[QuickTidal]

I'm a Canadian, but to JLV...you gotta te out there and vote. Sometimes it sucks ass to have to decide on someone who is not exactly the right choice, but is the best choice of what has been served up to you. It's important.

[Mentalist]

amphibian, on 22 February 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Well, what problem does having a "I'm against all candidates" option actually solve?

To negate all present options without reason supplied is useless. It doesn't provide any meaningful feedback beyond a two year old's obstinate "No! I'm not eating vegetables!".

while it has no practical implications, it allows you to express your feelings towards the system.
I have a right to vote. In placing my vote, I am giving my approval to what the candidate/party will be doing while in office. Their actions become (in some small part) my responsibility.
It is my right not to compromise my integrity by sanctioning someone I don't think is going to do things I agree with, simply because the other candidates will do more things I disagree with.

by indicating that I do not approve any of the proposed options, I'm taking an active stance. I cannot be blamed for being too lazy to vote or uninformed. By rejecting all candidates, I provide active feedback that there is a demographic whose interests are not represented in the current selection.

but, then again, my view on politics was formed in a system where the state's primary function is to make elected officials rich, and I don't trust any of them, so i may be skewed. I'm also quite opposed to the first past the post system that's in place in Canada, but that's a whole other issue.

[worry]

As far as I recall, there's only the passive option of not picking anyone. But I agree with amph, that at least here in the US, any such vote would have no real world effect beyond self-satisfaction...a ballot isn't particularly similar to, say, the feedback survey you get at the end of a college course. I don't really believe cynicism is that helpful anyway, and I prefer to be helpful when I vote.

I suppose we have it lucky in CA, since Barbara Boxer is generally so awesome and Dianne Feinstein is at least fairly decent more often than not, so there's a reason to be enthusiastic about voting. Plus my godawful house rep is finally retiring and I'm curious to see who's going to replace him. Plus I like Pres. Obama all in all, even minus the contrast with Repubs., but with that contrast that just makes it all the more vital to me.

Anyway, even if you don't feel empowered nationally, there's always state and local propositions and such on the ballot, and your vote definitely has a larger influence on those things. Skip whatever items you want, I suppose...but better yet, educate yourself and make the effort, cuz not voting isn't an act of protest here, it's a solitary tantrum in a soundproof room.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 22 February 2012 - 07:39 PM

[McLovin]

My brother writes himself in for presidential elections.

So that's an option, I guess.

[amphibian]

Mentalist, on 22 February 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

while it has no practical implications, it allows you to express your feelings towards the system.
I have a right to vote. In placing my vote, I am giving my approval to what the candidate/party will be doing while in office. Their actions become (in some small part) my responsibility.
It is my right not to compromise my integrity by sanctioning someone I don't think is going to do things I agree with, simply because the other candidates will do more things I disagree with.

by indicating that I do not approve any of the proposed options, I'm taking an active stance. I cannot be blamed for being too lazy to vote or uninformed. By rejecting all candidates, I provide active feedback that there is a demographic whose interests are not represented in the current selection.

I would prefer doing a write-in vote than a blank vote. At least there, you're expressing a preference for Person X with Positions L, M, N, O and P, which provides more helpful feedback than a blank vote.

If there isn't a write-in option, then perhaps a blank vote makes sense, but if there is one, to eschew that in favor of the blank is kind of absurdist and non-productive to me.

[rhulad]

Aptorius, on 21 February 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

There's a wonderful party that announced that they were running for the parliament last year but I don't think they ever did (keeping in line with their promises). The Nihilistic Folksparty. I believe they were running on a platform of cynicism. They proclaimed that nothing really matters except cute animals. Politics are meaningles, all they are a empty promises and emotional manipulation. Civilization as we know it is a failure. If elected they promised to not uphold any of their promises.

I quite like those guys.

There was a party in Canada that used to do this. They were called the Rhino party, and their platform was based on the question of who would win in a fight between a polar bear and lion. I never had a chance to vote for them because they haven't run since I've been eligible to vote.

[RodeoRanch]

Santorum as a serious contender for the nomination is mind-blowing.

[Anomander]

I'm just hoping that more liberal minded people get off their asses to vote this year. The thought of Santorum finding any form of success because of voter apathy is terrifying.

Although I get the impression most reasonable Republicans are avoiding this election with eyes toward 2016. And we can't forget that Jeb Bush will eventually run for president when the dust of Dubya settles.

[worry]

All social conservative issues aside, if anyone thinks the R candidates would at least be good for national economic policy:
http://www.washingto...JvUR_story.html

Report: Debt will swell under top GOP hopefuls’ tax plans
The national debt is likely to balloon under tax policies championed by three of the four major Republican candidates for president, according to an independent analysis of tax and spending proposals so far offered by the candidates.

