PCEngine-FX.com

It's election day! Who are you voting for in this presidential election?

If you need any help deciding, I hear McCain wants to ban importing Japanese videogames.

Alec Baldwin for the win!  For some reason, I doubt that the Nebraska party managed to make the ballot in very many other states.  :lol:

Seriously, I'm voting for Obama and perpetual foot in mouth Biden.

Obama, because I'm hoping that Parliament Funkadelic will play at the inauguration ball.  :dance:

If any of you are considering not voting, vote for this Canuck. Vote Obama!  :mrgreen:

If we could vote, I'd vote for Obama. But alas...

In our elections, I voted for the underdog orange party. Although they will not win (Fortuño is likely to swipe the governorship from the incumbent), a vote against the usual grain (red/blue) is a step towards a more progressive Puerto Rico. At the municipal level, the orange party has no representatives, so I voted blue. Blue currently controls Camuy and will be instrumental in our new business, since we plan to become a part of Camuy's plaza mercado, which is overseen by the municipal government.

That's very interesting. Do you have any links to puerto rican political websites in English?

When do you guys get to vote on statehood again?  :-k

http://eleccionespuertorico.org/home_en.html

We have no say on statehood...that is entirely in the hands of the US Congress.

I voted Nobody (you slime!). heh. I missed the deadline to register to vote. I hadn't really cared to vote in the past, but I was considering it this year. Oh well. :)

Our major election just ended...the incumbent governor conceded defeat, as he was too far behind. Fortuño wins! :D :D :D

Quote from: DJLobo on 11/04/2008, 10:44 AMObama, because I'm hoping that Parliament Funkadelic will play at the inauguration ball.  :dance:

That would be so rad! I will vote for Obama if George can bring down the mothership again!

I won't be voting, my vote is too good for any president.

Well, I've participated for my first actual election today :).

I've had to go towards the Roger Bryon elementary school with my father in order to vote. There was some problems with the activation card that was needed to put in the machine, but it was a nice little moment. Nothing too exciting, but good 8).

Like for this poll, I had voted for Obama/Biden. I feel it is a good time for a change in this country, and I don't find myself impressed with John McCain's antics of taxing (as I've read upon) and him in general.

I'm watching the CNN coverage of the election results...McCain just took Texas, but it won't be enough, and even McCain's own advisors see no path to victory based on CNNs projections. Of course, it's still early (39% of precincts reporting) and things could swing back in favor of the Republicans, but with the crushing loss of both Pennsylvania and Ohio, that's highly unlikely, especially since California will more than likely go to Obama...and that's the winning ticket right there; it's like buying Boardwalk in Monopoly.

I voted for McCain. I'm worried that Obama's policies would make our debt problem even worse and possibly sink the country. I have nothing against Obama, I just feel that his policies would not work out in our current situation.

Obama won and he is now the new boss of the United States.  Obey Him.  America has elected it's first communist secret Muslim as President!  :D

Don't blame me, I voted for Joe Redifer!

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 11/05/2008, 01:17 AMObama won and he is now the new boss of the United States.  Obey Him.  America has elected it's first communist secret Muslim as President!  :D

What took so long?!

I didn't vote, but had I voted, my vote would've been "thrown away" by picking Barr.  (And I don't even really like the guy, so I don't feel that bad about not voting this time around.)

Didn't vote, going to the embassy and doing paperwork for an absentee just isn't worth it.  I probably would hae voted for Nader though.  I have to support the guy just for running so many times now.  8)

What's really pissing me off at this point is how so many bigots showed up to show their ignorance and vote "yes" on Prop 8. The USA still has a long, long way to go before it can consider itself a progressive nation, because this sets it back about 300 years. Talk about a scale that had its dishes shattered.

What is Prop 8?  I didn't see anything like that on my ballot.

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 11/05/2008, 03:48 PMWhat is Prop 8?  I didn't see anything like that on my ballot.

It's a state constitutional amendment in California to define marriage as only between a man and a women.  It's as lame as all get out if you ask me - why shouldn't same sex couples get to enjoy the same misery as the heteros?

Yeah, Prop 8 only showed up in a few states...and passed in all of them. Sickening.

