Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

The thing that confuses me is, why do people vote for third party candidates? Wouldn't it be more useful to vote for the democratic or republican candidate who represents your views more than the other. I mean, those two are the only ones who actually have a chance of becoming president, so why waste your vote?

This is just like saying "What's the point in voting? Your one vote isn't going to make any difference to the overall result!"

Isn't that pretty much true, though?

What cheeses me off is that, lately, it seems like we end up with candidates that represent the extreme sides (i.e., liberal wieners and right wing nut jobs), and no candidates that are actually concerned about what most Americans actually think. There's hasn't been anyone out there trying to build concensus. Personally, I'd like to see a Republican candidate who has in mind the needs and concerns of Democrats, or vice versa.

Did you know that the majority of Americans want tighter restrictions on abortion, but do not want to see it banned? Since that's the case, then why is it that the only candidates we see are those who wish to see it banned altogether or those who want to remove all regulation from that industry?

Upsilon wrote:

This is just like saying "What's the point in voting? Your one vote isn't going to make any difference to the overall result!"

Not quite, because technically, the electoral college is supposed to go with the popular vote of the state. And if everyone in the state thought "what's the point of voting?" then they wouldn't have any statistics to work off of.

That's true, but the mindset of the country isn't currently "let's all not vote." The mindset is "lets only vote for one of two parties."

Democracy would work a WHOLE lot better if every party had an equal chance as every other party, but that's not the case right now in America. I would love if that were the case, but it's not...

I'm liberal. Much like him.

Quote:

Why do they even exist!?

So total anarchy isnt created and people start lighting babies on fire and launching them from catapults at your nearest libary.

On secound thought that does sound fun...

Isn't that pretty much true, though?
. . . and no candidates that are actually concerned about what most Americans actually think. There's hasn't been anyone out there trying to build concensus . . .

Did you know that the majority of Americans want tighter restrictions on abortion, but do not want to see it banned? Since that's the case, then why is it that the only candidates we see are those who wish to see it banned altogether or those who want to remove all regulation from that industry?

I'm liberal. Much like him.

Quote:

I don't think that bush "screwed the country." I know that he made a whole bunch of mistakes and he can't talk all that well, but that doesn't make him an idiot.

What do you call a person who can't speak well anyways (?)

This is just like saying "What's the point in voting? Your one vote isn't going to make any difference to the overall result!"

That's because if you are a Democrat and you live in Texas you are screwed. A couple of years ago the Texas legidslature realigned the voting district making it almost impossible for a Democrat to win. Cause you know that heaven forbid that there sould be political balance in Texas.

No its NYC and Long Island that control NY.

Come to think of it, I was down in Hilton Head a week or so ago and I went to Gregg Russell's show. He opened it with a gesture to the nearby lighthouse and said, "Y'see that lighthouse over there? Sometimes, if you go up there at just the right time, and the weather conditions are just right, and you look all the way out into the horizon... you might see... a Democrat." **laughter**. "Yep. It's Republicountry down here."

Hilton Head Island is in South Carolina, by the way.

The Confederate Flag. I do believe the Confederate flag is called Stars and Bars.

I'm a member of the Googlican party.

AgentSeethroo wrote:

I'm a member of the Googlican party.

You know there's a Universal Church of Google?

Author:	the_stolker [ Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:16 am ]
Post subject:
I Don't have a party per say but I do support whoever I feel is right to lead. TOPD:

Author:	Naked_Lunch [ Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:23 am ]
Post subject:
Is that John and Paul kissing? 'Cause that's what I'm seeing!

Author:	the_stolker [ Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:33 am ]
Post subject:
No They are recording a song with like one mike so they both have to use it (They show somthing simalar in help With Paul and George.)

Author:	Upsilon [ Sun Mar 13, 2005 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:
evin290 wrote: The thing that confuses me is, why do people vote for third party candidates? Wouldn't it be more useful to vote for the democratic or republican candidate who represents your views more than the other. I mean, those two are the only ones who actually have a chance of becoming president, so why waste your vote? This is just like saying "What's the point in voting? Your one vote isn't going to make any difference to the overall result!"

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Mar 13, 2005 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Isn't that pretty much true, though? What cheeses me off is that, lately, it seems like we end up with candidates that represent the extreme sides (i.e., liberal wieners and right wing nut jobs), and no candidates that are actually concerned about what most Americans actually think. There's hasn't been anyone out there trying to build concensus. Personally, I'd like to see a Republican candidate who has in mind the needs and concerns of Democrats, or vice versa. Did you know that the majority of Americans want tighter restrictions on abortion, but do not want to see it banned? Since that's the case, then why is it that the only candidates we see are those who wish to see it banned altogether or those who want to remove all regulation from that industry?

