Which Presidential Candidate are you voting for?

[Question Mark]

So who're you voting for Elliquiy?

[Skynet]

Obama, because he's the lesser of two evils and I agree with most of his political stances.

[Question Mark]

Obama, because he's the lesser of two evils and I agree with most of his political stances.

I hate this line of reasoning so much.  It's counterintuitive and makes no goddamned sense.  >:(

"I'd rather stab myself in the foot than the chest, but what about not stabbing myself at all?  That's ridiculous!"

[TheGlyphstone]

Obama, because he's the lesser of two evils and I agree with most of his political stances.

I hate this line of reasoning so much.  It's counterintuitive and makes no goddamned sense.  >:(

"I'd rather stab myself in the foot than the chest, but what about not stabbing myself at all?  That's ridiculous!"

http://www.cthulhu2012.com/campaign/ ?

[Iniquitous]

I hate this line of reasoning so much.  It's counterintuitive and makes no goddamned sense.  >:(

"I'd rather stab myself in the foot than the chest, but what about not stabbing myself at all?  That's ridiculous!"

Actually, it makes perfect sense. If your choices are something that will cause you some pain or something that is going to excruciating agony, you will automatically (and quite quickly I might add) choose the one that is the least painful. Same applies for that statement - it means neither are good, neither are what is truly wanted, but one is certainly closer to what it is that is wanted than the other. Thus, we will vote for the one that is going to cause the least amount of harm.

And before it is brought up that there are other candidates to vote for so that you do not have to choose between the lesser of two evils let me point this out. One: They are all politicians. They all lie and say what the public wants to hear. Two: The chances of an unknown candidate actually getting in is pretty much equivalent of me winning the lottery. In Europe. Without buying a ticket. 

[Stattick]

The chances of an unknown candidate actually getting in is pretty much equivalent of me winning the lottery. In Europe. Without buying a ticket. 

Wait. That just happened to me! Except that it was in Kenya. I just got the e-mail. I'm gonna be a millionaire.  :D

[Question Mark]

Actually, it makes perfect sense. If your choices are something that will cause you some pain or something that is going to excruciating agony, you will automatically (and quite quickly I might add) choose the one that is the least painful. Same applies for that statement - it means neither are good, neither are what is truly wanted, but one is certainly closer to what it is that is wanted than the other. Thus, we will vote for the one that is going to cause the least amount of harm.

And before it is brought up that there are other candidates to vote for so that you do not have to choose between the lesser of two evils let me point this out. One: They are all politicians. They all lie and say what the public wants to hear. Two: The chances of an unknown candidate actually getting in is pretty much equivalent of me winning the lottery. In Europe. Without buying a ticket. 

But that's why I hate it!  You don't have to vote for a candidate you don't like.  Stand back, evaluate all of the candidates, and vote for the one you think is best suited to run this country.  The sooner voters quit compromising their morals by voting for the lesser evil, the sooner this country can move away from the disastrous and petty partisanship and make some true progress!

Voting for the lesser evil may seem to make sense in the short term, but in the long run it only digs our country's grave.  Eventually the lesser evils get worse and worse, and before we know it we're voting for people who regularly lie, warmonger, and deceive, and we consider it normal!  Because they're politicians!!!!

It's fucking insane.

[Iniquitous]

Um, I think you fail to realize that we are already there. We all know that our politicians lie, cheat and steal. We accept it as normal because they ALL do it.
As for ever getting away from this two party system and actually getting a Green Party candidate or a Libertarian candidate into office?  Not to sound like the doom and gloom person at the party, but I do not ever see it happening.
Also:
“You don't have to vote for a candidate you don't like.  Stand back, evaluate all of the candidates, and vote for the one you think is best suited to run this country.  “

When you do not see a candidate you think is best suited to run this country then you are forced to pick the lesser evil. Which is what that statement is all about. My choices are : Pick the lesser evil or do not vote. And there are a lot of people who think the same way.

[Question Mark]

Just because none of the candidates perfectly align with your ideology doesn't mean you have to vote for the lesser evil.  It's more than likely your ideal candidate will not be running; that's why you vote for the one you like most, regardless of their party, wealth, religion, etc. Maybe it's Romney, or Johnson, or Goode.  That's up to you.  What grinds my gears is when people neglect their duties as a voter and ignore most of the candidates because they're third party.  Maybe their beliefs line up best with Jill Stein, but they refuse to vote for her because they assume she has no chance of winning.  By doing so, they not only sacrifice their values, but they also betray their duty as a citizen to vote for the best candidate.

[Stattick]

The system we have supports two major parties. That's it. Once in a century or so, a third party rises up far enough to be noticed by the public. They're either absorbed into one of the two parties, take over one of the two parties, or dies off, leaving just two parties. It's always been that way in this country, and always will be so long as we have the current Constitution. The Constitution could be amended to put in place a proportional federal legislature *, similar to what Australia or Germany has, but until we do so, our system is only going to support two parties. And you can bet your nipples that both parties are going to fight tooth and claw to keep the Constitution from being amended to allow for a proportional legislature, because it would hurt the power of both parties.

It could still get done. It's very unlikely to happen without a successful revolution and new constitution, but in theory, it could be done. First, you need to start getting states to switch over to a proportional legislature by amending their state constitutions. You could conceivably get enough voters in a state to make that switch, particularly in states that historically have had a lot of nasty partisanship and in fighting in the state legislatures. You have to focus on people's dissatisfaction with their state politics. Once there's a few states with proportional legislatures, as long as nothing really big and bad happened in any of those states, it would be a matter of slowly taking over new states, state by state. If we could get enough states that thought that having a federal proportional legislature was a good idea (at least 38 states), then the states could offer up an amendment (this is constitutional, but it's never been done... every amendment has come from Congress).

