69% of Republicans support 2012 Palin presidential run

[jackson33]

Now, as to my reasoning on my presidential choice:

 

To me (I'm going to catch flak from ParanoiA for trying to define the presidency ) the role of the president is to be the face of the nation. That's awfully vague though. His job is to sign treaties, conduct negotiations, and to lead the military, should force be needed. A secondary job of the presidency is prodding congress to actually fulfill an agenda of some sort.

 

On the first point: I want a president who is level headed, calm, and highly intelligent. Obama was the perfect picture of level headedness. Obviously he is intelligent, as he went to Harvard. McCain has something of a temper, so I'm a little wary of him representing our nation on the world stage.

 

On the second point: Obama can only push through what the congress will pass, so saying Obama is a socialist is more or less meaningless unless you also demonstrate that congress itself is decidedly socialist. In any case, the republican party is not a particularly good example of fiscal responsibility. So on this point, Democrat vs Republican is a frying pan vs fire decision. IMO, the republicans had their shot and screwed up. Time to let the other party have a shot at it.

 

On a personal level: I have a strong distaste for lies on the campaign trail, and the sheer volume of ridiculous crap the McCain campaign tried to shovel though my TV disgusted me. These weren't subtle things, these were blatant, open faced misrepresentations of Obama's policies. I didn't see that from the Obama campaign, leading me to like (for lack of a better word) them more.

 

Well, it is over and you won, your vote counted and mine a waste of time.

I'll wish him luck, but do think your going to be sadly disappointed. Socialism itself is counter to what you claim to be your ideology. There will be more actions toward socialism than under McCain and that is not arguable. On the War, not much will change, we will be in the middle east as long as oil flow is a problem and dependency will be set by a continuing denial to industry to fill needs here. Alternatives, 20-40 years in progress are not going to fill the void in ten years or 50, the demands, recession or not, will continue to increase. When ALL taxes are raised, including Income Taxes and as SS and Medical cost increase as government expenses, this so called financial crisis will seem like a mild hand slapping. I don't think McCain could have done much better, but could have slowed Congress just a little.

 

Since its over, I won't argue the dirty politics angle of your, but suggest McCain was probably not behind what you saw as negative campaigning.

[Mr Skeptic]

By 2012, you MAY change you change your attitude on Obama...

 

I didn't vote for him, by the way. I voted for Bob Barr, mostly to support third parties and because I knew Obama would win my state (NY, he got like 70% of the votes here). When next election's candidates start their campaign, I'll make up my mind about whether they are any good or not.

[Pangloss]

Barr actually caused quite a stir amongst Libertarian Party members with his run. A lot of them felt that he wasn't a true libertarian, and given his eight years as a Republican congressman it's not hard to see why.

 

Some of them split off and formed a group called the "Boston Tea Party" (motto: "Time to party like it's 1773!" <lol>). I read this interesting Associated Press article on it last night that you all might enjoy:

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gknDqKmsQbVwTQR7pSXdBy0-KdagD94600B00

[Mr Skeptic]

Thanks for the link. However, I think that they go a bit overboard. Much as I support reducing government drastically, it still does have some legitimate purposes, and for their party to oppose expanding the government for any purpose simply won't work. They need some better qualifiers in their platform.

 

From the wiki: The satirical web site The Melting Pot Project described the Boston Tea Party as having been "founded in 2006 by disgruntled libertarians who thought the Libertarian Party 'wasn't obscure enough'."

[Phi for All]

Well, it is over and you won, your vote counted and mine a waste of time.

It's a shame you feel we're on opposite "sides". It's a shame you feel your vote didn't count. It's a shame you feel exercising your right to vote is a waste of time.

[Severian]

It's a shame you feel exercising your right to vote is a waste of time.

 

What is more of a shame is that it usually is.

[Mr Skeptic]

What is more of a shame is that it usually is.

 

Yeah, we've got to change our voting system. Ours is pretty broken:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system#Disadvantages

See for example the section on wasted votes. Well over half of the votes are frequently wasted.

[Phi for All]

I just think it's defeatist to call any vote "wasted". I agree that the plurality system is imperfect, especially for a country as diverse as the US, but I think the more people believe their vote is "wasted" if their candidate doesn't win, the fewer people will vote in the first place.

[john5746]

Yeah, I can speak from experience that voting in a battleground state this year was much more exciting and rewarding than voting in a decided state like I had previously.

 

Until the electoral system is fixed, I guess we should follow the "path is the goal" mantra and realize that voting in and of itself is the point, not just the potential outcome.