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Political Party http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1840	Page 3 of 7

Author:	Evin290 [ Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Upsilon wrote: This is just like saying "What's the point in voting? Your one vote isn't going to make any difference to the overall result!" Not quite, because technically, the electoral college is supposed to go with the popular vote of the state. And if everyone in the state thought "what's the point of voting?" then they wouldn't have any statistics to work off of. I personally think that the electoral college is nothing but a bunch of BS. I think that the popular vote is the one that should count.

Author:	Naked_Lunch [ Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Isn't that pretty much true, though? What cheeses me off is that, lately, it seems like we end up with candidates that represent the extreme sides (i.e., liberal wieners and right wing nut jobs), and no candidates that are actually concerned about what most Americans actually think. There's hasn't been anyone out there trying to build concensus. Personally, I'd like to see a Republican candidate who has in mind the needs and concerns of Democrats, or vice versa. Did you know that the majority of Americans want tighter restrictions on abortion, but do not want to see it banned? Since that's the case, then why is it that the only candidates we see are those who wish to see it banned altogether or those who want to remove all regulation from that industry? Because the President has been turned into a job, it's become commercialized. Everyone running for president nowadays don't give a crap about the nation, they just to line their pockets with mad cash. Get a majority, stay in as long as you can, rake in the big bucks with special interests and such. If there was a president who really cared for the people, and went with them on every issue he'd be called a "flip-flopping", becuase, heaven forbid, you should actually for informed opinions. Every president tries to push his personal agenda, not the one of the people. So much for our "democracy".

Author:	Evin290 [ Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Actually, Naked_Lunch, presidents don't make that much for a high-profile career. Many atheletes are making several times more than he does. (He makes, like 100,000. Plenty of sports players get payed in the millions)

Author:	Naked_Lunch [ Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:
Presidents make 400,000. Also, atheletes aren't running the country (They're busy destroying the school system) so you have, along with the "campaign donations" the presidents get. Though I guess Congress is where the big bucks are. Remember, though, "Power is intoxicating."

Author:	Upsilon [ Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:58 pm ]
Post subject:
evin290 wrote: Upsilon wrote: This is just like saying "What's the point in voting? Your one vote isn't going to make any difference to the overall result!" Not quite, because technically, the electoral college is supposed to go with the popular vote of the state. And if everyone in the state thought "what's the point of voting?" then they wouldn't have any statistics to work off of. Yes, and if everyone who supported a third-party candidate thought "what's the point of voting for this guy?" and voted for someone else, support for the third-party candidate would not be represented correctly. Same effect.

Author:	Evin290 [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:55 am ]
Post subject:
That's true, but the mindset of the country isn't currently "let's all not vote." The mindset is "lets only vote for one of two parties." Democracy would work a WHOLE lot better if every party had an equal chance as every other party, but that's not the case right now in America. I would love if that were the case, but it's not...

Author:	Upsilon [ Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:27 am ]
Post subject:
evin290 wrote: That's true, but the mindset of the country isn't currently "let's all not vote." The mindset is "lets only vote for one of two parties." Exactly, and both mindsets are flawed. Quote: Democracy would work a WHOLE lot better if every party had an equal chance as every other party, but that's not the case right now in America. I would love if that were the case, but it's not... What, you mean parties like the American Nazi Party?

Author:	Evin290 [ Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, my family's going to have to move back to Poland if America became a Nazi nation. It would be ironic if my family had to flee Poland because to the Nazis and then flee BACK to Poland because of the Nazis

Author:	Tngl [ Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:58 am ]
Post subject:
Plaster-Man wrote: I'm liberal. Much like him. Quote: Why do they even exist!? So total anarchy isnt created and people start lighting babies on fire and launching them from catapults at your nearest libary. On secound thought that does sound fun... Uhh... last time i checked, parties weren't the same thing as governments. Do you think that there's two big governments in the US and a whole bunch of tiny ones?

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah but where is most of NYS' income coming from? Downstate. NYC is a cash cow.

