Presidency

[StratDudeDan]

at the risk of getting in a wee bit of trouble for bringing politics here, as well as the fact that this is an international forum and doesn't affect everything, i'm asking this for two reasons.

1. project data for my "social politics" class.

2. i'm just plain curious.

PLEASE! do not start flaming people that post after this because they think something else. i'm not trying to find out "WHO" is voting for which candidate, just "HOW MANY PEOPLE" are. also, if you don't want people to know who you're voting for or why, you don't have to post.

again, i'm not in the business of starting a flame war here. debate, maybe...but still not really. i didn't click the "do not allow posts" buttong, because i want to hear if people have something good to say. i'm still undecided, after all, so i'm all up for hearing what people have to say.

[Kevan]

We'll leave this open for posts, but man....you better be as eloquent as Tony Blair if you do post something here.

WARNING:

Flames here will result in IMMEDIATE suspension.

No warnings. No excuses.

[Dugz Ink]

Could we re-phrase the question? I don't really want any of them to win.

Personally, I think it's a shame that those are the "best" candidates that they could come up with out of at least 10,000,000 qualified Americans. But what do I know?

And, yes, I voted... against certain candidates. (The polls open early in Tennessee.)

D~s

[westhemann]

i am with dug.i am really dissapointed with the lack of choice...but i would have to go with nader,because i really would like to see more than just 2 parties dominating the elections

wait...i change my mind.i vote for Drak because

1)he always speaks the truth

and

2)he lays down a beautiful laquer coat

2 things i think neither major candidate is capable of

[StratDudeDan]

Kevan, thanks for that. i was kinda hoping to get a mod response like that.

as for me, i'll be upfront in saying that i don't like bush, but kerry isn't exactly the godsend to vote for against him. there seems to be a serious lack of some important concerns (economically, mostly) from his party, which scares me.

as for nader, well, i would love to vote for him, but a vote for nader feels like a vote for bush in this case, 'cause it's taking votes away from his competitor.

ah well. this will be one of the more interesting presidential elections to watch go down.

EDIT-

btw, if anyone is interested in watching the polls and seeing the current national standings (or close to, Colorado, Maine, and Nebraska will be different that displayed) may i point you toward:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

this is the most non-partison, closest to correct poll i've seen yet this year, as it is a combination of i believe 7 different nation-wide polls.

Edited October 22, 2004 by StratDudeDan

[Hotrock]

as for nader, well, i would love to vote for him, but a vote for nader feels like a vote for bush in this case, 'cause it's taking votes away from his competitor.

Ahhh, the major problem with elections.

They had a vote on the radio over here (Radio 2) a few days ago.

There was about 12% for Nader (which isn't bad because when the news talks about the upcomming US election, they hardly give him a mention), 16% for Bush and the rest for Kerry.

Personally, i don't agree with the following quote (because I ALWAYS vote - don't vote can't moan mentality) but I still find it funny:

"Don't vote, it'll only encourage them" - Billy Connolly (I think)

How does your voting system work then, "one man one vote" whoever gets the most votes wins or is it like our rather dodgy way of doing it, whoever wins the most states (constiunecies in our case) wins?

[Dugz Ink]

How does your voting system work then,

It's this really screwed up process called the "Electoral College"... which could have worked, but then the federal government allowed the state governments to set up their own system for deciding how to split up the electoral votes. Now we have states where it's a "winner take all" policy, while other split up the electoral votes according to who wins which district, and now Colorado wants to divide up the electoral votes to match the actual votes... so there is no continuity to the process.

So, getting back to your question, it's hard to explain HOW it works... and I'm not really sure IF it works. People just argue over the process and then scream when their candidate loses... and it's been like that for at least a century.

D~s

[El Dangerouso]

I love election time. Let's just say that no system of government is perfect. To the point, a favorite quote of mine:

"Democarcy is the worst system of government, except for every other system." - Winston Churchill

I may have butchered it slighty, since it's off the top of head, but it's pretty close. There are demcratic/republic governments with many parties(and would concievably offer more "choice"), but they tend to have the problem of never getting anything done because you have to build a coalition to get the majority required to pass anything through a legislature. I personally like the two party system, and I know not everyone shares my sentiments. The good news is, some of us are of age to vote, so vote. It matters, and it always has, especially in the states (which are the vast majority of states) with winner take all electoral collage processes. The electoral college does work, I again refer you to the quote above. I would rather have the problems we have than live in say, Cambodia (I'm sure there are plenty of people in Cambodia who think I'm crazy for saying that, and maybe I am).