Don't worry, there will be another prop next time to overturn it.  And then yet another prop to ban it again.  It will never end.

Quote from: guest on 11/05/2008, 04:02 PM

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 11/05/2008, 03:48 PMWhat is Prop 8?  I didn't see anything like that on my ballot.

It's a state constitutional amendment in California to define marriage as only between a man and a women.  It's as lame as all get out if you ask me - why shouldn't same sex couples get to enjoy the same misery as the heteros?

:lol: :lol:

I'm Bigger and Bolder and Rougher and Tougher - in other words sucker, There Is No Other!

Yeah, the prop 8 thing was a big deal over here in CA. I never understood why it was. Who cares what people do in their bedrooms?

Mormons.

I did not vote, but why am I slime for not voting?  What if I do not like the candidates I have to vote for because I think they are backed by similar lobbyists.

Quote from: Golgo13 on 11/06/2008, 01:11 PMI did not vote, but why am I slime for not voting?  What if I do not like the candidates I have to vote for because I think they are backed by similar lobbyists.

Like it or not, voting is a civic duty.  If you want to just sit back and let everyone else make the decisions, then you have no right to bitch about the outcome.  Besides, there's always local issues on the ballot that are just as important as voting for president.

Yeah, I agree with Necromancer. I loathe, detest, hate, and despise politics. Politicians are cheats an liars, and that means ALL of them. I never buy their campaign speeches, or their promises. They're all a bunch of crooks to greater or lesser degree. However, not voting is giving up the one say in we have in government, and the *reason* everythings all FUBAR'd is because most of us have become lazy and just listen to the rhetoric and vote on how we 'feel' (bad idea), or don't vote at all. I've done both, rest assured.  If all of us did our homework, and voted down people who were dishonest or crooks, the politicians would be far more gun-shy of pulling the crap they do.
 
I hate voting and politics. I look at it like math homework. I do it because it's a duty, not because I like it, and even if it is usually is like chosing between getting hit by a truck or drowning.

The main thing I vote for is the propositions. Those have a major effect on your life.

Quote from: Golgo13 on 11/06/2008, 01:11 PMI did not vote, but why am I slime for not voting? 

I thought we were calling Guyjin a slime with that poll option.  :-k 

:twisted:

Quote from: Golgo13 on 11/06/2008, 01:11 PMI did not vote, but why am I slime for not voting?  What if I do not like the candidates I have to vote for because I think they are backed by similar lobbyists.

Then vote for other ones. if there are no other ones, write something in. (I'm personally fond of "Ficus".)

None of our major parties are worth voting for, so I always just vote for an independent so that my vote is counted.

Quote from: guest on 11/06/2008, 01:25 PM

Quote from: Golgo13 on 11/06/2008, 01:11 PMI did not vote, but why am I slime for not voting?  What if I do not like the candidates I have to vote for because I think they are backed by similar lobbyists.

Like it or not, voting is a civic duty.  If you want to just sit back and let everyone else make the decisions, then you have no right to bitch about the outcome.  Besides, there's always local issues on the ballot that are just as important as voting for president.

So if I'm not ipressed by any of the candidates enough to vote for any of them, I lose my right to be unimpressed?

That's rediculous.

The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment, and it applies whether or not people choose to vote. Furthermore, the declaration of independence, which outlines the core beliefs of the founding fathers, stipulates that men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which includes liberty.

It's my right to vote and it's also my right to abstain, and whether or not I vote I still have an unalienable right of liberty to voice my opinion, which nobody can put a lien on and take away.

Quote from: 'Turbo D'heh. I missed the deadline to register to vote. I hadn't really cared to vote in the past, but I was considering it this year. Oh well.

Same here!!!!

I was really impressed by Obama early on but as the campaign went on I became more and more skeptical. It will take a lot more than promises of change to make me vote for someone from the party of segregation and the Vietnam war.

rag-time4 is correct. Our right to vote also includes our right to abstain from voting, just as our right to freedom of religion also grants us the freedom from religion. However, it is rather foolish to say that they are the party of segregation and the Vietnam war...these are very old issues that have no bearing on modern politics, only on the minds of those who either experienced them or remember them.

