letting my voice be heard

[House of Mustard]

I'm sorry, WHERE exactly did we say we weren't going to vote before this came up?

I never claimed you did say that.  I said that you (vote-swappers as a group) complain that the real electoral system isn't working, despite the fact that you haven't actually tried to use it.

Political activity is a whole lot more than just voting.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Okay, I have a question about the people who are against the "throw your vote away" rhetoric. If you know the person you want to vote for has zero chance of winning, how is it not throwing your vote away if you do vote for them?

For example, a guy in Elders quorum on Sunday said he was going to vote for the Constitution party candidate, and that "throwing your vote away" doesn't exist, that your vote always matters. If you vote for the guy who has zero chance of winning, what does it contribute except for a vote for...a guy who loses? At least if you are choosing between two people who both have a good chance of winning, you're influencing the outcome.

Of course people who don't vote for the top 2 still influence the outcome, if their votes otherwise would have gone to one of those top 2. Which is why instant-runoff elections are attractive to me.

But for me, in California, where Bush will probably lose by near 10 percent, why should I vote for Bush, even though I want him to win? (Well, theoretically speaking. I'm not ENTIRELY sure I want Bush to win, but that's not what I'm talking about.) Why would that not be throwing my vote away?

If we were under the district method, where a relatively small area can determine a single electoral vote, I would be more inclined to be politically active in that area.

[Spriggan]

Ben, you're cool, and thank you for posting this link.  To everyone who thinks it's crap, shut the hell up.  At least we're trying to work with an election system that is crappy and actually VOTING  and trying to make a difference instead of throwing our vote away.

Take a deep breath and say to yourself "I'm going to be mature about this and not insult my firends because they don't agree with me".

Mustard is completly right on the system, you cannot spend you cannot spend 340 days not careing then all the sudden freak out when you don't like how things are going.  I personaly don't like either cadidate much, but I'm still going to vote for the one that I agree with the most.  I can't complain too much about who the 2 are since I did nothing to change that fact besides sitting on my butt watching news, and that dosen't count for much.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

What actually throws your vote away is that you are not working within the real, effective system.  You're not (correct me if I'm wrong) out donating your time to the party of your choice, volunteering for campaigns, actively participating in grassroots activities -- so that you might have a chance of swinging a real election.

I donated money to my party and plug it in my circle of people I know, but do no active campaigning beyond that. Does tha count?  

[Spriggan]

I donated money to my party and plug it in my circle of people I know, but do no active campaigning beyond that. Does tha count?  

Well it's better then the rest of us who didn't.

[Entsuropi]

The Guardian would do stuff like that. Bunch of bleeding heart liberals, gah.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

<Mode=Moderator> Note: from thsi point forward, everytime I see someone post somethign along the lines of "Shut the hell up" or a variant, the post will be immediately deleted. THat is NOT appropriate, in a political or another format. Now no more comments on that particular post.</Mode>

I have to say, on the whole "throwing your vote away" bit, I think you ARE throwing your vote away if you don't try to get the word out and get people to change their minds. People have free will. Just because someone is more popular in a location does not mean that popularity cannot change. But if all you're going to do is vote, and not say anything about it, at least to people you meet day to day, well then, yes, you're throwing your vote away.  A 10% margin, as in the earlier example, is not that big. 10% can change in the course of a week or less. Plus polls are not perfectly accurate, and can, in fact, be completely wrong. Such a fatalistic attitude is what will hurt you.

And has everyone forgotten write-in votes? You have more options than even the third party candidates. There are MILLIONS of eligible persons.  If enough people don't vote for the two main candidates, even if they don't all vote for the SAME alternative, that will be noticed, and will have an effect on future elections.

[JP Dogberry]

I know a guy who voted Liberal, because he liked Mark Latham and his policies, and hated John Howard.

Note to yank readers: The liberal party in Australia is headed by John Howard (who is an utter moron deserving of your contempt, and out Prime Minister.). The Labour party is headed by Mark Latham. (Who is also an utter moron, but at least has half a clue.)

[House of Mustard]

If you know the person you want to vote for has zero chance of winning, how is it not throwing your vote away if you do vote for them?

Like I said earlier, you throw your vote away months before election day--you throw it away when you decide not to help your candidate win.

However, after sleeping on things, I apologize if my comments last night were taken rudely.  I don't mean to offend.  One of the best parts of the American government is that you can vote for whoever you want.  I like to debate the theory and issues, but I certainly don't dislike people who disagree, and I don't want to damage any friendships.

(Okay, so I do hate Tage.  But, can you blame me?)

[Tage]

Nah, can't really blame you for that, HoM. Man I hate that guy too.

[House of Mustard]

Just to lighten the mood, here's some political humor I saw the other day.  (I'm voting for Bush, as you can obviously tell, but I enjoy political jokes regardless of party.)

At the U there was a big poster that looked very much like an official campaign poster for the GOP.  There was a picture of Bush and Cheney, smiling happily.  Below them was the caption:  "Why change horsemen halfway through the apocalypse?"

That's been making me laugh for days.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Because we need to have FOUR horsemen. Maybe that's an argument for Kerry.

[Lieutenant Kije]

The title of this thread sounds like a Whitney Houston song.  No way am I going to post here, except to mock.

**mock mock mock

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz/BrainTenYrs*.mov

[Sigyn]

My mom wanted to be involved in the republican caucus (I think that's the right word) that was going to choose the republican candidate for Utah's governor.  However, she wasn't allowed in because she wanted to have Oleen Walker as the candidate.  The party powers didn't, so they wouldn't let her be involved. So she was trying to let her  voice be heard but wasn't given the option.

I personally think that we should have a "None of the above" option when voting.  Then, if no candidate gets enough votes, all the parties have to start over and find new candidates that are more palatable to the american people. I know it will never happen and would probably not work even if it did, but I would still like the option.