Wasted Votes?

[dazedandconfused]

Cnn And Politico Admit Ron Paul Media Conspiracy ! - YouTube

They say they ignore Paul because he has no chance of winning. They ignore Ron Paul because he is not the neo-con or neo-dem that everyone else is and he does what he says and he wont be beholden to special interest groups. And there is no bias? Did you see the headlines after the poll? Bachmann wins and Pawlenty in third.

No media bias?
Candy Crowley Lies About Ron Paul's Chance to Beat Obama... Ignores Own Polls - YouTube

Or how about Jon Stewart ripping the media a new one

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...b_ref=share_fblike&fb_source=search_multiline

As the CNN poll, Ron Paul's numbers are going up while Bachmann's are going down. Paul is third behind Perry and Romney. Romney and Perry will duke it out and could destroy each other and shift it to Paul. Especially when it becomes wildly known Perry spoke in favor of TARP. There is no way in hades Perry would be elected President and again, Rasmussen has Obama 41 to Paul 37.

Bachmann gave out 6k in tickets and got about 1200 less in support then that. Paul gave out 4750 and got 79 less in votes. I told you

Ron Paul gave out fewer Iowa Straw Poll tickets than Michele Bachmann - Yahoo! News

You guys believe Ron Paul is not electable because the media tells you he is not.

And by the way, if Ron Paul does not get the nomination, I bet dollars to doughnuts most of his supporters either write him in or do not even go to the polls.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Cnn And Politico Admit Ron Paul Media Conspiracy ! - YouTube

They say they ignore Paul because he has no chance of winning. They ignore Ron Paul because he is not the neo-con or neo-dem that everyone else is and he does what he says and he wont be beholden to special interest groups. And there is no bias? Did you see the headlines after the poll? Bachmann wins and Pawlenty in third.

No media bias?
Candy Crowley Lies About Ron Paul's Chance to Beat Obama... Ignores Own Polls - YouTube

Or how about Jon Stewart ripping the media a new one

Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/15/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

As the CNN poll, Ron Paul's numbers are going up while Bachmann's are going down. Paul is third behind Perry and Romney. Romney and Perry will duke it out and could destroy each other and shift it to Paul. Especially when it becomes wildly known Perry spoke in favor of TARP. There is no way in hades Perry would be elected President and again, Rasmussen has Obama 41 to Paul 37.

Bachmann gave out 6k in tickets and got about 1200 less in support then that. Paul gave out 4750 and got 79 less in votes. I told you

Ron Paul gave out fewer Iowa Straw Poll tickets than Michele Bachmann - Yahoo! News

You guys believe Ron Paul is not electable because the media tells you he is not.

And by the way, if Ron Paul does not get the nomination, I bet dollars to doughnuts most of his supporters either write him in or do not even go to the polls.

Nice conspiracy theory. However, as someone who is obviously is following Ron Paul can you tell everyone else what he's been doing since the straw poll instead of blaming them for not paying attention? With the state the GOP is in right now going further right than it ever has, Ron Paul has an extremely hard struggle on his hands. We haven't even gotten to the real election yet, meanwhile Rick Perry merely burps and he gets all the attention. It ain't just the media's fault here... it's also the Ron Paul campaign not making enough noise to demand the spotlight. Even Tim Pawlenty has been more vocal than Ron Paul at this point and he quit. He can't just sit back on a second place finish on an Iowa straw poll and think that automatically gives him the stage. He has to take it from the other three major contenders (Bachmann, Perry & Romney), and he isn't doing that.

Understand when people say that he's not going to get the GOP Nomination. Someone who is supposed to be this different should run under a different political ticket. But Ron Paul is not and never has. THAT is one of the main reasons why he won't win because right now he's after the wrong prize. This election season, that (R) will always hold him back regardless of what he stands for. Come November, the mass majority of people do nothing but vote (R) or (D) on default. Without playing the already broken political game that is already in place to some degree, there's no way Paul or any of his followers can defeat it even if everyone of his fans decided to stay home or write in his name in 2012.

