Export thread

Recent reports suggest that neither candidate's recent expensive efforts have altered polling much.

It'd be interesting to see if, and how, our own views change over the next few months. So, a simple question that I'll probably pose once a month.

Even if you can't vote in the November election, feel free to vote in these polls. If I understand correctly, most states will list the candidates alphabetically by last name, so I'm following that convention here, lest anyone read anything into how I'm ordering the choices.

If other gets a lot of votes, I'll add the Other candidates by name in the following polls.

Until I hear any kind of serious proposal from the Romney campaign other than "I promise that I'm not actually Obama", I'm not voting for him.

I'm a European. I'm not wild about Obama, but he's not....well, Lawful Evil.

Bubble181 said:

I'm a European. I'm not wild about Obama, but he's not....well, Lawful Evil.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he's chaotic evil.

Please make these public so I can

A) shame Romney voters
B) cut out joke Romney votes

Thanks in advance

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Please make these public so I can

A) shame Romney voters
B) cut out joke Romney votes

Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Please make these public so I can

A) shame Romney voters
B) cut out joke Romney votes

Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

Can people make jokes about you voting for the guy who runs Guantanamo and has a kill list?

Espy said:

Can people make jokes about you voting for the guy who runs Guantanamo and has a kill list?

Click to expand...

Considering we did it to Bush first, SURE!

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Please make these public so I can

A) shame Romney voters
B) cut out joke Romney votes

Thanks in advance

Click to expand...

Romney, not a joke. I don't like him but he's better than Obama. I'm not voting 3rd party unless Kodos is on the ballott.

As a foreigner I wont delve to much into your politics,but Romney just seems so... bland.
And don't kid yourself that Obama was the only president with a "Kill List".

I am not voting for Obama.

Espy said:

Can people make jokes about you voting for the guy who runs Guantanamo and has a kill list?

Click to expand...

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I am not voting for Obama.

Click to expand...

But you are voting for the next president, so same thing...

In the case of Jill Stein somehow miraculously winning the Presidency (this has a less than 0.00% chance of happening btw), I actually don't think she would be all up in the foreign wars' business!

Really? You are gonna vote third party?

Alright. I can get behind that.

LordRendar said:

And don't kid yourself that Obama was the only president with a "Kill List".

Click to expand...

If thats somehow what you took from my post then you really missed my point. It's moot anyway since C-Dog is voting 3rd party.

AshburnerX said:

Considering we did it to Bush first, SURE!

Click to expand...

I have no idea what this means.

Believe it or not, I also voted third party in 2008.

2008 was the first time in 16 years that I did not vote 3rd party.

sixpackshaker said:

2008 was the first time in 16 years that I did not vote 3rd party.

Click to expand...

Sellout.

GasBandit said:

Sellout.

Click to expand...

I view myself as a Democrat. Just in those other 4 elections, I was casting a protest vote. Since it is TX Clinton and etc. never stood a chance of winning, I thought I would be heard louder by going against the two parties.

sixpackshaker said:

I view myself as a Democrat. Just in those other 4 elections, I was casting a protest vote. Since it is TX Clinton and etc. never stood a chance of winning, I thought I would be heard louder by going against the two parties.

Click to expand...

...so you didn't vote for the democrat because the democrat didn't stand a chance? Do I have that right?

Yes, Clinton did not stand a chance a winning in Texas. Presidential votes don't count outside of the state. Hence Bush losing the popular vote but taking the electoral college.

sixpackshaker said:

Yes, Clinton did not stand a chance a winning in Texas. Presidential votes don't count outside of the state. Hence Bush losing the popular vote but taking the electoral college.

Click to expand...

I understand all that stuff. I'm just not clear how voting for Clinton anyway would be a less effective "protest vote" than voting not for Clinton.

I mean, you do know Clinton only lost Texas 37-40 in 92. Right?

And? how many thousands of votes it that in a state of 20 million?

Never mind. I tried to give you every chance at an out, but there's just no way around it - you're a moron. Sorry.