Quote from: OldRover on 11/07/2008, 04:09 AMrag-time4 is correct. Our right to vote also includes our right to abstain from voting, just as our right to freedom of religion also grants us the freedom from religion. However, it is rather foolish to say that they are the party of segregation and the Vietnam war...these are very old issues that have no bearing on modern politics, only on the minds of those who either experienced them or remember them.

Not that old....  the Iraq war was widely supported by Democrats, and the Clinton administration bombed several African countries, as well as Iraq...

I feel that little has changed with the Democrat party since the Vietnam war ... The Democrat party, I think, is still very much a militaristic party. Obama has promised change, yet he remains a staunch supporter of Israel. I think that Israel needs to be held accountable for her actions (http://www.rachelcorrie.org/) and held to a much higher standard of peaceful behavior before I would be willing to support being an ally of theirs.

EDIT ~ Just want to add: Of all the Democrat Presidents, one of the best in my opinion was Jimmy Carter. He has a book called "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid" which I have here but haven't read yet. Ironically, Israel had a very long relationship with the racist apartheid government in South Africa. I would love to see Obama follow through on his promises for change, but follow through seems decidedly rare among politicians.... Also I hope that God protects him and keeps him safe though his term.

Keep in mind that politicians, especially presidential hopefuls, also have the delicate (and often dangerous) task of appealing to the masses, and that includes other politicians of their own party. A presidential hopeful has to portray themselves as going along with the status quo, but just enough to be believable. If the country says that Israel is our friend, the presidential hopeful has to state the same. If the country says that marriage is between only a man and a woman, the presidential hopeful has to state the same. When they take office, however, things tend to change...their true colors come out, and we see what they're really made of. People were slagging McCain for saying and doing whatever it took to win the White House, but in reality, Obama did the same...he just did it with far more eloquence and three times as much money. In eight weeks, we'll see what his real motives are.

I voted- for Obama- but I don't know about this whole "civic duty" thing.  The popular vote means next to nothing.  Wondering exactly how the electoral college works- I found this- "The electors generally cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in their respective states, but are not required by law to do so".  So it's really just a big forking joke.  Only reason I voted is because I've become so disgusted with Republicans (and lame old white motherfuckers (and yes, I'm white)) that it made me feel better to actually pull the lever- in an act of defiance- regardless of how inconsequential that act was.
Other than that- I don't know if Bam is the "best man for the job" but I'll take him over McCain any day.  Personally I could care less about McCain being a war hero- anyone who blinks that much and starts every sentence off with "My friends" is feeding you horseshit- even his left cheek looks like it's stuffed with it.  Revolting.

Exactly, its designed to give you the feeling you have a choice, so you have no body to blame.

Quote from: rag-time4 on 11/07/2008, 03:54 AMSo if I'm not impressed by any of the candidates enough to vote for any of them, I lose my right to be unimpressed?

That's ridiculous.

The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment, and it applies whether or not people choose to vote. Furthermore, the declaration of independence, which outlines the core beliefs of the founding fathers, stipulates that men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which includes liberty.

It's my right to vote and it's also my right to abstain, and whether or not I vote I still have an unalienable right of liberty to voice my opinion, which nobody can put a lien on and take away.

Thanks, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.  :roll:

I didn't claim that voting is compulsory by law, so your entire argument is moot (and foolish).  It's my right to free speech that allows me to call you a apathetic laggard for failing to vote, so get over it and don't bitch about the decisions made by elected officials if you can't be bothered to vote.  And remember, there's more to voting than just picking a president; many of the other ballot issues don't require you to be 'impressed' before you can form an opinion.

Quote from: Sinistron on 11/07/2008, 09:14 AMI voted- for Obama- but I don't know about this whole "civic duty" thing.  The popular vote means next to nothing.  Wondering exactly how the electoral college works- I found this- "The electors generally cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote in their respective states, but are not required by law to do so".  So it's really just a big forking joke.

The Electoral College is certainly not ideal, but rogue electors have never changed the outcome of an election; furthermore, 26 states (plus D.C.) do have laws requiring electors to vote according to the popular vote.  There's only a few instances where electors voted contrary to the popular vote, but mostly because the candidate died before the Electoral College met.

