And yet we have a Democrat for a governer for years and years. I don’t quite understand how Ohio is a swing state, and Indiana is so staunchly Republican. Someone said it’s because Ohio has a higher urban population and Indiana is mostly rural and small town.
I am tired of this election. I’m ready for it to be over, one way or the other. And I’ll have some good liquor on hand Tuesday so I don’t freak out too badly if Bush wins.
Actually, if that happens, ANY liquor will suffice… :eek:
Thank you to you and gobear for clarifying that for me. I too, choose douche bag! I can’t wait to go home and make a big “Douche Bag for President” sign to put in my yard!
I second this. I will, in fact, assume personal responsibility for your decision if Kerry screws up.
You’re welcome. 
It’s like the sitcoms where one girl and two boys are nominated for class president. The girls all vote for the girls but the the boys vote is split between the two boys so neither boy can win.
There will never be a third party president because all third party candidates are always one of the following:
Face it, the appeal of the Democrats and the Republicans is that they are so moderate. Democrats are moderate left. Republicans moderate right. And that’s what you want. No one really wants radical politicians making crazy changes.
:dubious: Aren’t you forgetting Liberal? :dubious:
I can’t respond to this. I can only assume that someone who says that the current major parties (particularly the right) are “moderate” can only be saying so as a bait…
Wow…
I have a suggestion, msmith537.
If you can’t use your vote to express a preference (because you honestly do not prefer a candidate), then use your vote punitively. Here’s how:
If you don’t like the job Bush has done, vote him out (later, if Kerry becomes president and you don’t like him, vote him out next time). Politicians eventually notice that the public doesn’t support them if they can’t put two terms together. Unfortunately, if your goal is to punish Bush, this can only be done by voting for Kerry–third-party ballots merely have the effect of suppressing turnout, which makes a Republican victory more likely.
If you want to punish Kerry (and what’s he done to you, by the way?) and guide the Democrats to a position that you can prefer, that you can distinguish from the Republicans’, that is the time to vote third-party: if you want them to be more concerned with the environment, vote Green, if you want them to be more protective of free markets, vote Libertarian. Third-party votes will influence the challenging party more because they will view those voters as persuadable people who aren’t committed to the opposition, whose votes can be had the next time. Keep in mind that when you do this you are rewarding the incumbents at the same time by leaving them in their jobs.
So go ahead and vote, based on this question: which do you believe is more important–punishing those who have been running the country the last four years, or reforming the opposition party into something you can vote for next time?
Actually, I want to thank you.
I think you, and many other Republicans like you who will not be voting this time, are indeed doing your civic duty.
You may not trust or like Kerry, but you are also honest enough see the reasons Bush should not be re-elected and thus won’t vote for him again. That actually counts as two votes: one less Bush vote, and still leaving a Kerry vote free to cancel out someone else.
I also think you are not alone. My 81 year-old aunt just visited me and told me last time she voted for Bush, but she is either not going to vote this time or she is going to vote for Kerry. She said she will see how she is feeling November 2nd.
Would she like a cup of tea and a ride to the polls to help her make her mind?
[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Third-party votes will influence the challenging party more because they will view those voters as persuadable people who aren’t committed to the opposition, whose votes can be had the next time. Keep in mind that when you do this you are rewarding the incumbents at the same time by leaving them in their jobs.
[QUOTE]
I agree with most of this statement, except as how it specifically influences challengers and rewards incumbents. Not sure how you arrived at that…
The more people that vote 3rd party, the more you make the major parties take 3rd party platforms/ideas seriously. Incumbent or challenger.
My state will, in all likelihood, electorally vote for Kerry.
I’m going to vote for some 3rd partly loon. Badnarik, probably, if he made the NY ticket.
My state will, in all likelihood (100% likelihood, vote for Senator Shumer.
I’m going to vote Republican (holding my nose while doing so).
My votes on these two major elections are meaningless. I cannot affect either outcome. Still, I will vote my heart, and maybe one of these two newly-elected or returning politicians will notice that there are actually people voting against them and their positions.
And as much as I’d like the pointless political mudslinging to be over, I’ll be especially happy when people (mostly, but not wholly Democrats) stop harping about how this is the most important election of our lifetimes/history of the US/dawn of time.
So how’d we end up with one in the White House?
Hey, if you trust me to make decisions about the future of our country for you, then go ahead and stay home. No skin off my nose.
Podkayne:
That wasn’t just any “someone in the crowd,” that was Ross Perot.
Actually, that’s not true. Third party votes are meaningless and will continue to be until we change the electoral college. The mainstream candidates will never have to take third party candidates seriously, because they rarely disrupt the system and have no chance of winning, even if they were to capture a lot of votes.
Look at it this way: the last third party candidate to win a sizable portion of the vote was Ross Perot. He won nineteen percent of the popular vote in 1992, but not one electoral vote. It’s easy to imagine a scenario where Perot could have captured over fifty percent of the popular vote, but came in second in every state. If you come in second, you don’t get any electoral votes. So in that case, the votes of over half the country are meaningless.
Until we change the electoral college to be proportional rather than winner take all, a third party vote is meaningless. And this comes from someone that voted for Nader in 2000 and will probably vote for third parties every time after this one because I really don’t like having to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich but still believe it’s my civic duty to vote in every election, even if I don’t really care who’s running.
Mostly, it’s because an incumbent has to please the people who voted for her, whereas an unsuccessful challenger has to figure out how to please the people who didn’t vote for him. There’s also good reason to believe that a second presidency, which doesn’t have to sweat out any more elections, might be less responsive to public opinion, and that this administration would be especially so. After all there’s the famous quote (a usable link to which I’m still seeking) from after the 2000 election when someone said the current administration worried about the lack of a popular mandate “for about fifteen minutes,” and Suskind’s NYTMag article of the 17th.
Yes, sadly, this is true. I firmly believe that the electoral college system needs to be overhauled, for this very reason. Maybe another election cluster fuck this time, like in 2000, will force electoral reform? Like allowing all states to split their votes? Wishful thinking…
Actually, it wasn’t. Perot walks by and throws away his “Perot '96” hat after Kang says, “Go ahead, throw your vote away.”
Swing state? LOUSIANA? Are you kidding? 
I’m not a huge fan of Kerry, but I’m so much less a fan of Bush that anybody’s got to be an improvement. If I didn’t loathe Bush so I’d probably go third-party, but I just can’t bring myself to this time, though I sincerely doubt it’s going to make a difference whoever I vote for.
I bet I just got zinged and I’m not getting the joke, too. g