Bite me dick head. My one vote does not close the 210,000 vote gap. If you can't see that, you are the moron.

sixpackshaker said:

Bite me dick head. My one vote does not close the 210,000 vote gap. If you can't see that, you are the moron.

Click to expand...

Clinton lost by 3 percentage points. That's the margin of error in most polls. If ever a democrat had a chance to win contemporary texas, it was Clinton's first election when Perot (another Texan) was siphoning off votes like crazy. It was so close as to be a nailbiter. What you did is the very definition of cutting of your nose to spite your face. You. Are. An. Idiot. No surprise who you're voting for.

Did you vote for Andre Marrou that year?

sixpackshaker said:

Did you vote for Andre Marrou that year?

Click to expand...

I didn't vote in 92 at all. I wasn't old enough.

(I know, I know, shock and dismay).

But that is beside the point. The candidate you wanted to win stood a chance. A good chance. The final difference was 3%. Now, if you'd said "I had no idea at the time it would be so close, I didn't think Perot would be such a factor," I would have said, ok, that's understandable. But instead you doubled down on "TEXAS HATE DEMOCRAT ONE VOTE CAN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHAARGARBL."

I did not say one vote can't make a difference, I said it did not make up 200,000 votes. You are the one that Whaargarbl-ed.

sixpackshaker said:

I did not say one vote can't make a difference, I said it did not make up 200,000 votes. You are the one that Whaargarbl-ed.

Click to expand...

Well it's a good thing you knew before you voted that your vote couldn't make the difference. I mean really, when you apply that logic, why ever vote for anything at all? Even if it's only a 1%, or 0.1% or 0.01%difference, your vote won't cover that gap.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

In the case of Jill Stein somehow miraculously winning the Presidency (this has a less than 0.00% chance of happening btw), I actually don't think she would be all up in the foreign wars' business!

Click to expand...

They all say that until they see the JFK video!

Yeah, I mean, with that kind of attitude Kelly Clarkson never would have been able to touch so many of us.

I never thought I'd be metaphorically skullthumping somebody for not voting for Clinton.

Gee, now that I think about it, I am sorry. For causing Clinton to lose the Presidency...

I WOULD LIKE TO SELL YOU THIS TIGER STONE! IT KEEPS TIGERS AWAY!

sixpackshaker said:

Gee, now that I think about it, I am sorry. For causing Clinton to lose the Presidency...

Click to expand...

I wish more people were like you, actually. If enough people got mad enough that Obama has no chance to win the vote in Texas that they vote for Gary Johnson, maybe we can get something rolling.

That is why it is called a protest vote...

Gives a whole new meaning to the term "Useful Idiot."

I've told you my reasons, you can not seem to grasp anything, this is over.

More like "I've dug myself into such a hole I have no hope of rectifying it at all, so I'm storming out!"

I mean, seriously. Your argument is because of information you couldn't have had until AFTER the election, you voted against your own interests in a close race. By your logic, any race you vote in that is not literally going to be decided by your vote and your vote alone, an even 50% split (and informs you of that being the situation ahead of time), you may as well write in Mickey Mouse.

Did you really think George Herbert Walker Bush was going to lose on his own turf?

You did not know that the race was going to end in a statistical dead heat before the election either. i.e. information that you did not have until after the election. And Perot "stole" just as many votes from George as he did Bill.

We did know going in that Clinton would have the electoral college sewn up. So if 220,000 independent voters changed their minds about being mad at both parties, and swung the votes from Perot to Clinton... what difference does it make?

Yes, writing Mickey Mouse is the same thing, because you are mad at the time.

sixpackshaker said:

Did you really think George Herbert Walker Bush was going to lose on his own turf?

You did not know that the race was going to end in a statistical dead heat before the election either. i.e. information that you did not have until after the election. And Perot "stole" just as many votes from George as he did Bill.

We did know going in that Clinton would have the electoral college sewn up. So if 220,000 independent voters changed their minds about being mad at both parties, and swung the votes from Perot to Clinton... what difference does it make?