 

As we saw this year, states can become new battleground arenas. So, even if your vote is going to be in the losing column, at least it gets the percentage closer to even, so that grassroots organizations have a better foundation for next time.

[jackson33]

It's a shame you feel we're on opposite "sides". It's a shame you feel your vote didn't count. It's a shame you feel exercising your right to vote is a waste of time.

 

My efforts were somewhat more than voting or posting on some forum, however when lost, any effort was certainly a waste of time and some expense. The rights utilized of course are important and its those rights I was and am concerned with. I'll add, its gone to both parties in recent actions and an apparent ignorant electorate, which IMO in the end will be the losers.

 

 

John; With fifty States and so much difference in many ways, the electoral system is vital. Either way you went, it was that system that worked or came very close to working, where popular count would have elected only one, from near the start...McCain, had little change to win, even said by the hard core republican base, but using a failed strategy gave it a pretty good try.

 

 

Mr S; I really don't think there is anything wrong with the system, but the parties involved, even if from supporting groups of those parties. Even here its an even playing ground and both majors have played and won on that playing field. The President/VP are the ONLY two people who take office to represent the total, and you know the founders had no intention of allowing these to be by popular vote or in fact from any electorate what so ever...A possible solution would be to go back to the original system, but in the end this would only change the strategy to win or for PARTIES to concentrate on State control, already a major effort by both majors and possible building blocks for the minority parties...

[Mr Skeptic]

I just think it's defeatist to call any vote "wasted". I agree that the plurality system is imperfect, especially for a country as diverse as the US, but I think the more people believe their vote is "wasted" if their candidate doesn't win, the fewer people will vote in the first place.

 

Whereas I believe that the more people who realize their vote is frequently wasted, the more they will push for voting reform. Incidentally, I think that the definition of "wasted vote" is a vote that has no effect on the formal election results. In our system, this includes all votes for all losing candidates, as well as all votes for the winning candidate above the number of votes he needed to win.

 

While the "wasted votes" have no influence on the election itself, as john5746 pointed out, it does show support for a cause, which will make the cause a little stronger regardless of having no effect on the election. This is why I voted Libertarian this election, since I knew Obama would win NY, and I wanted to support third parties.

[Sisyphus]

Whereas I believe that the more people who realize their vote is frequently wasted, the more they will push for voting reform. Incidentally, I think that the definition of "wasted vote" is a vote that has no effect on the formal election results. In our system, this includes all votes for all losing candidates, as well as all votes for the winning candidate above the number of votes he needed to win.

 

I don't know whether I'm agreeing with you, but under that definition, no one has ever had a non-wasted vote. You would have to vote in a state that decides the election one way or the other, and in that state it would have to come down to a single vote. Otherwise, you're either voting for the loser, or are "above the number of votes needed to win." So there has never been any single person who changed the outcome of a national election with their vote or lack thereof. So while I certainly appreciate your point and I would much rather have a different voting method than the one we have, I also think you're being too broad with the idea of wasted votes, since collective behavior still matters, even if individuals don't. It might not matter who I vote for, but it does matter who people like me vote for, etc.

 

Actually, let me amend that. Even under that definition, in 2000, there were 5 "unwasted" votes.

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh, the "wasted vote" doesn't necessarily belong to a particular individual; rather it applies to a group of individuals. In the case of a losing candidate, all votes for that candidate were wasted, so everyone who voted for him wasted their vote. In the case of the winning candidate, there were some "extra" votes for him that were wasted. However, you can't say it was Jim's vote that was wasted and Joe's vote that counted. I suppose if you could keep track chronologically, you could say that everyone voting for that candidate after that point wasted their vote, but you could also say that the early ones could have stayed home, and let the others later have the vote.

 

For example, if there were three candidates, A, B and C. A had 1000 votes and won, B had 800 votes and lost, and C had 700 Votes. Then the wasted votes are the 800 who voted for B, the 700 who voted for C, and the 199 "extra" who voted for A, for a total of 1699 wasted votes out of 2500, so 68% of votes were wasted in this example. But 801 votes were needed for candidate A to win.

 

The test for "wasted vote" would be as follows: if you remove any of the wasted votes in any combination, there should be no difference in the results. In addition, as you pointed out, districting complicates matters such that the number of wasted votes is increased by a lot. Then the only votes that count are the ones needed to win certain districts (including the traditionally Republican or Democrat districts, though these have more wasted votes since they are won by a larger margin).

 

Our two party system does reduce the number of wasted votes compared to having multiple candidates, but it is hardly the best way to do it.