Anyway, how the electoral college works:

1) Each state in the U.S. is alloted a certain number of slots in the electoral college. This is determined by adding the number of representivies in the House(determined by how populous your state is) and the number of seats in the Senate(each state has two of these). A small state, population wise, like Wyoming will have three electoral votes and California will have, I think, 55. California is the most populous state, followed by New York and then Texas.

2) Each state determines how to split these electoral votes. The vast majority (including California, New York and Texas) use winner take all systems. That means that the winner of the majority of the popular vote within that state gets all of that states electoral votes. Some states do split their electoral college votes to reflect the percentage of the popular vote. Colorado does sound like it has yet another system proposed, but as of today (I think) is still winner take all. Anyway, the general feeling is that it is best to stay with a winner take all system. This is because it guarantees that issues important to your state will get more attention during an election. If you split your electoral college votes by percentage, a candidate knows that he will give some electoral votes away to his opponent, even if he wins the state, therefore, he might as well concentrate his effort where he is guaranteed all of the electoral college votes if he wins the popular vote in the state.

3) State legislatures, after the election, "choose" electors to physically go to the electoral college and cast ballots. Now, they don't actually have to cast their ballot for the guy the state legislature "chose" them to cast for. There have been cases where electors have switched their vote. The cases have been very, very few and far between (like two or three in 200+ years). This casting of ballots in the electoral college is largely a formality now.

As you can see, based on the vast majority of states being winner take all, if a candidate wins say California, New York and Texas (and maybe a few other states) and loses all the others (but the races were tight), he might win the popular vote (as compiled across the U.S.), but not be elected President, because electoral college votes are determined on a state by state basis. For those who are a fan of states having more power/states' rights this is a good thing. For those in favor of lining up votes with national population / direct demcracy this is a bad thing. There are legitimate arguements both ways, obviously.

End Civics lesson. Beat Navy.

[Dugz Ink]

Well... sort of. Some states divide their electoral votes up to match districts, and then the electoral vote goes with the majority of the votes in that district... which means that you could win the most votes in one of those states but end up with the fewest electoral votes.

For details on the federal electoral process (not the processes used by the states) CLICK HERE.

D~s

[nsherman2006]

I would vote for Bush(if i could) I think that he is a man of more character and with a goot set of values. I am also a Democrat, albeit a conservative one. I do not agree with mostof the policies that bush does, nor do I fully support the war. I am a believer that gay couples should have equal rights as heterosexuals. However, i do not believe that Kerry has the backbone to be a president. He has hesitated to take a stand for or against just about everything. He has not seemed to choose a side when it comes to gay marriage, the war in Iraq, taxes, and other important issues. Though my political beliefs tend to be more Democratic than Republican, i would rather see a man of conviction in the White House. Although Bush may not support everything i support, and he may not be the best speaker, he takes a stand and rarely wavers, and that is the type of thing i like to see in a leader. I am not trying to incite anyone with this post, so if Mods feel that it is in any way inflammatory, please edit or delete at your discretion. Neal

[guitar_ed]

How about "none of the above"?

[StratDudeDan]

Some states do split their electoral college votes to reflect the percentage of the popular vote. Colorado does sound like it has yet another system proposed, but as of today (I think) is still winner take all.

colorado's amendment will be retrospective to the election if it passes, therefore, for this election, if it goes, the state's 9 votes will be split according to popular percentage, not districts like maine and nebraska.

however, this causes some concern, mostly because colorado is one of the highest Nader-supporting states. if he gets at least 11% of the vote (about a 50-50 chance of that) then the possibility of a tie is present. which scares people. no one trusts the House of Representatives, especially because they're rather one-sided (almost 2/3 republican) and would allow for what could be considered another "florida" situation, where there is a loss of the popular votes, but a win nonetheless.

personally, i like colorado's system, but i think it would only work if it were nation-wide. it would be a better representation of the public's opinion, which is what a "democratic republic" is all about.

also, if anyone has some information on kerry's campaign and their financial plans/goals, please, PM because i'd really like to see it.

BTW- thank you everyone for being well behaved thus far. keep the mods happy and help me pull data at the same time. two-for-one.

[Kevan]

Don't worry, Neal. You're ok with that post.

I got polled the other day.

The girl asks, "If the election were held today, who would you vote for?"

