So...the election is coming up

[west]

I'm voting for Kerry (reluctantly), but i have a gut feeling Bush will end up winning again.

[rklenseth]

I voted today.

[ephiroll]

I had to go with Nadar, I was going to vote for Bush before watching the debates, but the debates convenced me neither of them deserve my vote. I'd rather "throw it away" on Nadar. Everyone else I know is voting Nadar and Bush.

[kroner]

I'm sorry, but regaurdless of who "deserves" your vote, voting for Nader is simply a failure to choose. It could have been great, you know, having an impact on who would be the President. Oh well. It's too late now, so maybe next time.

[The Industriallist]

Entirely true, at least if he's voting in a swing state where it makes a difference.

Though given his stated position, I have no objection to 'throwing away' his vote

[1959 Apache]

I see politics as usual has infiltrated the minds of some Cantrians.

A vote for Nader is not a throw-away, unless you are only voting for the sake of voting. You also have the option of showing up at the poll and registering a non-vote by simply not choosing a candidate for President. You will have exercised your right, and fulfilled your responsibility as an American.

I myself am voting for Nader, but for a specific reason. I am voting for change. Politics as usual consists of the two party system. You either back the corrupt corporate favoring militaristic Republicans, or the corrupt Democrats who favor taking more of your money in taxes and giving it away. There are obviously deeper aspects of both parties, but in the end niether have the best interests of the American public at heart. Their only concern is to remain in power. Thus my Nader vote. It is a vote for change. If more votes went the way of third and fourth party candidates, for every elected office, the system would have to take notice. It started when Ross Perot got a much larger protion of the Presidential vote than anyone expected, but the stupid American public let the system off the hook and fell back into politics as usual.

I'm not saying that anyone who is not a Democrat or Republican is automatically non-corrupt. I believe all politicians are corrupt. You can't ascend to any level in the system without a lot of backing. The only way to get that backing is through promises and favors. An honest politician is destined to lose.

[Halley]

I voted a month ago--for Kerry and against the marriage amendment.

And I'm really, really scared. I have a sick feeling in my stomach about this election.

By the way, here's a site of interest: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

(If it isn't working, you can go to http://www.electoral-vote3.com/ through http://www.electoral-vote7.com/ )

[Pirog]

ephiroll>

I don't know much about Nader, but I haven't got the feeling that your views and his politic is the same...or am I wrong?

[The Industriallist]

I myself am voting for Nader, but for a specific reason. I am voting for change. Politics as usual consists of the two party system. You either back the corrupt corporate favoring militaristic Republicans, or the corrupt Democrats who favor taking more of your money in taxes and giving it away. There are obviously deeper aspects of both parties, but in the end niether have the best interests of the American public at heart. Their only concern is to remain in power. Thus my Nader vote. It is a vote for change. If more votes went the way of third and fourth party candidates, for every elected office, the system would have to take notice. It started when Ross Perot got a much larger protion of the Presidential vote than anyone expected, but the stupid American public let the system off the hook and fell back into politics as usual.

In Pennsylvania I consider that a questionable proposition.

The thing is, voting is not an expression of who you want for president (you don't even say you want to elect Nader. Maybe you do, but that isn't the point, is it?). The vote feeds into a specific mechanism that determines the nezt president. By casting a vote for Nader, you may be sending a message, but you're also removing your vote from the system. Since that vote actually may have an impact in your state, I would regard that as a mistake unless you really see no lesser of two evils among the candidates with an actual chance to win.

Though I guess that depends on whether you consider the message more important than having the wrong president for the next four years.

That said, I cast the same vote, for the same reason...but in NY, where there's no way I'm doing any damage to the ousting of the Bush.

[1959 Apache]

Now that's scary, the Industrialist and I agree on a political topic. I intentionally avoid political discussions because there are so many aspects of even a single issue, that complete agreement is near impossible.

