issues.

30%

Mitt Romney

on domestic policy issues.

25%

Ron Paul

no major issues.

5%

Virgil Goode

no major issues.

  On 8/7/2012 at 4:52 PM, theSun said:

with the electoral college and the winner take all system, dems/gop will keep winning. it's the system that is broken which makes voting in many places useless.

http://www.nationalp...ote.com/map.php

The National Popular Vote bill is halfway to getting enough electoral votes to pass. If it gains enough momentum, every vote will count. State polls show that a majority of people in almost every state support this.

It makes no sense to me when people say "Don't vote for a third party because it won't matter." Thanks for helping fulfill that, you asshats. It's only going to matter when enough people vote for a third party. Which could be this election! Seriously! Internet & grassroots support has been making a big difference on the local level.

If the Electoral College stands then I agree it's a tougher call to vote for a third party when you'd also rather have the lesser of two evils. However, if you want to help abolish it, please use the web site to send an email of support to your local pols. www.nationalpopularvote.com

^ had no idea about that bill, thanks A/D.

I also side with Jill Stein, apparently. Once again, had no idea.

  On 8/7/2012 at 6:25 PM, compson said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 2:56 PM, Iain C said:

Be that as it may, I wouldn't want to live there. I still don't think it's an argument for reform from within. If anything it makes my point - you're basically trading a shit system for a similar system that's perhaps slightly less shit, for some people at least.

 

And as it wasn't instituted by the ballot box (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong) I think it's of limited relevance to whether compson's vote helps or not. I would imagine the reforms were more likely instituted for economic reasons - or to quell the possibility of popular revolt. Again I'm speculating here, I don't know the history.

 

Just curious but what are you actively doing then to promote your idealism?

Well just last week I took part in this action: http://solfed.org.uk...all-to-complain. It was convenient because I could take part while sitting on my ever-expanding ginger arse.

I used to attend a lot more demos and so on before I was in full-time work. LOL typical student etc.

Edit: not that it makes a single bit of difference as to whether voting is a worthwhile use of your time

  On 8/7/2012 at 8:00 PM, Iain C said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 6:25 PM, compson said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 2:56 PM, Iain C said:

Be that as it may, I wouldn't want to live there. I still don't think it's an argument for reform from within. If anything it makes my point - you're basically trading a shit system for a similar system that's perhaps slightly less shit, for some people at least.

 

And as it wasn't instituted by the ballot box (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong) I think it's of limited relevance to whether compson's vote helps or not. I would imagine the reforms were more likely instituted for economic reasons - or to quell the possibility of popular revolt. Again I'm speculating here, I don't know the history.

 

Just curious but what are you actively doing then to promote your idealism?

 

Well just last week I took part in this action: http://solfed.org.uk...all-to-complain. It was convenient because I could take part while sitting on my ever-expanding ginger arse.

 

I used to attend a lot more demos and so on before I was in full-time work. LOL typical student etc.

 

Edit: not that it makes a single bit of difference as to whether voting is a worthwhile use of your time

That's great but I meant on a more governmental/electoral level. A/D provided some good points on how voting or voicing support to electoral reform can help and make a big difference... I completely understand the power of protest as well, but your outlook that you must completely remove yourself from engaging directly with democratic functions because it's a waste of time or it's a complicit act still seems absurd to me. It seems akin to suggesting voting has never proved worthwhile... ever... which is obviously false. There have been many positive socials changes due to locally active voters, getting signatures for things on the ballot etc... Weed almost got legalized and might soon in one of the states... Gay marriage got passed in some states... encouraging young people to be active with voting only increases networking and organizing so that things like a National Popular Vote does get on the ballot and does eventually become law.

  On 8/7/2012 at 5:48 PM, baph said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 10:48 AM, eugene said:

i'll personally blame you no confidence/3rd party/ctulhu 2012/"sticking the pinky inside the penis hole instead of voting" fucks if the iranian scuds will start flying over my home when romney green lights the op. if you honestly don't see the difference between obama and neo-cons just murder yourself.

 

Meanwhile, every conservative and orthodox jew in America will be voting for Romney. Guess you're fine with that, and with Romney and Netanyahu making out for the cameras. It's really the tiny fraction of Americans who will vote for a third party you should blame.

 

Go fuck off with that rhetoric. That's about the cuntyish thing a human being can say. Seriously, fuck the hell off.

im not fine with that but there's nothing i can do about it either. it's not like obama is going to win by a large margin so you can fuck about with meaningless 3rd party votes or voting romney for the lulz.

this guy must not become president, that's your duty as an american.

  On 8/7/2012 at 9:16 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 5:48 PM, baph said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 10:48 AM, eugene said:

i'll personally blame you no confidence/3rd party/ctulhu 2012/"sticking the pinky inside the penis hole instead of voting" fucks if the iranian scuds will start flying over my home when romney green lights the op. if you honestly don't see the difference between obama and neo-cons just murder yourself.