Kev: "What are my choices?"

Girl: "George Bush or John Kerry."

Kev: "That's it?"

Girl: "Yes."

Kev: "Well, they're both lying azzholes, and I don't associate with those kind of people."

*pause that seemed longer than it really was*

Girl: "Oh."

Kev: "I guess that makes me undecided."

Girl: "Thanks. Bye."

Just to let you guys know, I don't vote for president. I only go to the polling place to vote "no" for every single judge.

Humor from my dad:

Dad: "I'm writing in my vote for president."

Kev: "Heh heh....who are you going to write down?"

Dad: "Yosemite Sam."

That's the first joke I've heard from my dad in more than 20 years.

Not bad, eh? :-)

[Bounty Hunter]

I am afraid I'll have to quote Mr. Mustaine on this one, "If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line, BUT. . ." and so on.

[AlGeeEater]

I dont know if any of you guys care, but here is a link to a questionare sort of thing in which when your done answering your questions, it calculates your questions compared to Bush's and Kerry's , and see's who your more "like".

Its political questions like how do u feel about Iraq, and how do you feel about immigration controls. Then they have 5 choices. No Opinion, Strongly Favor, Kind of favor, Strongly disagree and kind of disagree.

www.presidentmatch.com

Then click Q&A.

I did this during school for my world studies class and i should vote for Kerry...

No comment on politics cause im only 15 and i cant vote

[chrisb0109]

Why the lack of choices in the poll? There are far more candidates. They should be up there as well.

I would vote for Michael Badnarik. We need a Libertarian president.

[StratDudeDan]

my apologies for posting those three only, i based it on the most popular. that's not me saying "those guys aren't important" or anything, and i apologize for that. i debated putting the "other" catagory down, but as my data is only for the three main candidates (well...2 main and then Nader...), i felt that i didn't need to create an extra distraction or a way for my info to be "tainted." (i'm voting for Mickey Mouse! yeah!).

i actually am looking at a lot of the independant party candidates closer lately, just to see if there's any merit in there that i feel comfortable following and voting for.

[skibum5545]

Let me preface this by saying I am a liberal at heart. I also live in Ann Arbor, MI, one of the liberalist (is that a word?) places in the nation.

This is not an attack on anyone in particular, especially not anyone at this forum, but a general response to the concerns/attacks of conservatives against John Kerry.

First, I don't see Kerry as particularly waffling or neutral. As he said in the debates, he has a clear plan for health care, a plan for taxes, and a plan for cleaning up in Iraq. For my personal education, what am I missing that the conservatives see?

Conservatives often accuse liberals of being for "big government". Personally, I'm not quite sure I see the harm in it. Either we pay people for services, or we pay the government for the same services, and the government, as a centralized provider, provides a standardized and efficient service. While I would like to see Kerry's health plan in more detail, it seems that it is not controlling or limiting in its options; it is simply consolidated and more efficient than our currently lacking health system.

We come next to gay rights, especially regarding marriage. While both candidates are against marriage, Kerry thinks that gay couples should have some other legal form of civil union, basically marriage minus the inherent religious connotations. While I believe that gay marriage should be allowed, the civil unions are a start. The only problem with the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is that, were it a constitutional thing to do, a law would do the trick. The only explanation I can see for an amendment, and correct me if I have missed something, is that a law could not be upheld as constitutional, so one must build an anti-gay marriage law right into the constistution itself.

We come now to the touchy subject of abortion. The whole argument revolves around the subject of when life starts. My belief is basically that of the ruling of Webster v. Reproductive health services: If the fetus can support itself outside the womb, it is alive. Based on that assumption of the definition of life, here are my opinions:

Abortion: Pro-choice is -not- anti-life, just as pro-life isn't necessarily anti-choice. Pro choice means that it is nobody's right but the woman's to determine if she should get an abortion. It has nothing to do with whether Kerry or any of his supporters believe in abortions so much as whether they have the right to make that choice for others. The only difference between pro-choice and pro-life is that pro-life defines (and to a point, moralizes) for others what they can and cannot do regarding the right to have an abortion.