A vote count of under 5000 people in Iowa is no indicator of how much this game is gonna change. The sooner Ron Paul figures this out, the better he has a chance.

 

[dazedandconfused]

He is not spending time whining about media coverage, his supporters are (and for good reason). He could stand on his head and whistle dixie in the middle of times square and the media would not give two craps.

Ron Paul is the only true republican of anyone running for President and yet he is ignored.

I just cannot stand his misrepresentation on this board and the media and the fact people say he is unelectable, I just strongly disagree with and the numbers disagree with your assertions he isnt electable. When Cain, Huntsmann, McCotter, etc... all drop out, where will most of their supporters go? I have a hard time believing Cain supporters will go to Romney or Perry...

 

[B_VinylBoy]

He is not spending time whining about media coverage, his supporters are (and for good reason). He could stand on his head and whistle dixie in the middle of times square and the media would not give two craps.

That's because with people like the Naked Cowboy in Times Square, why would anyone be interested in someone standing on their head and whistling dixie?

Me hopes you get the sarcasm here, but I digress... the media is not obligated to flock to anyone. If that person wants to spotlight, he has to demand it or have to pay for it. Ron Paul isn't doing either and he ain't even trying to, which is a major problem. That's why you don't see him on the media.

Ron Paul is the only true republican of anyone running for President and yet he is ignored.

Then take that up with the Republican base who are obviously swinging off the balls of Rick Perry at this moment. Don't blame me because I never thought Ron Paul was the man to vote for to begin with. Not only do several of his views on civil rights issues turn me off, but the fact that he and many of his followers are quick to throw out the "Libertarian" tag to describe him (insisting that he's not like the Republicans), but continually runs under the (R) and fights for their campaign funds, shows me he really isn't that much different than the rest.

I just cannot stand his misrepresentation on this board and the media and the fact people say he is unelectable, I just strongly disagree with and the numbers disagree with your assertions he isnt electable.

Of course you strongly disagree. But right now, you're blaming the problem on the media not acting like lapdogs by following a second place finisher (which is laughable to some degree because the mass majority never cares who comes in second), and also blaming other people on this board, some of which have no problem analyzing Ron Paul's stances on issues and coming up with arguments that you don't agree with.

When Cain, Huntsmann, McCotter, etc... all drop out, where will most of their supporters go? I have a hard time believing Cain supporters will go to Romney or Perry...

Cain was another joke of a politician that was never going to win the nomination, who could barely generate any buzz for himself without saying something outrageously stupid such as "Jon Stewart hates me because I'm a black Conservative". Now that he's essentially out of the contest, do you really want anyone who follows and agrees with much of Cain's illogical thought processes siding with you? Is quantity that much more important than quality? But I digress, of course...

Most of the people who are registered (R) right now are voting against Obama because they wholeheartedly believe that anyone is better than him. It's out of anger and out of principle, with very little consideration of the details. So regardless of who gets the nomination, the mass majority of registered Republicans are gonna vote for who represents that party on default. That's the audience who Ron Paul has to convince and with religious nutcases like Perry & Bachmann in the race (and all that campaign money they get for "talking to God") his prospects doesn't look good at all.

In a search for quantity after 2008, the Republican party has continually embraced the loudest voices from their fringe and that continually went unchallenged by many rational thinking Conservatives for a LONG time. They call themselves the Tea Party but they're nothing more than staunch Republicans in a different set of clothes. Case in point, NONE of the so-called Tea Party Candidates ran as an Independent in 2010... they all ran as Republicans. Ron Paul supporters try to position him as being one of the few rational thinking Republicans, or Libertarians or whatever they feel like branding him. If that's so and he was going to run as a Republican, it was up to Paul to continually stand out from the loud voices with his own megaphone and bring attention to himself. If Cain could do it by saying stupid shit, why couldn't Paul do it by saying something sensible? The fact is, they didn't because deep down they were more interested in the numbers instead of the quality of the message. And now, the lunatics have taken over the party leaving very little room for the rational. It's been an ongoing thing since Obama took office, so it makes sense on that level why Paul is not getting the coverage you think he deserves. Blame the media all you want, but from my angle it just look like you all played yourselves. Everyone trying to ride a so-called "wave of dissent" into the White House, when only two or three people came with surfboards.

