Quick Poll: Who will you vote for in the Presidential election? (Republic: parties, system)

[CincyIowan]

I have to agree with most of the posts on here I am sick and tired of both candidates and both parties I wish there was a third person running in this race so we can vote for them instead..

[sheena12]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

What? I specifically said that if Hitler an Satan were running, I would vote for neither. Are you hinting that you would vote for one of them because not voting would "have absolutely zero impact on government... which is sort of the point of elections"?

If that's the case, the following statement sums up my thoughts:

Hitler and Satan are not running. It's a foolish hypothetical situation.

Romney and President Obama are running. And I will not vote against myself interest as a middle class woman to vote for Romney, a man who would set our country back fivty years on several levels and who would have banbankrupted General Motors, a company that is the source of jobs for hundreds of OHIO WORKERS.

I will not vote for a man who cares only for the bottom line and has a history of driving companies into the ground so that he can reap the tax benefits of bankruptcy. He is an immoral, and amoral individual.

I will be voting for PRESIDENT OBAMA and voting AGAINST THE UNBRIDLED GREED THAT IS ROMNEY!

[Townes Van Zandt]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

So you think it's cool if Iran has nukes. Ok.

I thought about responding with links to highly respected intellectuals that more or less agree with me, but that seems like a waste of time. I don't think your response warrants anything close to a serious response.

[Townes Van Zandt]

Originally Posted by sheena12

Hitler and Satan are not running. It's a foolish hypothetical situation.

I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. That was my point.

Originally Posted by sheena12

Romney and President Obama are running. And I will not vote against myself interest as a middle class woman to vote for Romney, a man who would set our country back fivty years on several levels and who would have banbankrupted General Motors, a company that is the source of jobs for hundreds of OHIO WORKERS.

I understand that many Americans have to make a pragmatic choice this election. In fact, I specifically mentioned up-thread that both of my parents fall under that category.

Debating over principles means nothing to people who are worried about putting food on the table. I don't blame anyone for not having the time/patience to look at the world from a philosophical perspective.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

I don't vote for the lesser of two evils. That was my point.


I understand that many Americans have to make a pragmatic choice this election. In fact, I specifically mentioned up-thread that both of my parents fall under that category.

Debating over principles means nothing to people who are worried about putting food on the table. I don't blame anyone for not having the time/patience to look at the world from a philosophical perspective.

As a husband and a father, I also have to worry about putting food on the table, but have no issue with looking at the world from a philosophical perspective. But I can understand why others may not have that time or patience either.

[yayoi]

Originally Posted by CincyIowan

I have to agree with most of the posts on here I am sick and tired of both candidates and both parties I wish there was a third person running in this race so we can vote for them instead..

But there are other candidates to vote for. They're just not as popular as the Reps and Dems.

You have:

Gary Johnson - Libertarian Party
Jill Stein - Green Party
Virgil Goode - Constitution Party
Rocky Anderson - Justice Party

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by yayoi

But there are other candidates to vote for. They're just not as popular as the Reps and Dems.

You have:

Gary Johnson - Libertarian Party
Jill Stein - Green Party
Virgil Goode - Constitution Party
Rocky Anderson - Justice Party

ANd they don't have even the remotest chance of winning.

I was in Puerto Rico a few years ago during the governors election there. They had 5 viable candidates running. 5. Any one of which could have won. I was there during a debate where ALL 5 MEN DEBATED. Imagine that? How ie Puerto Rico doing democracy better then we are?
In a nation our size we should have at least 5 viable candidates all equally funded. How cool would that be?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

I thought about responding with links to highly respected intellectuals that more or less agree with me, but that seems like a waste of time. I don't think your response warrants anything close to a serious response.

Excellent, it just shows you don't have one. And quite frankly, anyone who thinks Bin Laden should not have been dealt with should probably not be seriously engaged anyway.

[yayoi]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

ANd they don't have even the remotest chance of winning.

I was in Puerto Rico a few years ago during the governors election there. They had 5 viable candidates running. 5. Any one of which could have won. I was there during a debate where ALL 5 MEN DEBATED. Imagine that? How ie Puerto Rico doing democracy better then we are?
In a nation our size we should have at least 5 viable candidates all equally funded. How cool would that be?

I agree. All of the presidential candidates should have the opportunity to debate Obama and Romney on live TV, regardless of their parties' financial status or popularity.

The other candidates did debate each other online, but we all know that won't reach nearly as much people as the major networks.

The candidates should be able to raise as much money as they want, but when it comes to TV debates all should be treated equally.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

ANd they don't have even the remotest chance of winning.

I was in Puerto Rico a few years ago during the governors election there. They had 5 viable candidates running. 5. Any one of which could have won. I was there during a debate where ALL 5 MEN DEBATED. Imagine that? How ie Puerto Rico doing democracy better then we are?
In a nation our size we should have at least 5 viable candidates all equally funded. How cool would that be?

The problem is that having more viable parties doesn't necessarily guarantee that any of those parties will be any better. It's a big assumption to think that these small-time 3rd party candidates would not be corrupted by power and money. There are 3-4 viable parties each election here in Mexico, and while there are big differences between them, they're all bad to some degree. Individuals may not always be, but the parties are pretty terrible. That seems to be pretty true across the world. Quantity doesn't ensure quality.