Finally, the war in Iraq. I believe that it is the job of the winning candidate to get us out, leaving Iraq intact. While Kerry as of yet has not shown any particular strategy that the Bush administration hadn't thought of, all we really have to go by is track records. Ignoring for the moment Kerry's war record, because that can only lead to debate of facts that can never be known, and Bush's National Guard record, which is equally unverifiable, we can only look at the more current scenario: Bush's approach thus far. He was hasty in his attacking Iraq without the proper support of the UN. Even though we don't have to necessarily ask for permission to go to war, I think perhaps Bush should have gotten the message that the world didn't agree, as another opinion on whether war was necessary. The result: Iraq is neither pacified nor organized, we are losing more troops daily, and there is no end in sight; we have simultaneously alienated ourselves from our allies and rallied terrorist troops against a nation now viewed worldwide as a bully. While there is no telling how well Kerry would have fared in this war, it is hard to imagine a much worse situation. While this is one instance where Kerry is running on the "not Bush" ticket, it is also an instance where that very ticket may be what lets us save face.

I do not intend this to be a fair look at the candidates; it is very much a liberal explaining why Kerry should win. I write this not to convince others of why I am right, but to get some opinions from conservatives about what I am failing to see in Bush. I would also like input from non-Americans as to whether my speculations regarding world view of America are even remotely accurate.

Mods, I did try to be diplomatic; however, if there are parts that you view as overly inflammatory or objectionable, either alert me of them so I can properly reword them, or simply remove them if you see fit.

Oh, and one last thing: Keep on rockin' in the free world!

[StratDudeDan]

that...

that was incredibly well-stated and spoken.

*bows*

go be a senator somewhere!

[StratDudeDan]

No comment on politics cause im only 15 and i cant vote

you can still have an opinion. in fact, i'd like to hear what people ages 15-17 have to say, because they'll be the next "determinate factor" in the election process. polls right now are indicating two things:

voters age 18-22 (first possible year) are showing an amost 15% increase at the polls.

voters age 18-22 vote nearly 70% democratic.

to hear what the next election might hold in store would be interesting, i think.

[Maiden69]

I voted undecided! I don't know which will be worst. I just hope that who ever gets the prez this time brings this nation together again... too much loose ends as of late.

[jer7440]

I would like to respond to some of the points made in favor of John Kerry. As with every one else, I am not trying to be inflamatory, only trying to tell it the way I see it. Mods edit away if I fail to be nice.

First of all in regards to national health care. The biggest issue I have with John Kerry is that he is trying to convince the american people that he is going to give them "free" health care, and the rich people (any one making over $200,000/yr) are going to pay for it. He said in the debates that he was going to roll back President Bushs' tax cut for the rich, this is how he wants to pay for all the new programs he wants. The only problem is this tax cut roll back doesn't even begin to pay for his health care plan. So who will pay for it? All the people JK said he wouldn't raise taxes on.

Secondly, and I know this is a hot button issue, is the definition of when life begins. I have two kids, one is almost 3 and the other just turned 1. Feeling them kicking and moving around in my wifes stomach was one of the most amazing things I have ever experienced. This starts to happen long before the child would be self sustaining outside of the womb. In my opinion there is clearly somone alive in there.

As far as the war in Iraq is concerned, I don't think JK will do any better. I think he has already alienated the allies that are with us, and he has told the world that this war is a mistake. How will he rally new allies to fight in a mistake. I think that JK is also a little too conerned about world opinion. I think there probably is in general a negative opinion of Americans in the world. It doesn't seem to matter how many time we join in someone elses fight or clean up after someone elses natural disaster. If the good we do doesn't win a favorable opinion in the world, why should we be that concerned about world opinion when it comes to defending ourselves?

I like skibum would like to know from out international friends here, whether or not my perceptions of the world opinion of our country our accrurate. They may well not be.

As I said at the beggining, these are my opinions(you asked for a conservative opinion and I tried to give one) and I mean no offense to anyone who disagrees. But like a great man once said "Here's to you and here's to me, if ever we should disagree, !@#$ you here's to me" Just kidding!

Edited October 23, 2004 by jer7440

[skibum5545]

Thank you for the well-spoken response. I just have a couple of things to say/ask in response.

First, where do you get your numbers on the cost of the health care and the amount of the tax cut? I have not seen any definitive third party numbers as of yet, and I am only going by what John Kerry says. Second, what does is matter if he raises taxes? With John Kerry's health plan we won't have to pay individual HMO's, so we save that money. Again, because I haven't seen any defininitive numbers, this is speculation, but for me it stands to logic that the price we pay for various HMOs would be entirely offset by Kerry's more efficient centralized plan when you factor in however large the tax cut on the rich ends up being. So while it may not be free health care, this allows for cheap health care for the poor (read: musicians ), no increase for the middle class, and increases for the rich.