 

[hypoc8]

I didn't said anyone HAD to stay home.

Sorry if you're feeling some sensitivity around this, but like you said, its just my opinion.

Okay, what was your reason for saying thay they should stay at home and just not vote?

Nope, not feeling any sensitivity here at all. I just don't understand why people like yourself feel that people are wasting their votes if they don't vote for one of the two main parties.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

He is not spending time whining about media coverage, his supporters are (and for good reason). He could stand on his head and whistle dixie in the middle of times square and the media would not give two craps.

Ron Paul is the only true republican of anyone running for President and yet he is ignored.

I just cannot stand his misrepresentation on this board and the media and the fact people say he is unelectable, I just strongly disagree with and the numbers disagree with your assertions he isnt electable. When Cain, Huntsmann, McCotter, etc... all drop out, where will most of their supporters go? I have a hard time believing Cain supporters will go to Romney or Perry...

Let me break this in half because I think there is something fundamental not getting through;


First of all, that you think there is a media bias present now, is irrelevant. When I say Ron Paul has absolutely no chance of ever, ever winning the Presidency (and again, I will emphasize that he doesn't) it has less to do with who is gunning for the GOP candidacy this election cycle and who the Democrat is sitting in the White House. After you run and fail so many times, after your crazy ideas have been (perhaps) hyperbolized so articulately after so many years, the media doesn't need to pay attention to you.

Think of it like when the Joker says he's going to kill Batman or when Cobra Commander says he's going to take over the world; We all know that's not going to happen and after a while, the same old plot that maybe at one time was interesting, becomes tired, cliche, and predictable. That's Ron Paul- we know he's not going to win and we know that his position essentially boils down to dismantling the Federal Government (a position, by the way, most people don't agree with. Better government, not no government.)

So what you percieve as a current media bias isn't surprising or is it really relevant. Democrats and centrists were never going to vote for him anyway and Republicans/Tea Party members like their brand of crazy from Texas to have more swagger or at least look better on camera.

Secondly,

You think his views are misrepresented and that the media bias is what keeps him from being elected. The media honeymoon that would be required to give Ron Paul even the most infinitesimal of realistic opportunities to occupy the Oval Office from the media would involve him moving from national laughing stock to national hero. He'd have to personally save America from an alien invasion Independence Day style or... I dunno, travel back in time and safe Abraham Lincoln.

To repair what has been hard grained, whether or not it is how you would present it, the media would have to go on a Ron Paul 24-hour a day lovefest the likes of which would dwarf the Sarah Palin-Fox News relationship exponentially.

And yet even still that is about a billion times more likely to happen than Ron Paul getting the GOP nomination and about a trillion times more like to happen than his ever occupying 1600. Don't delude yourself by pretending the Straw Poll means something. Don't kid yourself about his chances of securing the nomination. It's absolutely never going to happen, not because "the media told me so" but because I can put two and two together and I'm assuming the RNC can as well; they don't want to hand a 50 state sweep to the President and so they're going to nominate literally anyone but Ron Paul.



JSZ

 

[dazedandconfused]

We will just have to all agree to disagree. Disreguarding the straw poll, Bachmann's numbers are tanking yet she is talked about a "top tier candidate." According to CNN, he is 7% points better than Bachmann.

In my opinion, a person who says he is going to vote Romney or Perry right now is more likely to switch to Paul than vice-versa. And you are arguing that he has no chance at the white house. Many current polls have Paul as the best or second-best republican candidate if he was the head to head opponent of Obama.