The lone exception is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who would pair a big reduction in tax rates with even bigger cuts in government services, slicing about $2 trillion from future borrowing.

[McLovin]

Anomander, on 23 February 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

Although I get the impression most reasonable Republicans are avoiding this election with eyes toward 2016. And we can't forget that Jeb Bush will eventually run for president when the dust of Dubya settles.

Yeah, the GOP is basically letting the Tea Party irrationality flame itself out. They know none of these guys have much of a shot. But let them have their day, and let the voters get all the rage out of their system. Four years from now, they'll trot out Chris Christie, Jeb, and maybe even a rehabbed Bobby Jindal (remember even Bill Clinton had a crappy TV speech once, it didn't kill him).

[Beezulbubba]

Edit: Buzzkill. Santorum pic removed.

This post has been edited by QWOPstadFrustrationHammer: 24 February 2012 - 01:50 PM

[Aptorian]

Falstad you should probably remove the Santorum picture made out of porn before a moderator does it for you

[Gander]

I thought this Daily Show segment on Santorum's rhetoric was pretty funny and also amusingly accurate.

[worry]

Rick Santorum explains to a crowd that 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands are caused by euthanasia, many of them involuntary, and that Obamacare is leading the USA in that direction. Plus abortions.

[amphibian]

To be clear, Santorum is not even close to being accurate with his figures or causes. It is pure out and out garbage designed to incite a certain gullible demographic.

[worry]

I think he confused the Netherlands with the actual Nether World.

[Terez]

JLV, on 21 February 2012 - 03:02 AM, said:

This is the first year I'll be old enough to vote. I've always been a proponent of getting involved in the voting process, even if my own say is practically an illusion.

But really? What am I supposed to do here? I don't believe that Obama has been a terrible president. I don't think he's been a good president either, certainly not worthy of a reelection. But what other choice do I have? None of the Republican candidates are even viable to me. I'm already jaded in my first election...

Don't feel bad; I voted for Bob Dole in my first election.

Tapper, on 21 February 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Aptorius, on 21 February 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

There's a wonderful party that announced that they were running for the parliament last year but I don't think they ever did (keeping in line with their promises). The Nihilistic Folksparty. I believe they were running on a platform of cynicism. They proclaimed that nothing really matters except cute animals. Politics are meaningles, all they are a empty promises and emotional manipulation. Civilization as we know it is a failure. If elected they promised to not uphold any of their promises.

I quite like those guys.

Sounds what a couple of comedians did here in the 1980s: The Simplistic Union. Would have been the second largest party in the parlement, too.

Or kind of like what Colbert does. I wish he'd actually stuck with it this year; he got 1% in South Carolina, and hardly anyone knew he was actually running. (His votes were proxy via Herman Cain.) Yes, it makes a joke out of the political process...but it's our way of saying that process is already a joke.

By the way, Rachel Maddow did a segment on how the Dutch are really mad about Santorum's comments, and she had a real live Dutch guy on who has a mostly American accent. But everyone I've talked to so far says most people think it's funny he's so stupid, and that no one is likely to get angry/worried until he actually gets the nomination, assuming that happens.

I can't wait for Super Tuesday. We need something approaching clarity for this nomination, and somebody needs to drop out. Preferably Newt.

[Terez]

I apparently missed a whole page.

Anomander, on 23 February 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

I'm just hoping that more liberal minded people get off their asses to vote this year. The thought of Santorum finding any form of success because of voter apathy is terrifying.

Although I get the impression most reasonable Republicans are avoiding this election with eyes toward 2016. And we can't forget that Jeb Bush will eventually run for president when the dust of Dubya settles.

There's some talk that he will be thrown in this time at a brokered convention. But I can't help that's the stupidest possible thing the Republicans could do this year. Another Bush? Really?

I live in Mississippi, and I will be getting my ass out to vote despite the slim chances that my vote will count for anything in such a reliably red state. I'll probably vote for Ron Paul in the primary, since I'm still a registered Republican due to laziness and the fact that I like being able to influence Republican primaries, even if it's only in a very small way. If there's ever a Democratic primary that looks like it will be important in MS (unlikely, since we're so late in the schedule), then I'll probably change my registration.

[HoosierDaddy]

Rick Santorum:

Quote

President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob. . . .

From the guy with a B.A, M.B.A., and JD. He was certainly indoctrinated at college like he claims everybody else is.

You can't make this shit up, and it happens in ridiculous numbers every day.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 28 February 2012 - 03:19 AM

[cerveza_fiesta]

Santorum is a fucking wingnut. There's no way he'll be the candidate...he's just too unelectable. I hope.....