About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If Senator Obama has the insight to make Senator Clinton his vice presidential running mate, then victory is assured. 

Personally, my voting will stop at the state level.

All politics is local.

I already wrote one check to a candidate for sheriff and I look forward to working with his campaign.

The inverse-square law applies to politics as well.  You would have to be a highly potential field to have an effect on a presidential election.  In other words, you have to rich or powerful (or both).  For most people, voting for television idols is more realistic an opportunity.

When America was formed, things were different, of course, but that was then and this is now.


Post 1

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 8:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Independence Party (Perot, Nader, Ventura) is the largest third party in New York. If they maintain a 5% turnout, they stay on the ballot automatically for the next election. So if I do vote, it will be for that party, across the board. (In truth, I will likely abstain, but we'll see how the weather is that day.) I can't vote for the hypocrite opportunist Barr, a religious conservative in creeps clothing. I might vote for McCain as a lesser evil than Obama, if this were a swing state, but McCain won't even come close here. I will vote to keep the Independence Party a thorn in the side of the Rems & Debs.

I am surprised at the number of abstainers so far, but not that surprised.

I think Obama is far from having a lock on the win, and think Hillary would be a drag on him. I think the election is McCain's to lose.

I am practicing my deep breathing techniques.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 6/15, 11:13am)


Post 2

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 10:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm voting for Barr. His past record gave me pause, but listening to some of the interviews he's had has convinced me that he'd advance a libertarian, individualist message. Obama and McCain -- meh. Don't much care for Nader or the batshit insane Green Party candidate, but the more protest votes in lieu of having the option to vote "none of the above", the better.

Post 3

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 11:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael, have you heard of Florida, 2000 AD? Our system greatly magnifies the effect of votes in swing states. Your inverse square analogy is flawed.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 6/15, 2:17pm)


Post 4

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 6:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Why is it that people who vote other (almost) never specify for whom?

There cannot be that high an incidence of people posting here with tics.

Are you guys supporting communists, the natural law party, or what?

Post 5

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted Keer asked: Michael, have you heard of Florida, 2000 AD?
As one third worlder explained it, the election was decided by a flawed tally in the province controlled by the brother of the man who won the presidency.

What's your point, Ted?


Post 6

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 9:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why is it that people who vote other (almost) never specify for whom?
There cannot be that high an incidence of people posting here with tics.
Are you guys supporting communists, the natural law party, or what?
"I 've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you... " Leonard Cohen.

 "Other" means just that.  Why do you need to know?  Why do you demand to know more?

Maybe someone will write in Donald Duck or Jed Bartlet. 

What's it to you?
(Can't stand the ambiguity?)


Post 7

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 9:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim Henshaw asserted: "I'm voting for Barr. His past record gave me pause, but listening to some of the interviews he's had has convinced me that ..."
What's the difference between Robert Barr and The Hindenburg?
(The Hindenburg was a nazi gasbag.)


Post 8

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 10:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think that this is as good a place as any for a call for a new paradigm altogether (and a new poll). The paradigm is instant run-off voting in America.

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 10:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael, your comments above don't border on paranoid, they are paranoid.

What did Jeb Bush have to do with the counting of votes in Florida? If anything, the Florida Supreme Court's ex post facto ruling overturning the state's law only election procedure might be worth comment, but you seem to be of the "Jeb rounded up all the negroes" crowd. Maybe you don't follow such things, all politics being local.

As for the other, my "need" to know is called curiosity. I'm curious if you've heard of it?


Post 10

Monday, June 16, 2008 - 8:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed Thompson suggested instant run-off voting.
In October, town-election voters in Cary faced an unfamiliar voting method and had additional choices to make. But not surprisingly, Cary's performance was above average, just as Cary is above average in income and educational levels and Internet  connections.
Hendersonville, however, had poorer results -- over one third of voters polled were not prepared to rank their choices. Instant runoff voting relies on voter education, something  North Carolina does poorly. Our state has the highest "undervote" rate for president in the country, because voters can't even vote a straight ticket correctly. 

http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/IRV_Jan_14_Worrisome_realities_mar_instant_runoff.pdf 

We had IRV here in Ann Arbor in the 1970s and there is an IRV committee now.  I attended a few meetings, but did not get involved.  The idea has its advantages.  However, the arithmetic can lead to surprise upsets.

 

Instant runoff voting has its first hurdle - a lawsuit
By ROCHELLE OLSON, Star Tribune
December 20, 2007

Minneapolis voters overwhelmingly approved the charter change in 2006, and city officials have been preparing to use it during the 2009 city election.

The method requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gains a majority (50 percent plus 1 vote), the candidate with the fewest votes is dropped.