Do I think he is a front-runner, no. But there is nothing pointing to no chance at the nomination, especially if you are like the media who claims Bachmann is a top-tier candidate.

As for the running as a republican, no one can really know why, but 1). The only way he can be elected and 2). He actually holds the views of a true conservative republican. Not his fault the party left him.

Run and fail many times? He ran as a libertarian in 1988 and a republican in 2008 (really 2007 before the economy truly went to crap). Now, people are waking up to the fact he was right about the economy.

I do not want a love fest by the media, but when people just simply dismiss him as fringe or Crowley on CNN reports the results of HER OWN NETWORKS POLL wrong to misrepresent Paul, I have issues. I do not care if the media comes out and blasts Paul, but he is not fringe and they have a duty to at least not misrepresent his views. Again, Piers Morgan said something about legalizing heroin and Paul nailed him on it.

 

[dazedandconfused]

Great article on Ron Paul

Ron Paul Is Worthy Of Press Attention, And His Ames Result Has Nothing To Do With Why

 

[atlclgurl]

Okay, what was your reason for saying thay they should stay at home and just not vote?

Nope, not feeling any sensitivity here at all. I just don't understand why people like yourself feel that people are wasting their votes if they don't vote for one of the two main parties.

Because, as been pointed out, repeatedly, in this thread, a vote for anything besides a D or and R is pointless.

Ron Paul has ZERO chance of winning. Likewise for Kent Mesplay of the Green party, R. Lee Wright of the Libertarian party, Jack Fellure of the Prohibition party, Stewart Alexander of the Socialist party, and Roseanne Barr of the Independent party!

Go to the polls, vote for whomever you want, but with the way the electoral college is set up a vote for any of those named above is a frigging waste... better to stay the hell home and not waste the time and gas to piss away a vote.

Just my opinion and nothing you need to respond to, cause you'll just get the same damn answer from me.

In case you (the general you, not addressing Hypoc8 personally) don't know jack about how the electoral college votes, there is NO federal law mandating that the electoral college vote as the people did and in a 24 states, there's no state law mandating it either!

"Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote? There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged."

From: U. S. Electoral College FAQs

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Go to the polls, vote for whomever you want, but with the way the electoral college is set up a vote for any of those named above is a frigging waste... better to stay the hell home and not waste the time and gas to piss away a vote.

What she said.
Care for another round of martinis? :biggrin1:

 

[hypoc8]

Because, as been pointed out, repeatedly, in this thread, a vote for anything besides a D or and R is pointless.

Ron Paul has ZERO chance of winning. Likewise for Kent Mesplay of the Green party, R. Lee Wright of the Libertarian party, Jack Fellure of the Prohibition party, Stewart Alexander of the Socialist party, and Roseanne Barr of the Independent party!

Go to the polls, vote for whomever you want, but with the way the electoral college is set up a vote for any of those named above is a frigging waste... better to stay the hell home and not waste the time and gas to piss away a vote.

Just my opinion and nothing you need to respond to, cause you'll just get the same damn answer from me.

Sad that people feel forced into only voting for those with a D or R stuck on the end of their name.

It may very well be true that those listed above have no chance of winning. I vote for the individual that I think will do the best job and has the ability to do that job, not because of some letter after their name or whether or not they have a chance of winning.

When I go to the polls I'll feel good about whomever I vote for whether they win or lose and it is in no way a waste of time or a vote. I encourage everyone to do the same.

Well you know what they say about opinions and assholes.

 

[Klingsor]

Well you know what they say about opinions and assholes.

Yep! "Every opinion has an asshole."

Or . . . um . . . something like that . . .

 

[B_VinylBoy]

hypoc8 - You're being a bit disingenuous. Nobody here is being "forced" to vote for anyone. What's happening is that some people realize that the most ideal candidate they see lingering on a third party ticket isn't going to win in the current broken electoral system we now have. Because of that, they are willing to settle for someone else between the two in the best position to win, who may not be 100% exactly what they wish for but is close enough to what their ideal candidate stands for.