I think the biggest problem with the Electoral College is that it entirely discounts the minority vote, except in Maine and Nebraska (holy shit, we did something right!).  Since almost every state's electoral votes are awarded 'all or none', close races can lead to the election of a president that failed to win the popular vote.  True, it's only happened three time (Hayes, Harrison, and Bush - coincidentally all Republicans), but the last occurrence proved disastrous.  ](*,)

Quote from: rag-time4 on 11/07/2008, 05:24 AM

Quote from: OldRover on 11/07/2008, 04:09 AMrag-time4 is correct. Our right to vote also includes our right to abstain from voting, just as our right to freedom of religion also grants us the freedom from religion. However, it is rather foolish to say that they are the party of segregation and the Vietnam war...these are very old issues that have no bearing on modern politics, only on the minds of those who either experienced them or remember them.

Not that old....  the Iraq war was widely supported by Democrats, and the Clinton administration bombed several African countries, as well as Iraq...

I feel that little has changed with the Democrat party since the Vietnam war ... The Democrat party, I think, is still very much a militaristic party. Obama has promised change, yet he remains a staunch supporter of Israel. I think that Israel needs to be held accountable for her actions (http://www.rachelcorrie.org/) and held to a much higher standard of peaceful behavior before I would be willing to support being an ally of theirs.

EDIT ~ Just want to add: Of all the Democrat Presidents, one of the best in my opinion was Jimmy Carter. He has a book called "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid" which I have here but haven't read yet. Ironically, Israel had a very long relationship with the racist apartheid government in South Africa. I would love to see Obama follow through on his promises for change, but follow through seems decidedly rare among politicians.... Also I hope that God protects him and keeps him safe though his term.

To be honest expecting the US to "dump" Israel will prob never happen.  Your looking at it from a religious standpoint.  The US has very few REAL allies in that region, and has been a staunch supporter of Israel since it's inception.  Israel pulls crap (just like every other nation) yet you expect them to be "to a much higher standard of peaceful behavior." Ironic for such a war torn region, you may not agree with how Israel is set up "stolen" if you will, they do have a right to defend themselves (whether there actions are always correct is of course open for debate).  Religion won't decide the US alliance with Israel. the US has ties for military reasons #1 (hey we "need" someone over there that doesn't tottaly think we're the GREAT WESTERN DEVIL)   :wink:

Not trying to be argumentative for argument's sake necro- nor am I trying to bust balls- but aren't these statements at least in part contradictory?

Quote from: guest on 11/07/2008, 11:23 AMrogue electors have never changed the outcome of an election

Since almost every state's electoral votes are awarded 'all or none', close races can lead to the election of a president that failed to win the popular vote.  True, it's only happened three time (Hayes, Harrison, and Bush - coincidentally all Republicans), but the last occurrence proved disastrous.

Personally though I do think the entire system is flawed- I am happy about the outcome this time- but only given that there were only two parties with chances here.  I wish there were more choices- and I harken back to the day when Perot took a good percentage of the vote for a third party.  I mean- a choice between Coke and Pepsi isn't a choice at all- is it?  It leaves no room for Dr. Pepper.

Yet Mt Dew would crush them ALL  :twisted: :twisted: :lol:

Quote from: Sinistron on 11/07/2008, 11:59 AMPersonally though I do think the entire system is flawed- I am happy about the outcome this time- but only given that there were only two parties with chances here.  I wish there were more choices- and I harken back to the day when Perot took a good percentage of the vote for a third party.  I mean- a choice between Coke and Pepsi isn't a choice at all- is it?  It leaves no room for Dr. Pepper.

Yeah, I wish there were more choices - the Democrats are too disorganized; means some of them are too conservative, and they often seem spineless - but until a 3rd party becomes viable, I'm stuck voting for the lesser evil more often than I'd like.

Since the GOP seems to be imploding at the moment, I'm sort of hoping the Libertarians emerge as 'the real party of small government', even though I mostly hate 'em. That way, the Democrats could split into their populist and liberal wings, and we get a 4 party system  :dance:

Quote from: Sinistron on 11/07/2008, 11:59 AMNot trying to be argumentative for argument's sake necro- nor am I trying to bust balls- but aren't these statements at least in part contradictory?