He raises a point about my post that I thought rang loudly, however 'tongue in cheek'. No, I do not expect that Nader has a chance of winning, nor do I think he would be a good president. I do not think either Bush or Kerry will be good presidents. I don't think the Presidency is nearly the powerful position it is made out to be. No president can do anything without approval fron the Senate and/or Congress. He is a figurehead. The American public has been duped into thinking that if Kerry wins, somehow the entire political landscape of the country will magically be different. Yes there would be subtle differences, but who actually believes that he, or Bush for that matter, will be able to carry out all that they promise. I don't know of any politician who has been able to do that. It just isn't possible.

One more thing, if the election was anything that resembled fair, there would be no Electoral College. What a joke that just because I live in PA that my vote is somehow more important than any other citizen's. Is that the principle of democracy?

[Pirog]

The Industriallist>

I certainly understand your point...but for a person like Nader to ever become a real option in American politics people need to vote for him. It seems like a very large part of the Americans feel that both the Republicans and the Democrats are bad choices...and then a person like Nader could future on get a chance for power.

1959 Apache>

One more thing, if the election was anything that resembled fair, there would be no Electoral College. What a joke that just because I live in PA that my vote is somehow more important than any other citizen's. Is that the principle of democracy?

I agree. It is really crazy to keep such a system in a modern society. I suspect it has a lot to do with the Americans being proud of having something historical, seeing how your nation is still young.

[The Industriallist]

The Industriallist>

I certainly understand your point...but for a person like Nader to ever become a real option in American politics people need to vote for him. It seems like a very large part of the Americans feel that both the Republicans and the Democrats are bad choices...and then a person like Nader could future on get a chance for power.

I do think a vote for Nader is basically a good thing. In a swing state, I value it well below a vote for Kerry (to defeat Bush, that is.) I think that the president is much more powerful than Apache does, and I hold bush responsible for quite a number of disasterous decisions during his presidency.

Never underestimate the Comander in Chief. Presidents have started wars against the popular and congressional preference before. The position has far more power than the constitution provides it.

1959 Apache>

One more thing, if the election was anything that resembled fair, there would be no Electoral College. What a joke that just because I live in PA that my vote is somehow more important than any other citizen's. Is that the principle of democracy?

I agree. It is really crazy to keep such a system in a modern society. I suspect it has a lot to do with the Americans being proud of having something historical, seeing how your nation is still young.

I think it has more to do with the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment that at once reduces the power of the states (that is, the itty bitty ones) and is too complex for many (or most) Americans to understand. The idea of the Electoral College being bad relies on knowing what it is...which is out of the range of a large number of voters.

[ephiroll]

ephiroll>

I don't know much about Nader, but I haven't got the feeling that your views and his politic is the same...or am I wrong?

No, you're not wrong, Nadar is about positive change and doing what has to be done to accomplish it, and that's what I'm for above anything else, if change isn't happening then nothing is improving. I can't say that Nadar would be a "good" president, but I do believe he would be better then Kerry or Bush who are just playing to the fears of the masses to get elected. If one of them was really any better then the other then the election wouldn't be a statistical tie.

And to clearify, earilier when I said I "threw my vote away", I was just being a smartass because when you vote for someone like Nadar that's what most people <i>think</i> your doing and it was an intentional jab at anyone who would take the bait. If I was going to throw my vote away for real, then I wouldn't have bothered voting at all.

[rklenseth]

Just a little election update. Fox News has just predicted that Bush will win Ohio. If this holds true then Bush needs only to win Alaska (tradionally Republican anyways) and he cliches the election barring any legal action afterwards. But this is only true if Fox News is correct and none of the other networks is reporting this yet so this is still too early to call it but I just wanted to update the situation but Ohio is crucial for either a Bush victory or a Kerry victory. If any of them can take it then they will mostly likely win or at least tie. But if it is a tie then it will go to the House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans and Bush wins. So all Bush has to do is win Ohio and he pretty much wins the election but once more barring any legal actions afterwards which I think are inevitable unless Bush wins Winconsin and some traditionally Democratic states that are still up in the air.

[kroner]

Bush will win Alaska, Ohio and New Mexico unless something very unexpected happens. I'm going on the vote counts being displayed by the BBC.
My guess on the final results:
Bush: 274
Kerry: 264

and that's with Kerry winning Nevada and Iowa, which are about even right now.
I haven't looked at Fox in any form all night and I still called the election for Bush at about midnight est.