Most people realize that they can't always get everything they want, and in desperate times it's wise to take something instead of placing their hopes in someone who promises everything and has no chance of making any of that materialize. Many people, including myself, who initially voted for Hillary Clinton went to Obama because we all knew McCain/Palin wasn't going to adhere to our ideals and wishes. Beyond trying to feel morally superior to those who bite the bullet and choose between the (D) and the (R), anyone who voted for the Green party, Libertarian party, Prohibition party, Socialist party, or Independent party spun the political roulette wheel, bet it all on black and came up with double zeroes.

But alas, somehow this is supposed to be the fault of those who voted (D) or (R)? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Sounds to me as if those who backed the obvious long shots didn't come to the ballot box with a backup plan. They came to the dinner table wanting steak and wasn't willing to settle for chicken or pork instead, when ultimately all they want is to be fed.

 

[dazedandconfused]

Ahh, I am finally getting it. Your basic premise, is Paul is not electable. We shall see. He is third right now in the GOP and I have a feeling as the truth on Perry comes out and is attacked by Romney and Obama, he will sink.

On the LGBT issue link you posted, I find it interesting at the bottom it said the GOP nominee will be either Perry, Romney or Bachmann or a combination of the three when all polls, minus the straw poll, have Bachmann trailing Paul by a pretty good deficit and sinking fast. So again, I say if you consider Bachmann a top tier candidate, by default Paul is.

I am done with this thread. I am not taking off in a huff and taking my ball and going home. We are just at an impasse at whether Paul is electable and that neither you nor I will not convince the other. If there is something else, I will comment, but I still want some poll, some proof Paul is not electable.

 

[atlclgurl]

What she said.
Care for another round of martinis? :biggrin1:

Sure! You pick the flavor of poison this time... go ahead, I'm generous like that.

 

[atlclgurl]

Well you know what they say about opinions and assholes.

Yep. Every asshole has an opinion.

So what?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Ahh, I am finally getting it. Your basic premise, is Paul is not electable. We shall see. He is third right now in the GOP and I have a feeling as the truth on Perry comes out and is attacked by Romney and Obama, he will sink.

Perry will have the money to deal with the attacks. That's bad news for Romney (who is good at fundraising but won't get the big donations as long as Perry stays in the race), and at this stage Obama isn't even his opponent. As much as he wants to take swipes at the president (because most Conservatives are simply getting off at anyone who does), he better focus on Romney first and get him out of the picture. Otherwise, Perry will lose.

Ron Paul has to essentially find a way to beat two major sources of money in order to get the GOP nomination. His devoted fan base isn't enough to generate it, and the party's followers are going even further right than where Paul stands.

On the LGBT issue link you posted, I find it interesting at the bottom it said the GOP nominee will be either Perry, Romney or Bachmann or a combination of the three when all polls, minus the straw poll, have Bachmann trailing Paul by a pretty good deficit and sinking fast.

I've already said in other threads that the final battle for the GOP nomination is going to be Romney & Perry. Bachmann no longer has a chance to win this because all of her political stances can be mirrored by Perry and he provides the image these far right people want to see.

So again, I say if you consider Bachmann a top tier candidate, by default Paul is.

If you've been really paying attention, I never really did consider Bachmann top tier. Sure, she won in Iowa so technically she's one of the frontrunners. But she's absolutely bat-shit and has enough verbal gaffes out there for anyone to take her apart. And when she steps down (because her own party is gonna destroy her while the media has a field day on her verbal blunders), you can bet that all of her followers are going to move to Rick Perry for reasons I expressed earlier. Ron Paul is NOT going to get any of these votes. Why? Here's one glaring reason... compare the records of Paul and Bachmann on LGBT issues. Paul's stances on gays & lesbians in this country are almost the polar opposite of the two true frontrunners. Paul almost looks like a liberal on those issues. Conservatives in this climate are not gonna stand for it, and you'll be fooling yourself if you don't think LGBT issues aren't going to sneak back into this debate among all the discussions about the economy & job creation. Gay marriage? DOMA? Should we repeal DADT? Republican strategists know they can have a field day rallying their base by having their figureheads voicing opposition towards LGBT issues and even pushing for an amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman. And they're definitely gonna do it again.

