Re^5: For whom would you vote, if you were an American?

++. 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.

Comment on Re^5: For whom would you vote, if you were an American?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: For whom would you vote, if you were an American? by simonm (Vicar) on Nov 06, 2004 at 17:39 UTC
... 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)	[reply]
Re^6: For whom would you vote, if you were an American? by DrHyde (Prior) on Nov 04, 2004 at 10:00 UTC
The assumption that we should give a flying fuck about the opinions of those who can't be bothered vote is just plain wrong.	[reply]
Re^6: For whom would you vote, if you were an American? by v_o_i_d (Novice) on Nov 03, 2004 at 07:26 UTC
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.	[reply]
Re^7: For whom would you vote, if you were an American? by runrig (Abbot) on Nov 03, 2004 at 07:39 UTC
you assume all 100% of non-voters or 'abstainers' didn't want clinton by proxy. They didn't want him (or anyone else) bad enough to go vote for him (barring those who were involuntarily comatose, didn't get their absentee ballots, etc.).	[reply]
Re^8: For whom would you vote, if you were an American? by TStanley (Canon) on Nov 03, 2004 at 17:44 UTC
In the '96 election, I got my absentee ballot one week after the election was over. I didn't know it took 3 months for a ballot to travel from New Hampshire to Nebraska. TStanley -------- The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Edmund Burke	[reply]
Re^8: For whom would you vote, if you were an American? by v_o_i_d (Novice) on Nov 03, 2004 at 13:32 UTC
Also, I believe many people do not vote because voting is too time-consuming/they are too busy, they are simply indifferent, or the candidates they do 'like' have a microscopic chance in the universe of ever being elected under the current electoral system (true fact). In all of these cases, the voter may not explicitly like or dislike the candidates. tweaked So what is wrong with this post and the one I wrote before enough for it to be downvoted and me lose XP? I countered a fallacious argument. How is downvoting supposed to encourage 'the community' when an opinion is expressed?	[reply]


We don't bite newbies here... much
	PerlMonks