Yes, writing Mickey Mouse is the same thing, because you are mad at the time.

Click to expand...

Perot was a huge factor in Clinton's win. He is the reason why the two dominant parties to this day make sure we all fear third party candidates - they "can't win," they'll just "sabotage" whichever mainstream party candidate is closest to them in ideology by not only siphoning off votes, but by doing the other party's attack campaigning for them - which is what happened with Perot. While the democrats were still in their primary, Perot was on the campaign trail bashing Bush, harping on the national debt that nobody had seemed to care about until he brought it up. In 1984, the Republican share of the presidential vote was 59 percent. In 1988, it was 53 percent. In 1992, the combined Bush/Perot vote share was 56 percent. Democrats got 41 percent of the vote in 1984, 46 percent in 1988, and 43 percent in 1992. Bush won 51 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1988. Bush and Perot collectively won 53 percent of the vote in both Vermont and California in 1992. Bush won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1988. Bush/Perot won 61 percent of the vote in Florida in 1992. Bush won Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 54 percent, 55 percent, and 51 percent, respectively, in 1988. Bush/Perot garnered 56 percent, 59 percent, and 54 percent of the vote in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, respectively in 1992. All in all, Bush’s share of the vote from 1988 and the Bush/Perot share of the vote from 1992 seem to overlap significantly, and this holds true in every region of the country and in most of the nation’s largest states. As such, it becomes difficult to argue that Perot hurt Republicans and Democrats equally in 1992. In June, polling showed Perot ahead of all other comers. What Perot did was shatter the Reagan/Bush coalition, allowing Bill Clinton to pick up the pieces.

Though, I guess they didn't learn it TOO quickly, they had to be taught in 2000 again when, if it hadn't been for Ralph Nader, the phrase "President Gore" would be a reality. It would have been enough for there to be no recounts, no supreme court involvement... and no Dubya.

Here's the question: Is it possible to have a viable third party option that isn't beholden to the same corporate/special interest groups as the R/D's? Given the money it takes to run a successful campaign and the power these groups hold once you are in office I'm dubious that it is.

Espy said:

Here's the question: Is it possible to have a viable third party option that isn't beholden to the same corporate/special interest groups as the R/D's? Given the money it takes to run a successful campaign and the power these groups hold once you are in office I'm dubious that it is.

Click to expand...

This assumes that the "winning" party will always have total sway, which is less likely with more players in the mix. With multiple parties all holding minority power, having to form coalitions to advance legislation, special interest will be less likely to force their way and corporate influences will be forced to think about not putting all their eggs in one basket.

But the viability of 3rd parties isn't really what's under discussion here. And, as has been said elsewhere, it'd take political upheaval nearing revolutionary levels to dislodge our entrenched 2 party system at this point. Though, if Republicans are defeated soundly enough this November, it's possible we could see the party shatter. (Possible, not definite).

It would be interesting to see a Republican Party that is more centrist and has shaken off the "Family Values" voters. Seems that those values is what keeps some good candidates from running. Then the people that are trying to barge their way into our bedrooms/private lives can finally be marginalized.

Espy said:

Here's the question: Is it possible to have a viable third party option that isn't beholden to the same corporate/special interest groups as the R/D's? Given the money it takes to run a successful campaign and the power these groups hold once you are in office I'm dubious that it is.

Click to expand...

check out Americans Elect lmao

If it divides, it's definitely going to be over social conservatism and economic conservatism. It's pretty hard to run a social conservative platform in this country anymore, especially when 80+% of young people have decided they really don't give a fuck about sexual orientation or being devoutly religious, but it's easy to tell them that they are paying into a social system that won't be aroudn to support them when it's their time.