This is more proof that Paul is going after a prize that requires people to go FAR RIGHT and he isn't doing that. THAT is one of the main reasons why he will not win.

I am done with this thread. I am not taking off in a huff and taking my ball and going home. We are just at an impasse at whether Paul is electable and that neither you nor I will not convince the other. If there is something else, I will comment, but I still want some poll, some proof Paul is not electable.

Screw the polls. They're unstable sources of fluctuating opinions, represented by distorted numerical figures, that constantly change day by day. They reflect people loving you one day, then hating you the next if you pass gas. You really need a poll to tell you the obvious? It's true that we're both speculating at this point, but I'm using statistics, historical facts and trends that anyone can source to come up with a real analysis of the GOP party and who stands a chance. You're praying that a second place finish in a straw poll that surveyed less than 3% of the conservative voting body in a state, will translate into an awakening of a political party that has been having a "tea party" for the last two years. Ignore the obvious all you want, but when the final debate for the GOP comes and the two on stage are Romney & Perry don't blame the media's lack of Paul's coverage for it. Paul is "too liberal" to get the GOP Nomination for this year. Everyone knows he's not going to win... all except some staunch followers who are still spinning that political roulette wheel and are betting it all on black.

 

[Mensch1351]

I think you entirely missed the point of the post. Basically, boiled down, the question is whether or not voting for someone who has absolutely no chance of winning is a wasted vote or not. I think my 8th grade social studies teacher would be an amazing President but if I were to write him in... isn't that sort of... stupid? Voting third party, as was pointed out, seems like what has been termed a "Protest" vote since those candidates have about as much chance of winning the election as Fox News' Grace Kelly has of appearing on the Daily Show. Voting for you think is "most qualified," when said person isn't from one of the two parties that will win: a waste or not?





That leads me to believe you're just looking for something to be mad about. Manufactured outrage is cute and all but if that's all you've got to bring the table, start a thread about how PBS is corrupting all our children into Satanism or some shit like that.



Really? Are we now talking about how the federal government has no business telling me who I can marry or are we still talking about how government can tell a certain group of people who they can't marry? Are we talking about the federal government having no business telling anyone at any time what they can put in their bodies or are we still talking about how to "win" the war on drugs?

Assuming that voting third party forces a national discussion in any direction, based on who the third party candidates have been for a while is an outright fantasy. Doing so hasn't sent anyone a message. If anything, all it has done is siphon votes away from the major parties to no real avail.

The question, in spite of your personal opinions and espousing on the two alleged realities of the two major parties ("For the most part, the national-level Democratic party is slightly less worse than Conservatives." Really? I'd sooner light myself on fire and run screaming into the night before I'd vote for a self-declared conservative), is whether or not voting in this fashion is a wasted vote. Is voting that way more of a waste than voting for someone who isn't able or just doesn't follow through on the campaign promises they make?


JSZ

Hey --- Zombie! You're putting a little too much emphasis on the ROLE of President here in casting your vote. The power of the President is to sign or not sign bills sent to him by Congress! He can also issue Executive orders and act quickly to defend the nation if we are put in a case of "imminent" danger! Apart from THAT.............our political parties have platforms (AND they used to get a lot more attention than they have recently -- so much so that I still remember the intense platform televised debates at pre-convening conventions!!) We primarily vote for a President who A) articulates the current state of the nation and lays out a vision for what they think it should be/can be. B) A "Statesman/woman" who represents our nation before the other nations of the world. C) Someone we believe and trust would act in a responsible manner in a crisis. (I'm sure there are a few more criteria, but these are the ones that come to mind first). Candidates for PRESIDENT may promise the moon -- but we have 3 branches of Government and the Legislative by far has the most power to move the country in a particular direction.