Then the second-place votes cast by supporters of that candidate are added to the remaining candidates. The process continues until one candidate gains a majority.

The suit noted that each victorious city candidate in 2006 won with a plurality, meaning they won despite receiving less than 50 percent of the votes cast.

© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/12665581.html

An associated problem -- antecedent to this -- is that of political party primaries.  As it is now, in many places, the Democrats and Republicans get the public to pay for their internal processes.  Five Democrats want to run for mayor.  Fine, let them decide among themselves.  Instead, they all run in a public primary -- as do the five Republicans who want to be mayor.  (This is, in fact, one reason that in the past I chose to run for office as a Libertarian: I get to run through the primaries all the way to November.)  Instead, let the so-called "major" parties have their conventions and submit their slate and so on, as would any other coalition.

 

 There are non-partisan races, of course. Here in Michgan, judges are non-partisan.  When I ran for the community college board of trustees, that was non-partisan.  (Some state university boards are partisan elections, while other state u boards are appointed by the governor.)

 

 


Post 11

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 - 11:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Why so quick for another poll, Ed? This one's gotten more votes in three days than the last in three weeks. Polls should stay up at least a week.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 6:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

I expect to vote for Obama (and Clark?).
Hope

Thinking of process:
Is Majority Rule the Best Election Method?
Eric Maskin
(2007 Nobel - Economics)



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 8:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I feel there is no qualified candidate for President of the United States.  We continue to focus on "fascist", "socialist", and "Communist" ideals in an official to elect.  Yet, the populace continues to place in office, those who would and will reduce our rights as individuals.

 

As our rights and our property are removed by initiation of forced regulations, "those who have not" smile unknowingly and "those who have" shake their head despairingly.

 

Thomas Jefferson was correct, the majority is ignorant. 


Post 14

Monday, June 23, 2008 - 5:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Which candidate would win if we voted for real "change" (the change of instant run-off voting)?

A) Bob Barr
B) John McCain
C) Barack Obama
D) Independence Party
E) Other (please specify)

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, June 23, 2008 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote: "I'm voting for Barr. His past record gave me pause, but listening to some of the interviews he's had has convinced me that ..."

Michael responded:

"What's the difference between Robert Barr and The Hindenburg?
(The Hindenburg was a nazi gasbag.)"

Thanks for the Godwin violation. Now, name some of the current positions Bob Barr is advocating that you find objectionable and collectivist, and on which either Obama or McCain is better, because I haven't found any. Oh, and provide a link if you do think you've found something.

Or are you into gratuitous character assassination not backed up by facts?

Some hints -- McCain-Feingold -- assault on political free speech, opposes Supreme Court decision giving habeus corpus rights to Gitmo detainees. Obama -- government-run health care, assaults on free trade.




(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 6/23, 1:15pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Monday, June 23, 2008 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's wrong with Bob Barr is that he doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Voting for him will accomplish absolutely nothing. You might as well not vote.

And don't forget Obama wants nationalized health care, is a protectionist, will be an appeaser on foreign policy (I can almost guarantee our enemies will test his resolve if he wins and we will be attacked as a result of his apparent weakness), he will surrender in Iraq, he will put through a windfall tax on oil companies forcing them to go overseas and raise gas prices as a result, will not do a damn thing to increase energy supply (or more accurately will not alleviate any government restrictions on energy supplies), will raise taxes, and will be the worst President since Jimmy Carter. McCain isn't great either, but I have a hard time thinking he can at all be possibly worse than Obama.

ANYBODY BUT OBAMA
(Edited by John Armaos on 6/23, 4:02pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Monday, June 23, 2008 - 5:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Armaos wrote: "What's wrong with Bob Barr is that he doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Voting for him will accomplish absolutely nothing. You might as well not vote."

I had a similar discussion with my redneck brother-in-law about this. I live in Hawaii, and he lives in Washington state. He said I was "throwing my vote away" voting for Barr, because he doesn't have a chance of winning. I pointed out that we DO have an electoral college with its winner-take-all provision, and that in both of the states we live in, the only candidate who has any chance whatsoever of capturing those electoral college votes is Obama. Therefore, by my redneck brother-in-law's logic, we both should vote for Obama, even though we both dislike Obama, because voting for anyone else would be "throwing our vote away on a no-chance candidate".

He didn't have any counterargument to that, unless taking another swig of cheap beer and looking puzzled counts as a response.

The "not throwing your vote away" method of voting is stupid and counterproductive. Even in the most hotly contested swing states, your individual vote is highly unlikely to be the single swing vote that tips the election, especially since recount(s) would be triggered if it came down to a single vote. No matter where you live, you have considerably less than a 0.0001% chance of being the deciding vote. So, you're free to vote your conscience. And, for example, if the deciding state in the upcoming election turns out to be Nevada, and the vote difference between Obama and McCain turns out to be 0.1% of the total vote, and Barr gets 5% of the vote in Nevada -- both parties will be forced to take libertarian views way more seriously in the next election in 2012, even though Barr has a 0.0% chance of being elected.

