Wouldn't it be interesting to find out...

Reply

  #1  
Old 02-11-09, 12:16 PM
nightowlpunk's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Connectitax
Posts: 456
Wouldn't it be interesting to find out...

Wouoldn't it be interesting to find out what percentage of a President's votes were really votes against their opponent?
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 02-11-09, 02:52 PM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 43,991
It's rare to find a political canidate that is exactly what you want. There is always a compromise to some degree. When there isn't a clear cut choice you pick the lesser of the evils
 
  #3  
Old 02-12-09, 02:21 PM
nightowlpunk's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Connectitax
Posts: 456
I was actually wondering how many of Obama's votes were against McCain due to the fact a lot of Republicans I know didn't like him.
 
  #4  
Old 02-12-09, 04:15 PM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 43,991
I voted for McCain but that just reinforces my earlier statement. IMO there weren't any real good picks in the primary and even less in the presidential election.
 
  #5  
Old 02-12-09, 10:37 PM
Rock Stone's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 22
Which reinforces my thinking that if we keep doing what we've always done (vote Dem/Rep) we'll keep getting what we've always gotten (grammar?).

What say we give one of the other parties - Libertarian, Constitution, Green, etc. - a chance at governing.
 
  #6  
Old 02-13-09, 04:48 AM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 43,991
The problem with 3rd parties is they haven't had a viable canidate with a realistic chance in a long time. Ross Perot may have had a shot but he sunk his own ship.
 
  #7  
Old 02-13-09, 07:18 AM
Rock Stone's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 22
What is a "viable candidate"?

I believe 3rd parties don't have a realistic chance because we, the voters, don't give them a chance. Joe Average doesn't realize how much power his vote has. If we could get 75% of eligible voters to the polls, tell me we wouldn't see some changes.
 
  #8  
Old 02-13-09, 12:25 PM
ray2047's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 32,987
I have always thought political parties should be bared from participating in the presidential elections and the Electoral College eliminated. Instead you would have a series of run-off elections 30 days apart that anyone meeting presidential requirements of age and citizenship could be able to run in. Only requirement would be a partition signed by a certain number of people. Let that number be perhaps 5% or 10% of the people who voted in the previous election but the actual signatory could be any US citizen. Limit spending on political advertising to a very small amount.

Of course none of that will happen but would be a lot more fair in my humble opinion.

More in the real world lets get rid of the Electoral College. It is absurd to have a democratic country where the candidate with the most votes doesn't always become president.
 
  #9  
Old 02-13-09, 03:15 PM
nightowlpunk's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Connectitax
Posts: 456
Got a T- shirt which might be appreciated.

Democrats want the government to solve all their problems.

Republicans want to legislate morality.

I just want to be left alone by the government. I'm a Libertarian.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes