Totally off-topic poll

[Nagot Gick Fel]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
Then you should have made the poll results viewable by non-voters as well.

Hmm is there such option? Or you mean adding "non-USA observer" vote option?

---

The former. There's an 'advanced' setting that allows everyone to view the poll results. I checked it for the 'Ermorythiumephale etc.' poll.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by tinkthank:
We, meaning US citizens about whom this poll is and the group a member of which I proudly be.

2, meaning those two only who receive official national funding (1$ per tax return, remember), and meaning those two with more than even slightly nominal membership in a house of representation.

Well actually any party that fronts a candidate gets that money. And thats only about a dozen out of the many many partys. So far they rarely try to put anyone up for presidency. Mostly they are active at city, county, state levels. But it has happened fairly often (nader, perot, buchanan)

[ May 07, 2004, 17:40: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Tris:
I don't vote, as I believe this to be the best way to register my disillusionment with the political parties in this country, who no longer stand for anything other than being elected.

And by not participating, you do sort of forfeit the right to complain about the outcome. After all, YOU certainly didn't do anything about it.

Me, realistically, I don't see my vote as having any real effect on the outcome. I *CAN*, however, indicate my dissatisfaction with both major parties by voting for neither of them. Then I spend the rest of the next 4 years complaining about it. Then I do it again. It's a living. If enough people were to take a stand and vote for their own dignity and personal integrity, something might happen. In the meantime, I'll just sit here and await the revolution.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
"Tired of choosing the lesser of two evils? Vote Cthulu!"

(Quote from a pin that was massively popular in the ... 80s when I frequented a lot of OrcCons and other gaming conventions.)

That's great!

I also like the bumper-stickers I've seen which are in the style of red white and blue stars and stripes and say "Anybody Else 2004".

Also, yes, the two-party system is not much of a democracy, especially when the voting system only allows one mututally-exclusive positive vote per position, so even if the choices are two bad party tyrants and one OK independent person, people think they are "wasting their vote" on an independent vote. If you could vote for some, none, or all, then it would be much fairer (people could vote for the OK person AND their least hated tyrant, and the most popular candidate would actually win, instead of the most popular Big Party candidate (or the big party candidate who had supporters in the vote-counting business!)).

PvK

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:
Then you should have made the poll results viewable by non-voters as well.

Hmm is there such option? Or you mean adding "non-USA observer" vote option?

---

The former. There's an 'advanced' setting that allows everyone to view the poll results. I checked it for the 'Ermorythiumephale etc.' poll.

---

Didn't know about that. Thanks, I'll keep it in mind for the future.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Please only those who are USA citizens vote in this pole.

Please no offence to all other players, this restriction is purely due to specific political nature of this poll, otherwise the results will not be meaningfull.

Then you should have made the poll results viewable by non-voters as well.

---

Hmm is there such option? Or you mean adding "non-USA observer" vote option?

Whatever the case I agree, it would be a good idea. However I have created this poll on the spur of the moment, haven't really put any thoughts into it, other than the fact that I wanted to quickly check that theory that I've meantioned.

[Pirateiam]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duncanish:
You're right. Both candidates are awful. Therefore, you should vote for the lesser of the two evils, so to speak.

Or I can refuse to compromise my principles and vote independent. Either way, my vote makes no difference, but I keep my dignity, and when it goes to hell, I can say, "I didn't vote for him."

And if enough people cared about dignity, honor, and integrity, we might actually win for a change.

---

Oh my! I actually totaly agree with Norfleet!!

[tinkthank]

Although Kerry may be a wimp, he is certainly not the embodiment of evil , as G. W. Bush has proven himself to be. Together with Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet and Rice they have now (with the recent knowledge that the atrocities commited by soldiers upon prisoners in Iraq and Cuba are by no means isolated mishaps but sympomatic results of a systematic means-justifies-the-ends utilitarianism and demonization or dehumanization of that which is deemed a foreign threat being the dead giveaway) succeeded in drastically harming America for what will certainly prove to be 50 years or more (not to mention all the other damage to civil liberties, human rights, and other once-upheld American ideals, as well as ecological and economical damage).

I think Americans must vote for Kerry, since they have created an electorial system (which might have made sense in the 18th century but is certainly senatorial and aristocratic (in the original sense of the word) in both origin and nature) to which they dogmatically adhere and which unfortunately disbars faith in "direct representation" by allowing at present only 2 nationally funded parties (a non-trivial consequence of which is the fact that should there be one less party (a total of 1 instead of 2) we would have a dictatorship).

[Tris]

And by not participating, you do sort of forfeit the right to complain about the outcome. After all, YOU certainly didn't do anything about it.

There has been growing coverage in the media of "disillusioned voters" largely backed up by statistics of a falling turn out at elections.

You can see the effects of me -*not doing anything about it*- on Primetime news.

I *CAN*, however, indicate my dissatisfaction with both major parties by voting for neither of them. Then I spend the rest of the next 4 years complaining about it. Then I do it again.

If you spend the next 4 years complaining about how another party would have done it better, then you have no excuse for not voting. If you see a viable party you believe would better represent you, vote for them. If you believe your political system has no such party, because major parties seek to occupy the middle ground just to be elected...

...like I said - my choice is heard on Primetime news. Show me another, more effective way to represent my dissatisfaction with the system.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by tinkthank:

quote:

---

Originally posted by johan osterman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinkthank:
...
allowing at present only 2 nationally funded parties (a non-trivial consequence of which is the fact that should there be one less party (a total of 1 instead of 2) we would have a dictatorship).

If we had five less parties represented in the swedish parlament (a total of 1 instead of 6) Sweden would also be a dictatorship, if we accept your usage of the term.

---

Yes, but you have 6, we only have 2. This is not a mere contingency and it is not a trivial difference.

---

You know what is funny? I've been several times in Israel. They have 100% democracy in your definition (parlament/election-wise, let's not get into discussion about arabs, counter-terrosrist measures, etc.).

So they have dozens of political parties in Kneset (Israel's parlament), some of them are very tiny. But it is huge pain in the arse to make a working "goverment coaltion", and even parties with 1 or 2 seats can very often become king makers, meaning they wield largly disproportional ammount of infulence in goverment. And once you get a ruling coalition going (that requres 60+ seats out of 120), it's often very difficult to maintain it for even half of the term, since every coalition memeber demands constant "bribing" (out of budget money) to stay in colation. And if the coalition breaks, you have short time to form another or must hold new election. All that makes persuing a consistent and focused policy next to impossible for any ruling party.


Now do you think israelis like their "pure" democratic parlament system? They hate it! I can't tell you how many times different people complained to me about inefficency of this system, and told me they wish they would have just 2 or 3 party system, like in the USA.


The bottom line is that you have to maintain a perspective when you are comparing different election/parlament system. Each one have some advantages and disadvantags. So having 2 party system have major advantages, as well as disadvantages.

P.S. Although I also wished there would be more choices for president. I mean, c'mon - are these people - Bush, Al Gore, Kerry - the best with what huge country can come up with for 8 years?!?