Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
Case in point, I would have loved to vote for Ron Paul or John Huntsman. Neither made it onto the actual ballot. I considered writing in for one of them, but I really didn't want Romney to win, and I thought Obama was OK. Being write-in candidates, I knew that neither Paul nor Huntsman had a chance of getting a majority against either of the establishment candidates. As such, I voted Obama. If I were allowed to create a rank list I would have voted as I pleased, knowing that even if my third-choice candidate were the contender, my choice would still be clear (and would still be against Romney).
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demi.
I know we had other candidates to vote for, but we only had two with any prayer of winning. I don't see a reason to vote third party if there isn't any hope for them. I'd rather vote for someone who may win that I somewhat agree with, over voting someone I agree with more, yet won't win. I'd certainly vote libertarian if a time presents itself and it's not merely throwing my vote to the wind.
|
Were you two in swing states? If not, not voting for Romney or Obama doesn't make much of a difference. I was in Washington, which was gonna go for Obama anyway. So, unless you are in a swing state, voting third party makes a HUGE difference. By voting third party, you increase their relevance and visibility. If the third party gets at least 5% of the vote, then the party gets matching federal funds for the next election, allowing them to get even more visibility. If you want to grow a third party, that is how you do it. Depending on who we get in 2016, you might vote third party even if you are in a swing state. Say, if we get Christie and Clinton, who are both decent choices for President; vote third party! Gary Johnson was the Libertarian this time around, and might get it again next time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275
Oh HELL NO, I'm neither republican nor conservative. Don't you start assigning me labels when you don't know jack about what my views are outside of just a couple issues that's been discussed in these forums.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier, these days people are all too happy to automatically lump everyone who don't 100% agree with them as "those other guys":
"What!? that guy is pro-gun rights and doesn't believe that taxing the rich is all we have to do to get out of our financial mess? HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN!!! Wait, he doesn't also hate gays and aren't against abortions? well, he must be one of them NEW republicans that had just climbed out of the stone age!!!"
You don't know my views on government, or religion, or healthcare, or most other social and fiscal issues. Incidentally, I've also spent damn near half my life outside the US, so I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from registering me as a republican or presume to know what my perspective is.
|
Calm down, dude. Didn't mean anything by it. Was just making an observation based on what I've seen so far. You're right, I don't know your views on everything. I just know your views on a few things which, so far, lines you up like one of those new Republicans (who are much better than the old ones). But if that offends you to be lumped in with them, then consider my observation cheerfully withdrawn.
And try not to let your blood pressure spike over something so trivial next time.