Second, in response to your definition of life: sperm, when viewed under a microscope, move and swim. This movement does not, however, make them alive. That is to say, is every pregnancy one fetus and 2,999,999 stillborn children? While this is perhaps a harsh take on it, my point remains the same: movement does not necessarily define life as I see it.

I have to say, to be fair, that I am 15 years old, and thus am not a father; I don't even have a younger sibling that I would remember being in my mother's womb. I believe that in most situations, it is best to look at an issue from a logical, not an emotional, standpoint, at least when in the world of legislation. I am not saying that your feelings are not genuine, but I am saying that perhaps you should look at the issue as just that, a national issue. I am sure that you and your wife are wonderful parents, and your kids must be very happy, but you are not the type of family that would need an abortion. It is teens and others who get pregnant by accident who need abortions. They are not in a position to bring a child into this world; it would turn one person who made a careless mistake, into two struggling people who will never reach the level of achievement they are capable of because the mother had no choice in whether to bring the child into the world. The best case scenario is that the mother gives the baby up for adoption, and the baby comes into this world without a mother. I don't mean this as an emotional appeal; what I'm trying to say is that no abortions turns one normal girl who made a mistake into two people who will never be able to move on with their lives.

As for foreign relations: I've made my speculations, and you've made yours; we'll both stop speculating until some of the foreign members of this forum can help us out.

Dan D

(Yes, liberals can be patriots too!)

[westhemann]

Conservatives often accuse liberals of being for "big government". Personally, I'm not quite sure I see the harm in it. Either we pay people for services, or we pay the government for the same services, and the government, as a centralized provider, provides a standardized and efficient service. While I would like to see Kerry's health plan in more detail, it seems that it is not controlling or limiting in its options; it is simply consolidated and more efficient than our currently lacking health system.

that depends on whether or not you want the government deciding what serveces you are paying for,now doesn't it?the more taxes you pay in for the government to provide these services,the less money you have left to pay for the services you,individually, need that are not considered important enough for the government to provide

and by the way...that is not democracy or capitalism you are speaking of...it is a different form of government entirely,called socialism

and "efficient"?

sorry,but there is no efficient government service,because they don't have a bottom line to deal with like private services do...when they go in the red,they just tax more,rather than restructuring to a more efficient system

We come next to gay rights, especially regarding marriage. While both candidates are against marriage, Kerry thinks that gay couples should have some other legal form of civil union, basically marriage minus the inherent religious connotations. While I believe that gay marriage should be allowed, the civil unions are a start. The only problem with the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is that, were it a constitutional thing to do, a law would do the trick. The only explanation I can see for an amendment, and correct me if I have missed something, is that a law could not be upheld as constitutional, so one must build an anti-gay marriage law right into the constistution itself.

this should not even be a subject for government to debate...the constitution already gaurantees that everyone is created equal,so all the government should be doing is enforcing that they ARE equal...not trying to decide how equal they really are

I do not intend this to be a fair look at the candidates; it is very much a liberal explaining why Kerry should win.

i will give you a better reason why kerry should win...it is VERY dangerous to have like minded people in the presidency and controling the majority of congress...the american people made a mistake in my opinion by putting a republican majority in to help the president pass his legislation...why?because we already have too much legislation in this country,covering everything from tax brackets to what type of sex you can have in your own home

far better to have a split so that only the ideas EVERYONE can agree on get through..after all,that is supposed to be what it is all about

as far as abortion goes...well,my view is a little more controversial...i believe the world has enough people,and we are doing a fine job of increasing our numbers every year....so i don't see how a human life that nobody even knows yet is more important than the ones we send over to iraq and other places to risk their existence.it just doesn't make sense

as you can see...i am not a conservative or a liberal...i have my own ideas...some of them are conservative,some are liberal,and some are just considered extreme

[chrisb0109]

No comment on politics cause im only 15 and i cant vote

you can still have an opinion. in fact, i'd like to hear what people ages 15-17 have to say, because they'll be the next "determinate factor" in the election process. polls right now are indicating two things:

voters age 18-22 (first possible year) are showing an amost 15% increase at the polls.

voters age 18-22 vote nearly 70% democratic.

to hear what the next election might hold in store would be interesting, i think.

I'm betweeen 15 and 17 if you are curious. And as I said, I am a rather extreme libertarian.