I cordially disagree with John about some of his reasons for supporting McCain, but if he thinks McCain is a better candidate than Barr disregarding the electability canard, then, fine, he should vote for McCain. But, if he thinks Barr is better overall on the issues than McCain, then it would be misguided to vote for the inferior candidate -- McCain -- out of an inaccurate and misguided notion that otherwise he'd be "throwing away his vote."

Or, to give a theoretical example: you have a choice between voting for a Mugabe clone, a Stalin clone, or an Ayn Rand clone in the next election, and realistically your one vote won't swing the election, and realistically only the Mugabe or Stalin clone can win. Who do you vote for? Do you passionately argue about whether the Mugabe or Stalin clone is marginally worse? Or do you vote for the Ayn Rand clone because she represents the political philosophy you value?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 2:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well Jim, last time I checked I wasn't a redneck. If you watched my Big Fat Greek Wedding you'd have an idea of what my childhood was like. Very non-redneck. Very very ethnic. Not sure if you were making some kind of insinuation there towards my intellect being on par with a redneck, or otherwise making a random non-sequiter about your brother, either way my condolences to your family for having a family member of redneck persuasion. But yes, of course for Hawaii McCain doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and neither does Barr. So in your situation your vote actually doesn't count for anything at all, except a statistic. But Bob Barr doesn't stand a chance to win in any state, so again I stand by my comment "Voting for him will accomplish absolutely nothing. You might as well not vote." I didn't say you would be throwing away your vote, I said it wouldn't accomplish anything.

I do live in CT where McCain surprisingly is only down a few points in the polls here. Most likely due to Joe Lieberman, my state senator's support for McCain and the big Navy influence here in my hometown. My one vote will most likely not make the deciding difference but what's wrong with your logic Jim is that I'm not the only one holding the opinion that I have. If say Libertarians took 5% of the vote where they could have voted for McCain but Obama wins CT by 3% of the vote, it would be obvious what voting Libertarian would mean in my hypothetical, which would mean throwing the election to Obama.

What I actually find astounding Jim is that people seem to have forgotten this isn't an unlikely hypothetical, this actually has happened before. People seem to have forgotten 8 years ago there was this party called the "Green Party", perhaps you heard of it. It received a very large percentage for what third parties usually historically get. Typically the people that voted for the Green Party in 2000 were liberals that would have otherwise voted for Al Gore. In fact many voters who chose the Green Party candidate later expressed regret for doing so after having seen George Bush win the Presidency.

So by all means, vote for Barr. If you think Barr is better on the issues than McCain then fine, vote for him, but don't do so out of some misguided notion you think it will make one damn bit of difference. But for the rest of us not living in a state that hates American values, I'd like to vote for the candidate that isn't the favored presidential choice for Iran, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

Or, to give a theoretical example: you have a choice between voting for a Mugabe clone, a Stalin clone, or an Ayn Rand clone in the next election, and realistically your one vote won't swing the election, and realistically only the Mugabe or Stalin clone can win. Who do you vote for? Do you passionately argue about whether the Mugabe or Stalin clone is marginally worse? Or do you vote for the Ayn Rand clone because she represents the political philosophy you value?


Yeesh! If the only two candidates that could realistically win are a Mugabe clone and a Stalin clone, I'd either flee the country or try to assassinate both of those candidates. Why would I waste my time voting for the Ayn Rand clone that wouldn't stand a chance of winning? I would hope the Ayn Rand clone wouldn't even bother wasting time campaigning and instead take up arms with me to kill those two maniacs. Besides, I hope you're not seriously insinuating the candidates are anything at all like Mugabe or Stalin? I realize you made a hypothetical but it doesn't relate at all to this election. Let's deal with reality only please if you don't mind. I don't happen to think those are my choices.



(Edited by John Armaos on 6/24, 3:26am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 3:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Armaos wrote:
What's wrong with Bob Barr is that he doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Voting for him will accomplish absolutely nothing. You might as well not vote.
I don't agree. My vote, which will probably be for Barr, is only one of several million in my state. The only thing I hope it might do is increase awareness of candidates who value liberty more than mainstream Demo-publicans. In Illinois where I live Obama will win by a landslide. My voting for McCain would accomplish absolutely nothing. My voting for Obama would accomplish absolutely nothing and be even worse on my conscience. If I expected a tight race between Obama and McCain in Illinois, my thinking might differ.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.