This isn't necessarily the only way to break out of the lock the two party system has in this country, but it's the only one I'm familiar with. It's also a pretty popular form of legislature among first world democracies.



* A simple proportional system works like this: When you go to the polls, you vote the for the party you want. In this election, I'd vote Democrat. Someone else might vote Republican. You might vote Green. When the votes are tallied up, it might look something like this: 45% Democrat, 22% Republican, 21% Tea Party, 10% Green, 1% Socialist, 1% Constitution. If this was a vote for Senate that we were making, we'd probably end up with 45 Democrats, 22 Republicans, 21 Tea Partiers, 10 Greenies, 1 Socialist, and 1 Constitutionalist, and those would be our Senators for the next 4 years. There are many, many different variations on the general idea of a proportional system... the example I listed is probably the simplest variety.

[RubySlippers]

Obama, I'm poor I don't care about even working class people not to mention the middle class or rich and he is the only option Romney and most of the other parties hate the poor so why would I vote for them or their candidates?

[ShadowFox89]

 I'm voting for Cthulhu, like I did in '08.

[Question Mark]

I'll be honest, I was expecting more votes for Romney by now.  I know E is predominantly leftists, but I thought there were more right-wingers in support of the GOP candidate.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'll be honest, I was expecting more votes for Romney by now.  I know E is predominantly leftists, but I thought there were more right-wingers in support of the GOP candidate.

He's a hard line social conservative. Very few folks on this board are welcome at his table. The simple 'sin' of being here denotes a lack of the 'proper social outlook' by the folks he's sitting with. We're all fairly open in our look, far more tolerant than anyone in his administration and frankly a lot more self-honest in our approach. (I find it hypocritical to be against In Vitro when you've got around five grandchildren solely as result of the procedure).

I'm a fiscal conservative.. BUT being IN support of higher taxes and/or fewer loopholes makes me a pariah in my own part.. because.. GASP I think Reagan had it right in increasing capital gains and the upper tax brackets.

Romney, and his crew, want to roll us back to the 1900s when it wasn't even safe to eat food bought at the store.

[Skynet]

He's a hard line social conservative. Very few folks on this board are welcome at his table. The simple 'sin' of being here denotes a lack of the 'proper social outlook' by the folks he's sitting with. We're all fairly open in our look, far more tolerant than anyone in his administration and frankly a lot more self-honest in our approach. (I find it hypocritical to be against In Vitro when you've got around five grandchildren solely as result of the procedure).

I'm a fiscal conservative.. BUT being IN support of higher taxes and/or fewer loopholes makes me a pariah in my own part.. because.. GASP I think Reagan had it right in increasing capital gains and the upper tax brackets.

Romney, and his crew, want to roll us back to the 1900s when it wasn't even safe to eat food bought at the store.

Just wondering, but does anyone know how many Libertarians we have at E?  They're pretty socially liberal overall.

[Callie Del Noire]

Just wondering, but does anyone know how many Libertarians we have at E?  They're pretty socially liberal overall.

More of them than 'Goldwater Conservatives' like me.. (though I stray from Berry's guidelines in some areas)

[Pyrre]

I'll be writing in Gary Johnson for President.  The courts removed him from the MI ballot.

If you vote for Obama here is what you're voting for:
Assassination of American Citizens
Kill list he observes personally
Drone strikes in countries we are not in war with
The spread of war in multiple countries
Crony capitalism - ie the Banks, and Goldman Sachs, Green Energy Companies that go under
More Crony Capitalism, ie the worst, Obamacare, a huge boon to insurance companies. 
Bailouts for everyone who buys more than they can handle, and just more taxes and debt for the people who make sure they can pay their bills.
No real plan to reduce our debt, and he absolutely has no idea what economics is.  ie he has repeated the idea that ATM's costs people jobs

If you vote for Romney you will get this:
About the same as Obama, less economic restrictions, same amount of crony capitalism and probably more wars.
He also has no idea about how to reduce the debt, but has lip service knowledge of economics.

So would you rather want a restrained Romney?  Or an unrestrained Obama?  If I had to choose, I choose Romney.  However, voting for Romney won't change anything, you'll just continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, and the Republicans and the Democrats will continue to limit the debate, and basically round up all the people who don't actually believe in them and entice them to remain voting for one of the two parties.

[Pyrre]

I am a Libertarian.

Rothbard Libertarian to be exact.  So, to most, I'm way out there.

Didn't see the question, and I'm not yet approved. 

[Secretwriter]

I personally have no clue what little clustered category I fall into. I vote for who I think has the best ideas, the one who is more willing to actually do something, and as I did last time, I am voting for Obama.  He had a lot of stuff to fix and has faced more opposition than any other president in my life time because the 'good ol' boys' refuse to work with him on anything. They want to stop every thing he tries to put in place.

I am not a fan, in any way, of hypocrites and liars who trash talk the ones in their corner. Mitt Romney is rude, and that was clear in the debates.

[Callie Del Noire]

I personally have no clue what little clustered category I fall into. I vote for who I think has the best ideas, the one who is more willing to actually do something, and as I did last time, I am voting for Obama.  He had a lot of stuff to fix and has faced more opposition than any other president in my life time because the 'good ol' boys' refuse to work with him on anything. They want to stop every thing he tries to put in place.

I am not a fan, in any way, of hypocrites and liars who trash talk the ones in their corner. Mitt Romney is rude, and that was clear in the debates.

He is. He, to me, a lot like me on a manic upswing when I wasn't on my mood stabilizers. A LOT of his conferences like the one after the Libyan embassy assault for instance.

I honestly wonder how MUCH cash he's hidden and not committed to his 'fair share'.