Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things

Re^3: For whom would you vote, if you were an American?

by v_o_i_d (Novice)
on Nov 02, 2004 at 23:46 UTC ( #404786=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^2: For whom would you vote, if you were an American?
in thread For whom would you vote, if you were an American?

I think that is silly..If Florida won by 537 votes last time, if just one in ten thousand Democrat voters thought like that then...then they basically handed the election to the Republicans on a "silver platter". You probably mean entrenched states though right?
  • Comment on Re^3: For whom would you vote, if you were an American?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: For whom would you vote, if you were an American?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Nov 03, 2004 at 01:05 UTC

    I meant exactly what I said.

    You might as well say "If you do not vote as I think you should vote, you have thrown away your vote." That way, it's clear that you're merely bullying people, not expressing an opinion worth considering.

    Update: Reworded two minutes after posting to avoid an ad hominem argument. I apologize if you saw it before the edit.

      ++. There are those who vote for the candidates they prefer and not for the parties who front them and often have little to no realistic connection with their stated goals and ideals. I voted for candidates in three parties. Pulling a party lever is an abdication of thought and responsibility.

      It's not the two major parties or the media that ruin it, though they surely don't help, it's the mentality that you have to vote for one or the other of the talking heads CNN and Fox puts up.

      Benchmarking is often key to making points here; as it should be. What's the minimum vote to get the big chair? Pick a number. Now consider that Clinton won the Presidency with 23% of registered voters voting age adults casting their ballots for him1. Not even 1/4 of America wanted him. He got it anyway.

      Don't get caught up in side taking that glosses over what your real opinions and interests are.

      1Yes, it's misleading but it's true. The turnout was 55% (much better than the next one when only 49% of Americans could be bothered to keep him in his seat) multiplied by his popular 43% (you may remember a 3rd party candidate took 19% of the popular vote) is 23%.

      update: simonm is quite right below. I wasn't thinking straight when I typed that. Fixed.

        ... Clinton won the Presidency with 23% of registered voters ... The turnout was 55%...

        FWIW, turnout is generally measured in terms of voting-age population, rather than registered voters. Most registered voters do actually go to the polls, but many people are not registered. (wikipedia)

        The assumption that we should give a flying fuck about the opinions of those who can't be bothered vote is just plain wrong.
        The problem with the argument you present is that you assume all 100% of non-voters or 'abstainers' didn't want clinton by proxy. This is a complete fallacy.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://404786]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (7)
As of 2016-10-27 06:35 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    How many different varieties (color, size, etc) of socks do you have in your sock drawer?

    Results (353 votes). Check out past polls.