Quote from: NecroPhile on 11/07/2008, 11:23 AMrogue electors have never changed the outcome of an election

Since almost every state's electoral votes are awarded 'all or none', close races can lead to the election of a president that failed to win the popular vote.  True, it's only happened three time (Hayes, Harrison, and Bush - coincidentally all Republicans), but the last occurrence proved disastrous. 

No, they're not contradictory; they're two different issues.  Rogue electors vote contrary to the rules of their state (i.e. - if an elector were to vote for one candidate when the other candidate took the majority of votes in their state).  The second issue is the unfairness of said rules.  It rarely occurs, but it just shouldn't be possible for a candidate to be elected without winning the popular vote.

Remember, more than half of the country voted for someone other than that Abe Lincoln guy when he ran for Pres.  Same for "Dubba Hot-Tub in the White House" lawn Bill Clinton.  Harrison doesn't count.

- Isreal.  They need our help.  France has done a poor job sticking up for them since the they and the UK loaded Isreal up with nukes.

- Voting.  Get out and do it.  85% of the stuff on the ballots is local election type stuff.  It impacts you more immediately than the president.  

- Same sex marriage.  I have no personal opinion about the morality surrounding the issue, but since a good bit of family law is practiced around "mother" and "father" you have 100+ years of legislation to re-write once same-sex parents start divorcing with children.

- I've read in several widely circulated right wing newsletters that Obama is a staunch supporter of Johnny Turbo and looks to eliminate the threat posed by FEKA.

I agree guy. A multi-party system is the way to go, but even that can be a shit show sometimes. Up here we have 4 main parties, and now the Green Party is making a move, so we'll soon have 5 parties. What's absurd is that one of our "federal" parties is a seperatist party - the Bloc Quebecois.  :roll: Having multiple parties gives people more options when voting, but it also splits the vote. Right now the "left" vote is split between the Liberals, the NDP the Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois. So in our last election most Canadians voted on the left, but their votes were divided amongst 4 parties, and consequently, the Conservative Party formed gov't. What Canada has yet to do, but I see coming, is forming coalition gov'ts. If these parties form a coalition they can go to the Governor General (the most powerful person in the Gov't) and form a new gov't.

As for Israel, and I'm not too sure what it has to do with this conversation, but Israel puts itself on a higher standard than other nations. Israel is self proclaimed democracy (and it is a democracy, if you're a citizen) and they don't do themselves any favours by illegally occupying Palestinian lands. Israel always claims a double standard when people criticize them, but again, they don't do themselves any favours by comparing themselves with rogue nations that break international law. They should really raise the bar higher than that. That being said, Israel isn't going anywhere and nor should it. Iraq, Iran, Syria etc, use the Mid East Conflict as an excuse to criticize Israel and spout antisemetism.

The fact is EVERY American president will support Israel, but what Israel needs is some tough love. The only way out of this problem is the two state solution (pre 1967 borders, or something close to that). I would imagine most Israelis and Palestinians would make large sarcrifices in order to finally achieve peace. It's always the extremists and fundamentalists that are able to keep peace from being acheived.

Quote from: offsidewing on 11/07/2008, 12:57 PMRemember, more than half of the country voted for someone other than that Abe Lincoln guy when he ran for Pres.  Same for "Dubba Hot-Tub in the White House" lawn Bill Clinton.

That's just a consequence of having more than two parties; they still won the popular vote by having the highest percentage of votes.

Quote from: offsidewing on 11/07/2008, 12:57 PM- Same sex marriage.  I have no personal opinion about the morality surrounding the issue, but since a good bit of family law is practiced around "mother" and "father" you have 100+ years of legislation to re-write once same-sex parents start divorcing with children.

Yet that problem already exists, as many states grant 'civil unions' that provide the same sorts of legal rights as 'married' couples.  Separate but equal..... wait, that didn't work out so good last time.  ](*,)

Quote from: ceti alpha on 11/07/2008, 01:01 PMWhat's absurd is that one of our "federal" parties is a seperatist party - the Bloc Quebecois.  :roll:

To be fair, when the separatists lost the last referendum and interest in separation in Quebec waned (enough), the Bloc changed their role to safeguard against the federal government imposing its will in matters of provincial jurisdiction.  I.E. Provinces are the ones constitutionally obligated to manage their health care systems.  The federal government shouldn't start programs that in turn dictate how the province manages their health care systems, etc.