Just as a thought experiment, what do you guys think would be the issue that would divide the Democratic party? I can't really think of one.

sixpackshaker said:

It would be interesting to see a Republican Party that is more centrist and has shaken off the "Family Values" voters. Seems that those values is what keeps some good candidates from running. Then the people that are trying to barge their way into our bedrooms/private lives can finally be marginalized.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think it will be the opposite that happens.. the Republican party's only consistent rallying cry has been their social agenda, while the "goldwater" republicans have gotten more and more fed up with it (this is how we ended up with a Libertarian party in the first place). What I foresee as happening is a schism that develops between the country club republicans who champion the social agenda and the tea party types who believe economic conservatism should trump all (including dated social positions). The economic conservatives would spin off in a disgusted huff, perhaps merging with libertarians to make something new. The downside there is that, as noted above by AshburnerX, the Democrat party doesn't really have a strong schism in their ranks and is very unlikely to splinter, so votes opposing them would be split between the two conservative parties.

Of course, this could all be negated with the adoption of runoff elections (preferably instant runoff), but as the current GOP doesn't want to make it any less inconvenient to splinter, and the Democrats like the 2 party system just as much, it's unlikely to be put in... as I said, without reforms that constitute a de facto revolution.

Actually, now that I think about it, the Dems ALREADY had their splitting issue: Civil Rights. The southern Dems were mostly forced out because they wouldn't support it. I would argue that they came out stronger for it.

With the decision that corporations are people and money is talk (oh, you know what I mean), it's become horribly unprofitable for any politician to ever allow any third party to develop, ever. At the same time, it makes it almost impossible. Allowing pretty much unlimited campaign money from any where, bad move.

A three or four party system is far more democratic - but you risk situations like Belgium, where you need 6 or 7 parties to form a coalition, or the country votes so dividedly that you need the winners from region A to cooperate with the winners from region B - which is results in wishy-washy middle-ground politics, wwith some extreme ideas occasionally thrown in on either side to appease fringe voters. It's not exactly ideal, either.

Bubble181 said:

With the decision that corporations are people and money is talk (oh, you know what I mean), it's become horribly unprofitable for any politician to ever allow any third party to develop, ever. At the same time, it makes it almost impossible. Allowing pretty much unlimited campaign money from any where, bad move.

A three or four party system is far more democratic - but you risk situations like Belgium, where you need 6 or 7 parties to form a coalition, or the country votes so dividedly that you need the winners from region A to cooperate with the winners from region B - which is results in wishy-washy middle-ground politics, wwith some extreme ideas occasionally thrown in on either side to appease fringe voters. It's not exactly ideal, either.

Click to expand...

Someone already summed up the situation perfectly:

Winston Churchill said:

Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Click to expand...

The US is very unique in the way that we have three branches of government, and overall are a republic, which, unlike the parliamentary system that covers the country used in many other places, really favors a two party fight.

Even if we changed to instant run off, it would still be done on a state by state basis (the states aren't going to cede that to the federal level) and thus the results would still likely favor a two party system.

The only way to really move in a direction that would give third parties any significant pull would be to get rid of the state's rights in voting for federal offices.

This simply isn't going to happen.

stienman said:

The US is very unique in the way that we have three branches of government, and overall are a republic, which, unlike the parliamentary system that covers the country used in many other places, really favors a two party fight.

Even if we changed to instant run off, it would still be done on a state by state basis (the states aren't going to cede that to the federal level) and thus the results would still likely favor a two party system.

The only way to really move in a direction that would give third parties any significant pull would be to get rid of the state's rights in voting for federal offices.

This simply isn't going to happen.

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced. The differences between the US and UK system aren't that big; yet the LibDems are, slowly but surely, starting to gain a foothold. Scottish Nationalists same thing.
In the end, the current balance works well enough for everyone in power - there's no reason they'd ever want to change anything about it, except to cement the two-party system even further.

Anyway, any voting law reform will be in favour of the ruling party, whichever that is, and would cause a HUGE stink from the other side about taking away control, trying to abuse the power of law to gain permanent control, and all that jazz. Because there's simply no system that is definitely, always, guaranteed, more democratic for everyone.

Bubble181 said:

I'm not convinced. The differences between the US and UK system aren't that big;

Click to expand...

It's a matter of degrees.