 

Meanwhile, every conservative and orthodox jew in America will be voting for Romney. Guess you're fine with that, and with Romney and Netanyahu making out for the cameras. It's really the tiny fraction of Americans who will vote for a third party you should blame.

 

Go fuck off with that rhetoric. That's about the cuntyish thing a human being can say. Seriously, fuck the hell off.

 

im not fine with that but there's nothing i can do about it either. it's not like obama is going to win by a large margin so you can fuck about with meaningless 3rd party votes or voting romney for the lulz.

 

this guy must not become president, that's your duty as an american.

What's your concern with Romney again?

Yeah, he seems like such an honest, intelligent guy.

"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."

- The Mittster

What's to dislike?

I meant what he specifically referenced earlier... something about he will cause Iran to bomb Israel.

  On 8/7/2012 at 6:47 PM, A/D said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 4:52 PM, theSun said:

with the electoral college and the winner take all system, dems/gop will keep winning. it's the system that is broken which makes voting in many places useless.

 

http://www.nationalp...ote.com/map.php

 

The National Popular Vote bill is halfway to getting enough electoral votes to pass. If it gains enough momentum, every vote will count. State polls show that a majority of people in almost every state support this.

 

It makes no sense to me when people say "Don't vote for a third party because it won't matter." Thanks for helping fulfill that, you asshats. It's only going to matter when enough people vote for a third party. Which could be this election! Seriously! Internet & grassroots support has been making a big difference on the local level.

 

If the Electoral College stands then I agree it's a tougher call to vote for a third party when you'd also rather have the lesser of two evils. However, if you want to help abolish it, please use the web site to send an email of support to your local pols. www.nationalpopularvote.com

Thanks for the infos A/D. I'm all for this bill although unfortunately that website is a fail. Clicking Take Action > Write Legislator brings you to a page to enter your zip code, whereupon presumably it would then provide you with the contact information for your legislators. But they won't actually give that information unless you allow them to harvest YOUR contact information. Fail. Guess I'll be looking up my legislators the old fashioned way.

*grabs rotary phone, dials 0 for operator*

NVM, looks like it passed both chambers in RI, will write the Guv'na in stead

  On 8/7/2012 at 8:59 PM, compson said:

 

That's great but I meant on a more governmental/electoral level. A/D provided some good points on how voting or voicing support to electoral reform can help and make a big difference...

Ok, I think I need to spell it out quite clearly. I don't think our current system of government - mine or yours - is legitimate, I think our countries (all countries) should be run differently. Without presidents or prime ministers. Without MPs and senators. Like I said before I don't know if it'll happen in my lifetime or yours, but ultimately I think that is the best way to organise society - and it'll NEVER be achieved by reform.

And the world has far bigger problems than weed and gay marriage. They're good liberal causes sure but the reason they've come so close to being legalised is because they don't really threaten the real agents of poverty, inequality and oppression in the world which are capital and the state.

  On 8/7/2012 at 9:31 PM, compson said:

I meant what he specifically referenced earlier... something about he will cause Iran to bomb Israel.

are you not concerned about his warmongering vis a vis iran ? i mean maybe he's just a liar and won't stand for anything he said during his campaign if he gets the office but still, this is very worrying.

He'll probably just keep using drones to bomb weddings in Pakistan like Obama.

I'm curious what your alternative govt ideas are, Iain. My gf has said similar things to your words here, but I find her alternative ideas somewhat naive (she is a proponent of what she and others often call "pure democracy", but with a bit of a technologically enabled twist - if I understood the picture more fully I would explain it here). I (unfortunately) don't trust my fellow citizens to make responsible decisions on international, ethical, economic issues, etc. Regardless, I think our current system is failing, and can not survive indefinitely, so new ideas are welcome. May I have yrs plz

  On 8/7/2012 at 9:39 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 9:31 PM, compson said:

I meant what he specifically referenced earlier... something about he will cause Iran to bomb Israel.

are you not concerned about his warmongering vis a vis iran ? i mean maybe he's just a liar and won't stand for anything he said during his campaign if he gets the office but still, this is very worrying.

Yeah, it's a world of difference between Romney and Obama on Iran, lol

http://www.cnn.com/2...iran/index.html

  On 8/7/2012 at 9:41 PM, luke viia said:

I'm curious what your alternative govt ideas are, Iain. My gf has said similar things to your words here, but I find her alternative ideas somewhat naive (she is a proponent of what she and others often call "pure democracy", but with a bit of a technologically enabled twist - if I understood the picture more fully I would explain it here). I (unfortunately) don't trust my fellow citizens to make responsible decisions on international, ethical, economic issues, etc. Regardless, I think our current system is failing, and can not survive indefinitely, so new ideas are welcome. May I have yrs plz

Well, I don't have the answers unfortunately. I'm definitely no kind of political theorist and I think even most dyed in the wool anarchists and communists would be wary of saying exactly how a post-capitalist society would look. It's such a radical change its form would be hard to predict from this perspective. But a lot of localism, industries run by federations of workers who own the means of production collectively, direct democracy and decisions reached by consensus or majority voting as general principles.