We used to have a vote split on the right as well when the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance started to make strides stealing votes from the Progressive Conservatives.  That was part of the reason why we had a strong majority Liberal government during the Chretien years.  Now that the right has united, it magnified the same issues on the left.  

Quote from: ceti alpha on 11/07/2008, 01:01 PMWhat Canada has yet to do, but I see coming, is forming coalition gov'ts. If these parties form a coalition they can go to the Governor General (the most powerful person in the Gov't) and form a new gov't.

It might be a little tricky however.  The Liberals were often viewed as wanting a strong federal government whose policies might collide with the Bloc's ideology of maintaining the delineation between the provincial and federal jurisdictions.

I might be wrong but the Governor General could accept a coalition government if:
1) If a minority government falls, then the GG could invite the opposition parties to form a coalition instead of calling another election.  This would only happen if they can convince the GG that this coalition government would hold.  However, at this point, most parties generally feel that they would gain more from an election.

2) If the party that was previously in power looses an election to another party that can only form a minority government, the previous prime-minister can request with the GG to form a coalition (majority) government.  

Sorry for the people in the US for spamming your thread with Canadian election babble... :P  

Full disclosure: yes I'm a francophone but I'm not from Quebec.  My ancestry (going way back to my European ancestors) landed in Eastern Ontario and we've pretty much stayed in the area.  Personally, I don't see a point in the separatism movement.  I might sympathize with a party that wants to maintain a delineation of the provincial and federal jurisdictions.

Quote from: ceti alpha on 11/07/2008, 01:01 PMAs for Israel, and I'm not too sure what it has to do with this conversation, but Israel puts itself on a higher standard than other nations. Israel is self proclaimed democracy (and it is a democracy, if you're a citizen) and they don't do themselves any favours by illegally occupying Palestinian lands. Israel always claims a double standard when people criticize them, but again, they don't do themselves any favours by comparing themselves with rogue nations that break international law. They should really raise the bar higher than that. That being said, Israel isn't going anywhere and nor should it. Iraq, Iran, Syria etc, use the Mid East Conflict as an excuse to criticize Israel and spout antisemetism.

The fact is EVERY American president will support Israel, but what Israel needs is some tough love. The only way out of this problem is the two state solution (pre 1967 borders, or something close to that). I would imagine most Israelis and Palestinians would make large sarcrifices in order to finally achieve peace. It's always the extremists and fundamentalists that are able to keep peace from being acheived.

Ceti, I introduced the topic of Israel because I think that issue is central to a lot of what's going on in that part of the world, and I'm not interested in supporting any candidate who is not committed to holding Israel accountable to a higher bar not only in rhetoric but in their behavior.

You're right that Israel uses 'antisemitism' and 'double standard' as rhetorical defenses against criticism. Here's a video of a caller calling Jimmy Carter a 'bigot, racist, and anti-semite (https://youtu.be/UBaDfue_Rys)

Here's a video on youtube of Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (https://youtu.be/bl13wd70ZSg) responding to charges of 'anti-semitism', including pointing out that Arabs are semitic people too, and are rightfully more semitic than the Europeans who have settled in Palestine/Israel.

In terms of my argument, I focus on Israel not because I hate Israel, but rather because the United States is already firmly against Palestinian extremism and terrorism, which is a position of the United States that I'm not criticising.... but I feel that the United States needs to do more to hold Israel to a higher standard of behavior and humane conduct.

Here are some emails from an American peace activist who was killed in Gaza (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/18/usa.israel) explaining what she saw over there. There is a memorial website set up for her at http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Quote from: guest on 11/07/2008, 11:23 AM

Quote from: rag-time4 on 11/07/2008, 03:54 AMSo if I'm not impressed by any of the candidates enough to vote for any of them, I lose my right to be unimpressed?

That's ridiculous.

The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the first amendment, and it applies whether or not people choose to vote. Furthermore, the declaration of independence, which outlines the core beliefs of the founding fathers, stipulates that men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which includes liberty.

It's my right to vote and it's also my right to abstain, and whether or not I vote I still have an unalienable right of liberty to voice my opinion, which nobody can put a lien on and take away.