Our system breaks down when the vision for the country is not shared by both the President AND the Congress. (In this vein the Brits may have a much better system in that both the House of Commons AND the Head of Government MUST come from the same party; that way -- if the policies fail and trust becomes and issue -- an immediate election is held!) However - in the past, it seemed as though the Congress sought compromise between the 2 extremes of whatever vision the party in power had. This means that whatever vision the President may have spelled out may not quite come to full flower in any way shape or form because he's not a dictator to just "make it so!"

If the Legislative Branch gets out of control --- then the Judicial Branch becomes the balancing voice as to whether the Constitution allows whatever it is they have said should become Law. (Things get really sticky with THIS branch -- but I believe that's basically it).

All that said --- the President isn't the sole ruler and therefore a lot of the vision & ideas they may have for the Country are really subject to the Legislative Branch delivering bills to his/her desk that he can happily sign into Law! You can't always take a hind-sight look at what a President has actually accomplished and decide whether or not they are worthy of your vote! It is more that you see what they TRIED to accomplish (and may have been stonewalled!) and whether once again they are articulating the vision for the Country that you agree with.

I also believe this is true for the Party with which you choose to affiliate. (in Kansas you MUST register party affiliation or you cannot vote in the Primaries as part of the process!) I have not always agreed with Democratic Party stances -- but when I make a list of the things I value and believe need to be done for the good of the nation, I proudly call myself a Democrat and it is my duty to see that the Party itself articulates a particular vision for the nation that our "candidates" will take to the National Capital both in Congress and the Presidency.

I will also tell you ---- I cast my vote in Kansas...........Kansas! And because of the heavily rural population, and the wealthier suburbs of Wichita and Kansas City, once the Republican candidate is chosen, the Republican Party puts a checkmark beside Kansas's electoral college vote. But I STILL vote my conscience. I don't believe I waste my vote because in the 2008 election 514,765 of us cast our votes for Obama. Just as 3,528,633 people in Texas cast THEIR vote for Obama. He might have lost our State's electoral vote (and THAT's a system we need to change after 237 years), but we agree with the Vision and the direction that this particular man at this particular time thinks we need to move in.

In your lifetime, you're going to find your stances changing as the particular political parties change (the really "old" Republicans in my Senior Citizens home can hardly recognize the Party they've voted for so many times!!) It isn't the winning or the losing of an election --- it's whether over the long haul we've helped to choose leaders who have moved us in a good direction! (And of course -- that IS always the subject for debate!!):biggrin1:

 

[dazedandconfused]

I do not know if the electoral college needs to be tweaked or not, but the popular vote is not the answer. Can you show me every vote is counted? What stops a candidate from solely caring about urban areas and saying F you to the rural areas because there is less votes there?

But the underlying problem is that we have made the executive branch way too powerful. And you have touched on that above.

 

[Mensch1351]

Because, as been pointed out, repeatedly, in this thread, a vote for anything besides a D or and R is pointless.

Ron Paul has ZERO chance of winning. Likewise for Kent Mesplay of the Green party, R. Lee Wright of the Libertarian party, Jack Fellure of the Prohibition party, Stewart Alexander of the Socialist party, and Roseanne Barr of the Independent party!

Go to the polls, vote for whomever you want, but with the way the electoral college is set up a vote for any of those named above is a frigging waste... better to stay the hell home and not waste the time and gas to piss away a vote.

Just my opinion and nothing you need to respond to, cause you'll just get the same damn answer from me.

In case you (the general you, not addressing Hypoc8 personally) don't know jack about how the electoral college votes, there is NO federal law mandating that the electoral college vote as the people did and in a 24 states, there's no state law mandating it either!

"Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote? There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged."

From: U. S. Electoral College FAQs

Hey.................thanks for the great link!!:biggrin1: