Voting A Waste Of Time?

[BigFish]

I think it is. The popular vote means nothing........the public casts its vote and the sum total is not taken into consideration when all is said and done! Its the Delegates that those running for office need and one has nothing to do with the other! So you tell me where it matters if we vote or not?

[GattaFish]

Agreed,,, unless your casting electoral votes,,, It does give people the warm fuzzy though,,,,

[The Dad Fisherman]

It Matters.....

[gone fishin]

Casting ones vote gives one the right to bitch about the choice made. If you chose not to vote keep your yap shut or do something about it. (VOTE). Just my 2 cents

[Clammer]

It counts >. if for no other reason .. you made a choice ..win or lose ..................
I F #$%^&*( love it when I hear some one b itchin .. about this guy / this offical >>>>>
when I ask them if they voted [not who the voted for ] &&&&&&& they say no ...... I tell em you just passed up the greatest right we have >> go F #$%^&* yourself & vote on that ::

[FishermanTim]

I agree fully. If you didn't/don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. By not voting, you give up that priviledge.

I was listening to a talk radio show that was explaining that there are some states that are "winner-take-all" when it comes to delegates, and some are porportional based on the popular vote total for each candidate. I would opt for the porportional option so that you get a truer sense of the election process. Plus it would instill a positive competetive aspect to the election process.
(It would cause the candidates to spend ALL their campaign funds on the campaign, and not themselves if they decide to bow out early.)

[wheresmy50]

Me thinks you're confused. All due respect, read up on pledged versus super delegates, and the number of times the electoral college has gone against the popular vote.

In short - yes, the popular vote matters.

I have to say that I agree with you that there are too many democrat super delegates. It's not too surprising when you consider that one of the key philosophies of the democrat party is that the people are mindless idots who need contant loving support from their government and as much help making decisions as is legal.

[spence]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

It's not too surprising when you consider that one of the key philosophies of the democrat party is that the people are mindless idots who need contant loving support from their government and as much help making decisions as is legal.

Yea, like decisions about women's health or who you can and can't form a legal union with

When was the last time you had a Dem sponsored amendment to the US constitution to restrict rights?

-spence

[BigBo]

Based on the most recent events of Romney dropping out of the running, I will not be voting in this upcoming election. I won't be happy, but I won't complain either. I would never cast a vote for a socialist.....eerrrrr Democrat, nor will I cast a vote for a Democrat in GOP clothing. John McCain will not get my vote.
I feel sorry for the younger generations to come for the direction this country is headed.
I'm done.


for the record; I did vote in the Primary on Tuesday.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by BigBo

Based on the most recent events of Romney dropping out of the running, I will not be voting in this upcoming election. I won't be happy, but I won't complain either. I would never cast a vote for a socialist.....eerrrrr Democrat, nor will I cast a vote for a Democrat in GOP clothing. John McCain will not get my vote.
I feel sorry for the younger generations to come for the direction this country is headed.
I'm done.

Yeah.. a pointless, endless war, a tanking economy, %$%$%$%$ty foreign relations.. we're in such a happy place right now.

[spence]

Bo, sorry to be so blunt...but this calling McCain a closet democrat is the most assenine thing I've ever head. Are you simply a sheep being herded by the punditry who's only motive is to make a buck from your sponsorship?

As much as the GOP was able to keep the whitewash on the past decade, their facade has seriously fractured under Bush's failures of leadership.

You have libertarians, isolationists, free marketers, evangellicals, Goldwater'ites, etc, etc, etc...all standing under a Republican banner and yet the reality is they would all likely agree on very little.

What is a Republican then?

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

I also think you are executing your right if you choose not to vote. I dont eat at a resaturant if I dont like anything on the menu.

[RIJIMMY]

I agree with Big Bo, 100%.
I am indepedndant, but lean convservative and more likely libertarian. Which many times my best bet is the republican party. I would vote for someone regardless of the party they are in if we agree on key issues
To me, a republican stands for:
Strong National Defense
Low taxes, small government
Less Fed Government, More State leadership
Less emphasis on "social" spending or governance.

I can't say thats all repubs or that our current administration is even close

I think McCains stance on Illegal Immigration and past history against tax cuts put him at odds with the conservatives. I dont see him as a conservative repub. If thats what the people want, they've spoken and thats who should represent the party.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I think McCains stance on Illegal Immigration and past history against tax cuts put him at odds with the conservatives.

No, it puts him greatly at odds with the protectionist wing of the Republican party, and somewhat at odds with those who share those feelings.

It aligns him with the President of the United States, who last time I checked won two Republican nominations.

-spence

[GattaFish]

First for all for the record I hate politics and politicians.......

As far as voting,,,, and people dying... My grandfather fought in WWII.. In April my dad is FINALLY going to receive his bronze star for his service... A service he says was to let everyone make their own choice....

As far as popular votes vs electoral votes... Yes it is possible for a president to lose the popular vote and still be elected because of the electoral votes... Granted the popular vote is suposed to influence the electoral vote,,,,,, Personally I think it is the good 'ole boys club.... I also think they are going to pass the torch to McCain


but that is how it is,,,, Just ask Bush how he beat Gore in 2000

Not trying to stir the pot just stating the facts....

[chris L]

Originally Posted by GattaFish

As far as voting,,,, and people dying... My grandfather fought in WWII.. In April my dad is FINALLY going to receive his bronze star for his service... A service he says was to let everyone make their own choice....

its about time ! he deserves it !

[wheresmy50]

Al Gore got all of the electoral votes for the states he won, and George Bush got all the electoral votes for his states. The Electoral College did not dissent from the popular vote. Bush won (mainly) because Ralph Nader did to Gore what Perot did to Bush Sr.; he stole a portion of the traditional vote.
Remember the Green Party?

Further, as a statement of fact, a higher percentage of the democrat vote in the primaries is out of the hands of the voters due to a high number of super delegates, i.e. those who do not need to vote with the people. If you like Spence feel this is some kind of accident, and the Party is not trying to take power from you, fine. But to Larry's original question - if you're a democrat, this is why your vote doesn't mean as much as it should in the primaries.

[spence]

Originally Posted by wheresmy50

Further, as a statement of fact, a higher percentage of the democrat vote in the primaries is out of the hands of the voters due to a high number of super delegates, i.e. those who do not need to vote with the people. If you like Spence feel this is some kind of accident, and the Party is not trying to take power from you, fine. But to Larry's original question - if you're a democrat, this is why your vote doesn't mean as much as it should in the primaries.

Accident?

The Democratic caucus requires 50% to win the nomination, without the system of super delegates there would be no way to ensure this would happen if you had three strong candidates.

They set their own rules just as the GOP does. If a Democratic voter doesn't like how the system is managed they are free to choose another party.

You appear to be basing assumptions on ideological talking points and not observation, regardless of how often you insert the word "fact".

-spence

[BigFish]

What if you think the choices all SUCK?!?!?! I can't vote for someone I do not believe in! It is, as many of you say a right to vote? I also have the right not to vote! This country is in severe need of reform......this system is way outdated and at this point in time is nothing more than a means for politicians to line their pockets! They do not act or cast their votes in "OUR" best interests!!! They do it according to their personal "BOTTOM LINE"! Fuel prices are skyrocketing and does the government do anything about it??? ANYTHING!!!! No.....they don't even concern themselves with the fact that these oil companies are turning record profits off our hard working a$$es!!! Talk about sheep being led to slaughter......you folks ought to take a good hard look at the folks in office......I have and I hate what I see! I do not expect miracles from these people, and not everyone is going to be happy at the same time, but given the situation with the price of crude oil and the obvious gouging that is going on......I believe they should be doing more than just turning a blind eye while they cash their dividend checks and we pay their fuel bills as they simply "expense" their fuel costs as a business expense! They have yet to remove the fuel tax....how much is that a gallon??? We pay exise tax......HELL the way it looks we are going to have to PAY FOR THE RIGHT TO FISH very soon! Like we already don't!!!

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by BigFish

What if you think the choices all SUCK?!?!?! I can't vote for someone I do not believe in! It is, as many of you say a right to vote? I also have the right not to vote! This country is in severe need of reform......this system is way outdated and at this point in time is nothing more than a means for politicians to line their pockets! They do not act or cast their votes in "OUR" best interests!!! They do it according to their personal "BOTTOM LINE"! Fuel prices are skyrocketing and does the government do anything about it??? ANYTHING!!!! No.....they don't even concern themselves with the fact that these oil companies are turning record profits off our hard working a$$es!!! Talk about sheep being led to slaughter......you folks ought to take a good hard look at the folks in office......I have and I hate what I see! I do not expect miracles from these people, and not everyone is going to be happy at the same time, but given the situation with the price of crude oil and the obvious gouging that is going on......I believe they should be doing more than just turning a blind eye while they cash their dividend checks and we pay their fuel bills as they simply "expense" their fuel costs as a business expense! They have yet to remove the fuel tax....how much is that a gallon??? We pay exise tax......HELL the way it looks we are going to have to PAY FOR THE RIGHT TO FISH very soon! Like we already don't!!!

PRECISELY why we all need to get out and vote. In RI there are enough conflicts of interest in the legislature that they all (or at least most) need to go, just can't get the people to vote out the incumbents because of the way they cater to the special interest groups (read State, County and Municipal Workers).

[GattaFish]

2000: Al Gore had over half a million votes more than George W. Bush, with 50,992,335 votes to Bush's 50,455,156.

Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election, so George W. Bush won the 2000 election by one electoral vote.



Hell with the politics,,,, See you all at SWE tomorrow,,,,,

[BigFish]

Bingo Tom! MY point exactly! The people voted for Gore and Bush won due to the lopsided system!

[spence]

It's not lopsided really, it is our system that elected representatives have created. This doesn't mean it's perfect, but I only see a very small but vocal minority calling for change to a popular vote.

-spence

[wheresmy50]

Spence - hopefully you know that's not why the democrat party has super delegates.

They exist to prevent democrat voters from being able to elect a candidate who does not agree with the party line. The system was implimented after the George McGovern disaster when the democrat nominee had no chance of winning the national election. Let me repeat that - the system was created by the democrat leadership specifically to take the power away from the people.

40% of the delegate votes needed to win the primary are held by these super delegates. Also, if one of these super delegates steps out of line, or falls out of favor, they can have their status removed. This recently happened to Joe Lieberman.

The people have a much greater say in the Republican primaries.

I can't say I really disagree with Larry about the motivation of politicians. If you want to vote for who you like the most, vote for who you hate the least.