Thanks, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.  :roll:

I didn't claim that voting is compulsory by law, so your entire argument is moot (and foolish).  It's my right to free speech that allows me to call you a apathetic laggard for failing to vote, so get over it and don't bitch about the decisions made by elected officials if you can't be bothered to vote.  And remember, there's more to voting than just picking a president; many of the other ballot issues don't require you to be 'impressed' before you can form an opinion.

My apathy toward voting is based on the frequent deceptions of elected officials. For example, President Lyndon Johnson ran with a promise to keep the nation out of war, but got the nation into the Vietnam war.

If Obama follows through on his promises for change and does things I agree with, I'll vote for him for his second term. If he turns out to be just another liar and just another blowhard, I'll continue to abstain, which carries with it some significance, as I believe voter apathy levels have an impact on world opinion and how our system is seen abroad.

I think that Obama represents the hope of many people around the world that this nation can change for the better. Admitting that America actually needs to change is an important first step. What happens next will determine whether or not I vote for his second term.

Quote from: ceti alpha on 11/07/2008, 01:01 PMI agree guy. A multi-party system is the way to go, but even that can be a shit show sometimes. Up here we have 4 main parties, and now the Green Party is making a move, so we'll soon have 5 parties. What's absurd is that one of our "federal" parties is a seperatist party - the Bloc Quebecois.  :roll: Having multiple parties gives people more options when voting, but it also splits the vote.

Then you guys should adopt a (prefferably instant) runoff voting system.

Also, as much as 'elections whenever we want them' sucks, at least you don't have perpetual political campaigns: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/huckabee-heads-toiowa/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/huckabee-heads-toiowa/)

Quote from: guyjin on 11/07/2008, 04:57 PMAlso, as much as 'elections whenever we want them' sucks, at least you don't have perpetual political campaigns: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/huckabee-heads-toiowa/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/huckabee-heads-toiowa/)

Careful what you say.  You never know when Chuck is listening.  :lol:

Quote from: guyjin on 11/07/2008, 04:57 PM

Quote from: ceti alpha on 11/07/2008, 01:01 PMI agree guy. A multi-party system is the way to go, but even that can be a shit show sometimes. Up here we have 4 main parties, and now the Green Party is making a move, so we'll soon have 5 parties. What's absurd is that one of our "federal" parties is a seperatist party - the Bloc Quebecois.  :roll: Having multiple parties gives people more options when voting, but it also splits the vote.

Then you guys should adopt a (prefferably instant) runoff voting system.

Also, as much as 'elections whenever we want them' sucks, at least you don't have perpetual political campaigns: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/huckabee-heads-toiowa/ (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/huckabee-heads-toiowa/)

lol. It's true. We might have elections every 2 years or so, but at least they only last six weeks.

Our "first past the post" electoral system is not very representative of the popular vote. Some form of proportional representation is something many Canadians are wishing for. The problem is that the gov't in power, regardless of ideology, is never eager to change how elections work.

As for the Bloc's "role change" as a protector of Quebec's interest, I don't buy it. And Regardless of that, why should Quebec be allowed to have its own representation in the House of Commons? Wouldn't it be a shit show if Newfoundland or Alberta (wait...they do have their own party in the House...The "New" Conservatives hehe :P), or Ontario had their own parties in the House. The way I see it, unless you are running candidates in EVERY riding in the country, you don't belong in the House. I understand the desire to protect provincial jurisdictions, but that's not the way to go about it. IMHO hehe :)

Quote from: guest on 11/07/2008, 11:23 AMThanks, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.  :roll:

I didn't claim that voting is compulsory by law, so your entire argument is moot (and foolish).  It's my right to free speech that allows me to call you a apathetic laggard for failing to vote, so get over it and don't bitch about the decisions made by elected officials if you can't be bothered to vote.  And remember, there's more to voting than just picking a president; many of the other ballot issues don't require you to be 'impressed' before you can form an opinion.

Necro, just wanted to add that I hear you on those other ballot issues... initiatives, propositions, and what not. I'm kind of in between living situations now.... but I know that I'm not going to be leaving California so I could have voted on the state level stuff.

I'll strive to keep myself a bit more informed.