Page 3 of 7	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Helmut [ Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:15 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: Isn't that pretty much true, though? . . . and no candidates that are actually concerned about what most Americans actually think. There's hasn't been anyone out there trying to build concensus . . . The people that really make a difference in who wins an election are those that cannot make up their minds. Political candidates do not have to garner the attention of political voters; political voters usually stay with their party, thus, trying to garner their attention would be a tremendous waster of time. Politicians, in order to win any election, must glean the support of those everyday voters too selfish to break the bonds of a two party system. Politics is media more than anything else. Didymus wrote: Did you know that the majority of Americans want tighter restrictions on abortion, but do not want to see it banned? Since that's the case, then why is it that the only candidates we see are those who wish to see it banned altogether or those who want to remove all regulation from that industry? We did see one, recently. In our last Presidential election; he was called a flip flopper . . . . named John Kerry. Politicians who stray from solid beliefs in order to seemingly agree with more voters are commonly labeled as such. A political party never wants to nominate such a candidate because the media then has so mant options on how to twist the information. "He voted to constrain anonymous abortions, but later voted to allow abortions. Is this who you want as President?" That's how the media twists the info something influencial for the aforementioned everyday voter. Politicians who attempt to "support the majority" commonly fail; however, as much as common people (perhaps, you, Didymus) would like to see them, they'll no doubt change their minds after the media wars begin.

Author:	Helmut [ Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:51 am ]
Post subject:
Plaster-Man wrote: I'm liberal. Much like him. Quote: I don't think that bush "screwed the country." I know that he made a whole bunch of mistakes and he can't talk all that well, but that doesn't make him an idiot. What do you call a person who can't speak well anyways Are you implying Bush is an idiot because he can't speak well in fron of a nation? Let me put it this way . . . if Bush said "anyways", would America call him an idiot? Probably. Now, if you use the word "anyways", should I label you an idiot? I guess so.

Author:	Evin290 [ Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 am ]
Post subject:
I don't think he's implying anything. He's stating that Bush can't speak well. That's true. That doesn't mean he's stupid. He's actually quite smart. He just doesn't speak very well. That's all anyone's saying.

Author:	Cmarbagoi [ Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:32 am ]
Post subject:
Upsilon wrote: This is just like saying "What's the point in voting? Your one vote isn't going to make any difference to the overall result!" Depending on where you live, it really doesn't. If I were 18 years old and lived in Texas, my vote would NOT count. But if I were to live in Ohio, which is (was) a split state your vote would matter. But sadly, the government will never get rid of that freakin' electoral college that doesn't really represent our country.

Author:	ramrod [ Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:
Beyond the Grave wrote: That's because if you are a Democrat and you live in Texas you are screwed. A couple of years ago the Texas legidslature realigned the voting district making it almost impossible for a Democrat to win. Cause you know that heaven forbid that there sould be political balance in Texas. That's the thing, when you have power, you make sure you do everything possible to keep power. It may seem cheap and dirty, but it happens. They do it here in NY too. The Pep controlled Leg split many of the cities in half and connected them with the suburbs to pretty much cancel out the votes.

Author:	ramrod [ Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Beyond the Grave wrote: No its NYC and Long Island that control NY. I say that all he time. They get all the tax breaks and force the upstate to pay it instead. It sucks so much.

Author:	The Experimental Film [ Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Hilton Head! w00t!
Come to think of it, I was down in Hilton Head a week or so ago and I went to Gregg Russell's show. He opened it with a gesture to the nearby lighthouse and said, "Y'see that lighthouse over there? Sometimes, if you go up there at just the right time, and the weather conditions are just right, and you look all the way out into the horizon... you might see... a Democrat." laughter. "Yep. It's Republicountry down here." Hilton Head Island is in South Carolina, by the way.

Author:	The Experimental Film [ Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:08 am ]
Post subject:	You do realize...
Beyond the Grave wrote: The Confederate Flag. I do believe the Confederate flag is called Stars and Bars. I personally don't wear one, but it's pretty rude to think lowly of people who sport the Confederate flag. They're not trying to be jerks about anything, not whining about losing the war, not being racist. All they're doing is being proud of their heritage. I don't do it, my heritage comes directly from Germany, but you Yankee-types shouldn't yell at them Southern-types simply because you think the Stars and Bars are wrong. Although I guess I am Northern. But then again, maybe I'm Southern. I don't know. I have Northern tendencies, but I was born in Virginia and am being raised in South Carolina. I guess I'm a Southern Yankee.

Author:	Simon Zeno [ Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:31 am ]
Post subject:
AgentSeethroo wrote: I'm a member of the Googlican party. You know there's a Universal Church of Google?

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:21 am ]
Post subject:
Simon Zeno wrote: AgentSeethroo wrote: I'm a member of the Googlican party. You know there's a Universal Church of Google? Are you serious?! There is actually a church who worships a internet search engine.