The primary difference is that the UK parliament is elected by a single constituency (the whole of the UK) following a first-past-the-post system. This means that yes, there may be two major parties that get most of the available seats, but if a concerted effort is made by a third party to focus all their votes on a single person, that person has a reasonable chance to get into and influence parliament.

In the US this is very, very different. Congress is strictly regional, with 50 constituencies voting on a limited number of seats for each constituency. Further, within each state each seat is regional. So I can only vote for the senator and representative for my region - I can't vote on all the available seats in my state, I can only vote for one. This may vary by state, and I suspect that I do get to vote for both senators, but I only get to vote for one representative even though michigan has several seats in the house of representatives.

Therefore if a third party wants to get a candidate into the house of representatives or the senate, the third party has to convince a majority of the people in a region to vote third party - which simply isn't going to happen, especially since the regions are drawn by the ruling parties.

So this one difference seems very large to me, and explains why third parties have little to no chance to participate effectively in the US election process.

What happens instead is that they gain support within one of the two parties that are leading, and then try to change the party, or at least get their candidates a seat and then try to push from there. This is one of the reasons the democrats and republicans sometimes seem to be all over the place. The tea party, by all rights, is different enough to be considered separately from the republicans, but they know they won't get anything if they don't work within the two party system, which means "corrupting" the republicans.

By some measures, Obama isn't a democrat, and Romney isn't a republican. But they aren't going to go anywhere if they don't work within the two party system.

The states are not going to release their seats in congress, which is what would be necessary to make it so smaller parties have a chance of getting a seat in congress.

So the two party system controls politics, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Changing the voting method to a run-off or any other method means nothing if the states won't give up the electoral college (which mirrors the seats in congress) or their seats in congress.

I'm not clear on why a runoff would require eliminating the electoral college. Seems to me it would not affect the federal level, just change which delegates might get sent. That said, yeah, the 2 parties will never accept any idea that involves them being reduced in power.

stienman said:

It's a matter of degrees.

The primary difference is that the UK parliament is elected by a single constituency (the whole of the UK) following a first-past-the-post system. This means that yes, there may be two major parties that get most of the available seats, but if a concerted effort is made by a third party to focus all their votes on a single person, that person has a reasonable chance to get into and influence parliament.

In the US this is very, very different. Congress is strictly regional, with 50 constituencies voting on a limited number of seats for each constituency. Further, within each state each seat is regional. So I can only vote for the senator and representative for my region - I can't vote on all the available seats in my state, I can only vote for one. This may vary by state, and I suspect that I do get to vote for both senators, but I only get to vote for one representative even though michigan has several seats in the house of representatives.

Click to expand...

And with the intention of a more bottom heavy government (majority of power lying in local governments, then state, finally federal) this really shouldn't present much of a problem, but with the top heavy government we've moved towards it's become disastrous. The reason there's less direct involvement with the election of the higher level federal offices, is because ideally they should have a minimal impact on the everyday lives of the average citizen, the needs of which vary widely from state to state, and city to city.

GasBandit said:

I'm not clear on why a runoff would require eliminating the electoral college. Seems to me it would not affect the federal level, just change which delegates might get sent. That said, yeah, the 2 parties will never accept any idea that involves them being reduced in power.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that switching to an instant runoff wouldn't change the election outcome if the electoral college (ie, 50 regional constituencies) was kept the same. Therefore there's no point in changing the voting method unless you change the whole election process.

stienman said:

I'm saying that switching to an instant runoff wouldn't change the election outcome if the electoral college (ie, 50 regional constituencies) was kept the same. Therefore there's no point in changing the voting method unless you change the whole election process.

Click to expand...

Well, I got that, but I still am not understanding your basis for that assertion. As far as I can see, there's no reason why each state does its own polling (with instant runoffs), and submits their winners to their electors.

stienman said:

It's a matter of degrees.

The primary difference is that the UK parliament is elected by a single constituency (the whole of the UK) following a first-past-the-post system. This means that yes, there may be two major parties that get most of the available seats, but if a concerted effort is made by a third party to focus all their votes on a single person, that person has a reasonable chance to get into and influence parliament.