It sounds idealistic and unrealistic from where we are now, and like I said it may never happen. But I find it exciting to think about, and uplifting to believe in even the possibility of something better than the system we've got now, however entrenched it seems. Otherwise you're just settling for something that's really quite awful when you think about it, pinning all your hopes on reform as if politicians have ever really acted in your interests.

Anyway, the end point might be distant and idealistic, but it can start today by making the choice to try and make society better and fairer outside of the structures of government, and that's something to be encouraged wherever it happens imho.

Gotcha. You're right, it's really hard to say what such a world might look like, let alone how it would function in detail... I still don't much care for the idea of 'direct democracy' (which I take to mean: people voting directly on issues and having them enacted by popular vote without representatives -- I am opposed because this sort of utilitarian approach to government can do drastic harm when placed in certain contexts (the majority is not always right, etc), among other reasons). I do agree with some of what you say though (localism, worker-owned production). Thanks for your thoughts!

  On 8/7/2012 at 9:42 PM, baph said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 9:39 PM, eugene said:

  On 8/7/2012 at 9:31 PM, compson said:

I meant what he specifically referenced earlier... something about he will cause Iran to bomb Israel.

are you not concerned about his warmongering vis a vis iran ? i mean maybe he's just a liar and won't stand for anything he said during his campaign if he gets the office but still, this is very worrying.

 

Yeah, it's a world of difference between Romney and Obama on Iran, lol

http://www.cnn.com/2...iran/index.html

well, that's like his opinion man. there's a reason why current israeli government hates the obama admin.

i believe there's also a lot of difference with interpreting timing and iranian moves.

  On 8/7/2012 at 9:41 PM, luke viia said:

I'm curious what your alternative govt ideas are, Iain. My gf has said similar things to your words here, but I find her alternative ideas somewhat naive (she is a proponent of what she and others often call "pure democracy", but with a bit of a technologically enabled twist - if I understood the picture more fully I would explain it here). I (unfortunately) don't trust my fellow citizens to make responsible decisions on international, ethical, economic issues, etc. Regardless, I think our current system is failing, and can not survive indefinitely, so new ideas are welcome. May I have yrs plz

i also think about it a lot, i mean i and many other understand fuck all about politics and economics and military strategy and whatever and yet we're sort of forced to participate in all this and then go "buhh" when it all goes wrong.

Those ideals might be closer than you think. There are various developments in the line of wiki-democracies, or open-source democracies if you will. An example might be as simple as presenting a problem or issue, having people give possible solutions using modern media, and finally some sort of voting process to reach some sort of conclusion. In other words, a direct, semi-instant democracy using modern media. In a way something like wikipedia already is an example of a post-capitalism company. An open/direct democracy like that would use the "tail" just like the open-source community has been doing for years. An indication of similar developments is the use of twitter by politicians, for instance. It might not be exactly what you're thinking about, but if you place twitter in a historical context, politicians using twitter to interact with their followers makes the distance between voters and politicians to a historical minimum.

edit: @lainC

Iain, I think I used to feel like you do, so I have some sympathy. But the fact is, saying everything is wrong and providing no solution is naive and self-defeating. The fact is, representative democracy is a really beautiful infrastructure. Yes, it's being abused in the worst way. I think it'll be a lot easier to insert good people into power & regulate it properly than it would be to start from zero in another system.

What you're looking for is a fantasy - a solution within a system. People are always going to run that system. Bad people are always going to want to run it. It's our job as concerned citizens to make sure the right people are in power. Whoever said "The price of freedom is eternal activism" was right. And frankly, it doesn't take much of our time, money, or effort to be good activists. Voting does matter - that's why bad people have to corrupt it in order to win.

Lain C, I should cease to participate in the democracy we currently have and wait until some kind of utopian techno-cracy is established?

And Eugene, you aren't expanding on the differences between Obama and Romney... your earlier concern was in regards to Iran and whatnot... so before you call my third party support meaningless perhaps you can explain the vast and dangerous differences between Obama and Romney on foreign policy.

the major difference, imo, is romney's support of right wing in israel which is in government and is very hawkish, ironically not restraining israel enough might be critical. there's also a difference on what grade of uranium enrichment can be considered containable where romney has similar opinion to israeli hawks.

i guess the difference is more obvious to israelis than to americans.