poll- how many of you will not be voting because your candidate has no chance of winning in your state?

[Kev]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

in a popular system, every vote will count.

If I vote on November 4, will the outcome of the election be any different than if I stay home?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

Yeah, you're never going to win in life either so, you might as well kill yourself now.

Nice reading comprehension. I didn't say win, I said "have an effect."

A vote has two outcomes in the short run. Either your candidate wins or loses. So, what effect other than winning are you referring to?

 

[Regs]

I will cast my vote just on princible. And yes, their both peices of fucking shit.

 

[Tim]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

Yeah, you're never going to win in life either so, you might as well kill yourself now.

Nice reading comprehension. I didn't say win, I said "have an effect."

A vote has two outcomes in the short run. Either your candidate wins or loses. So, what effect other than winning are you referring to?

I think he's referring to the effect of you shutting the hell up.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

in a popular system, every vote will count.

If I vote on November 4, will the outcome of the election be any different than if I stay home?

we're not in a popular vote system, so no.

 

[DomS]

I dislike both candidates so I won't be voting.

 

[brtspears2]

It doesn't matter who I vote for President in California, Obama will be the declared winner at 859 PM on Election Day.

I vote for the local and state props/measures.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

in a popular system, every vote will count.

If I vote on November 4, will the outcome of the election be any different than if I stay home?

we're not in a popular vote system, so no.

Even if we were in a popular vote system. Show me an example of one election that was decided by a margin of one vote.

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?

That's like saying it's a person's duty to get raped in prison because that is how the system works.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

in a popular system, every vote will count.

If I vote on November 4, will the outcome of the election be any different than if I stay home?

we're not in a popular vote system, so no.

Even if we were in a popular vote system. Show me an example of one election that was decided by a margin of one vote.

Just keep holding your breath until the system is perfect.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

in a popular system, every vote will count.

If I vote on November 4, will the outcome of the election be any different than if I stay home?

we're not in a popular vote system, so no.

Even if we were in a popular vote system. Show me an example of one election that was decided by a margin of one vote.

if everyone thought like you did, then no one would vote.

 

[NL5]

If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?

That's like saying it's a person's duty to get raped in prison because that is how the system works.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Are you saying you owe no duty to the country you live in?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: NL5
If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......

explain.

the only downfall i see is that candidates would devote more of their campaign time to heavily populated regions, but that's no different than what they do now in swing states.

 

[Tim]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?

That's like saying it's a person's duty to get raped in prison because that is how the system works.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Are you saying you owe no duty to the country you live in?

I think enough of the duty to our country is paid off in the crapload of taxes we pay, and the 4 years of service some people (like myself) have given.

Voting is not a duty, and you sir, are a tool.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: NL5
If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......

explain.

the only downfall i see is that candidates would devote more of their campaign time to heavily populated regions, but that's no different than what they do now in swing states.

exactly, it really would not change how anything is handled, except canidates would campaign in states they normally dont win, like rebubs actually showing up in NY and CA

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: NL5
If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......

explain.

the only downfall i see is that candidates would devote more of their campaign time to heavily populated regions, but that's no different than what they do now in swing states.

http://www.time.com/time/elect...0,18471,749496,00.html

And for a more radical opinion on it:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst110104.htm

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kev
I'm not voting because my vote will never have an effect on any election, so it is a waste of time.

in a popular system, every vote will count.

If I vote on November 4, will the outcome of the election be any different than if I stay home?

we're not in a popular vote system, so no.

Even if we were in a popular vote system. Show me an example of one election that was decided by a margin of one vote.

http://www.greeleytribune.com/...0061129/NEWS/111290059

Just the first example, there are many more.

 

[Drekce]

The current system ensure that all states have some level of importance in the election results. No candidates would ever campaign anywhere but CA, NY, TX, FL, IL, OH, MI, PA and maybe VA and GA if we went to a popular vote. I do think that some kind of hybrid system could be put in place that merges the two approaches.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: NL5
If we go popular vote, then heavily populated states would have increased power over the election......

explain.

the only downfall i see is that candidates would devote more of their campaign time to heavily populated regions, but that's no different than what they do now in swing states.

exactly, it really would not change how anything is handled, except canidates would campaign in states they normally dont win, like rebubs actually showing up in NY and CA

how is that different from how they focus primarily on swing states now?

so it changes campaign strategies. to me, that's all just lip service anyway. i couldn't care less if they came to my state or not.
with media, tv, internet, i can find out anything about the candidates that was made public.

 

[SSSnail]

I'm not voting because I refuse to vote for a pile of steaming crap, either way I go.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: Drekce
The current system ensure that all states have some level of importance in the election results. No candidates would ever campaign anywhere but CA, NY, TX, FL, IL, OH, MI, PA and maybe VA and GA if we went to a popular vote. I do think that some kind of hybrid system could be put in place that merges the two approaches.

You could have a system kinda like Nebraska or Maine where electoral votes are divided among congressional districts.
Though this could result in some rather nasty gerrymandering.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: theplaidfad

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?

That's like saying it's a person's duty to get raped in prison because that is how the system works.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Are you saying you owe no duty to the country you live in?

I think enough of the duty to our country is paid off in the crapload of taxes we pay, and the 4 years of service some people (like myself) have given.

Voting is not a duty, and you sir, are a tool.

Perhaps you need to reevaluate your concept of citizenship. The duties, as are the privileges of American citizenship, are constant. Your previous service didn't buy you a lifelong 'free' ticket.

 

[Tim]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: theplaidfad

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Voting is a privilege, it is also a duty. Why do so many think their duty is abrogated because they don't agree with how the government works?

That's like saying it's a person's duty to get raped in prison because that is how the system works.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Are you saying you owe no duty to the country you live in?

I think enough of the duty to our country is paid off in the crapload of taxes we pay, and the 4 years of service some people (like myself) have given.

Voting is not a duty, and you sir, are a tool.

Perhaps you need to reevaluate your concept of citizenship. The duties, as are the privileges of American citizenship, are constant. Your previous service didn't buy you a lifelong 'free' ticket.

You're an idiot for thinking voting is a duty. It's a right, NOT a duty. Perhaps you should reevaluate your concept of logical thinking.