In the US this is very, very different. Congress is strictly regional, with 50 constituencies voting on a limited number of seats for each constituency. Further, within each state each seat is regional. So I can only vote for the senator and representative for my region - I can't vote on all the available seats in my state, I can only vote for one. This may vary by state, and I suspect that I do get to vote for both senators, but I only get to vote for one representative even though michigan has several seats in the house of representatives.

Therefore if a third party wants to get a candidate into the house of representatives or the senate, the third party has to convince a majority of the people in a region to vote third party - which simply isn't going to happen, especially since the regions are drawn by the ruling parties.

So this one difference seems very large to me, and explains why third parties have little to no chance to participate effectively in the US election process.

What happens instead is that they gain support within one of the two parties that are leading, and then try to change the party, or at least get their candidates a seat and then try to push from there. This is one of the reasons the democrats and republicans sometimes seem to be all over the place. The tea party, by all rights, is different enough to be considered separately from the republicans, but they know they won't get anything if they don't work within the two party system, which means "corrupting" the republicans.

By some measures, Obama isn't a democrat, and Romney isn't a republican. But they aren't going to go anywhere if they don't work within the two party system.

The states are not going to release their seats in congress, which is what would be necessary to make it so smaller parties have a chance of getting a seat in congress.

So the two party system controls politics, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Changing the voting method to a run-off or any other method means nothing if the states won't give up the electoral college (which mirrors the seats in congress) or their seats in congress.

Click to expand...

Whoa there. I think you've misjudged the UK system. They're pretty much the only European country that doesn't use one big constituency (or, like Belgium, 4, or in case of Germany, 17 or some such). UK voting is strictly on regional basis. Every member of parliament represents exactly one small region. Each MP is elected in his/her burrough. If, all over the country, 51% of people vote for party A, and 49% vote for party B, party A will have 100% of the seats in congress. For a third party to actually get anyone elected, they need to convince more than 1/3 (at least), and the largest part at that, of the people in a very small area (think smaller than counties) that they're the one. In a continental European system, a party with 21% of the votes would have somewhere between 10% and 25% of the seats (depending on what kind of math is used). Some countries have models to benefit larger parties, others have it completely parcelled out but give a bonus to the biggest one, whatever. In the UK, if your party has 21% of the votes, there's a good chance you've got zero MPs. Quite similar to the US.

Bubble181 said:

Whoa there. I think you've misjudged the UK system. They're pretty much the only European country that doesn't use one big constituency (or, like Belgium, 4, or in case of Germany, 17 or some such). UK voting is strictly on regional basis.... Quite similar to the US.

Click to expand...

I sit corrected. I'm going to ask Wikipedia for my money back.

For your Wiki ease: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_Parliament_constituencies -> the list of constituencies. Each one votes for just one MP ;-)[DOUBLEPOST=1342803081][/DOUBLEPOST]On the other hand, I'll have to correct myself: these aren't smaller than counties. The population per constituency in the UK is mostly between 60,000 and 90,000 people; US counties differ more (from 12,000 to 649,000 averages per state) but most are in the same order of magnitude.

There are plenty of counties with millions of people in them.

Necronic said:

There are plenty of counties with millions of people in them.

Click to expand...

Yes, I just looked at the census figures, which is why I was correcting myself. The average county is in the 70,000 area, which is about the same as the UK constituencies. California, for instance, has an average of over 600,000 per county, so obviously there'll be some in the millions there. LA County has slightly under 100 millions people. There's just 38 counties with over 1 million people in them. Qualifying as "millions" (that is, more than one million, namely, two millions or more), there's just 12 of them.

"Marvelous thing, democracy. Look at Manchester - Population 60,000... electoral roll: 3."
"Well, I may have a brain the size of a sultana..."
"...correct..."
"... but it hardly seems fair to me."
"Of course it's not fair! And a damn good thing, too! Give the like of Baldrick the vote, and we'll be back to cavorting druids, death by stoning, and dung for dinner."
"Ooh, I'm having dung for dinner tonight!"