If the election was held today...

[Event]

Who would you vote for if you could vote, Bush, Kerry or Nader?

I'd definately vote for Kerry. If Bush is elected again, he won't have to worry about another election and he will run this country into the crapper.

EDIT: If you do vote for Nader in this poll, who would you vote for if Nader wasn't running?

 

[87chevy]

I proudly voted for, and will vote for............. NADER!!!!!!!! Ha, that's right, i said it and let me tell you why:

I will vote for Nader because he won't get elected. And, when Bush or Kerry takes office, and starts ****ing our nation up, i will have the right to complain about it becuase i didn't put either one into office. I can't stand America's current political system. You only have two choices> Democrat or Republican. The lesser of two evils. Ok, Bush is screwing up. But Kerry will just screw up in other ways. I also think, that if you are over 18, not a felon, and don't vote, you have no place to complain about who's in office.

 

[Event]

I proudly voted for, and will vote for............. NADER!!!!!!!! Ha, that's right, i said it and let me tell you why:

I will vote for Nader because he won't get elected. And, when Bush or Kerry takes office, and starts ****ing our nation up, i will have the right to complain about it becuase i didn't put either one into office. I can't stand America's current political system. You only have two choices> Democrat or Republican. The lesser of two evils. Ok, Bush is screwing up. But Kerry will just screw up in other ways. I also think, that if you are over 18, not a felon, and don't vote, you have no place to complain about who's in office.

Who would you vot for if Nader wasn't running?

 

[87chevy]

Perot!!!! whoever was in his place probably. Or i would write in a name or something. (wait, can you do that for a pres. election?)

 

[Sage]

You know, I was listening to something on the radio yesterday that made a good deal of sense (*gasp!*) – The Primaries are what drive the elections down the crapper. Because the primaries are voted on by people who are dedicated Democrats/Republicans, you tend to get the more "radical" (I use that term loosely) candidates, instead of the more moderate ones.

Even though many thought that the California recall/election was a fiasco, it actually turned out great, because there was no primary to weed out potentially good candidates – Instead, everyone had an equal shot, and voila!, we get Arnold, who's quite moderate and willing to make good compromises between the left and right. And it works well. This presidential election's a dog's breakfast though.

 

[Duke]

Michael Badnarik.

 

[87chevy]

You know, I was listening to something on the radio yesterday that made a good deal of sense (*gasp!*) – The Primaries are what drive the elections down the crapper. Because the primaries are voted on by people who are dedicated Democrats/Republicans, you tend to get the more "radical" (I use that term loosely) candidates, instead of the more moderate ones.

Even though many thought that the California recall/election was a fiasco, it actually turned out great, because there was no primary to weed out potentially good candidates – Instead, everyone had an equal shot, and voila!, we get Arnold, who's quite moderate and willing to make good compromises between the left and right. And it works well. This presidential election's a dog's breakfast though.

ah, primaries, what a great institution. You have to be a member of one of the parties to vote in them. so all those people who want to support the lesser known, more moderate canidate in, can't support him/her through the primary unless they are registered as a member of the proper party. It's ridiculous, primaries should be different, or not at all.

 

[Frenchie4256]

87Chevy,
I voted for Nadar last time, and now I think it was a mistake. I really think America would be better off with a parlimentary system, but I know that won't happen. At the very least, we need a supreme court that will point out that the "two party system" is not enshrined in the constitution and that EVERY state has to allow EVERY party over so many members in elections. Yes, even Libertarians!

I will hold my nose and vote for Kerry. I know he will make mistakes, but at least they won't be the same ones W is making now. Besides - he's the "French looking candidate" according to the formerly fat guy on the radio.

 

[Solid Fro]

I scares the **** out of me that John Kerry has yet to lay out a foreign policy. What is he waiting on? Is he waiting for another 767 go flying through a skyscraper?

I'm voting for Bush.

 

[87chevy]

87Chevy,
I voted for Nadar last time, and now I think it was a mistake. I really think America would be better off with a parlimentary system, but I know that won't happen. At the very least, we need a supreme court that will point out that the "two party system" is not enshrined in the constitution and that EVERY state has to allow EVERY party over so many members in elections. Yes, even Libertarians!

We may yet become good buddies. It's almost scary to see someone who thinks so alike myself on this issue. I never would have dreamed of bringing up the Parlimentary system idea here. I also believe it would be much better for america. We could still call it the House and the Senate though. That House of Lords and Commons things is for Blokes Well, i'm not going to bring up the last election. Too much of a mess. But this time i think Kerry will even without the votes Nader will get. But if it comes down to it that it looks to be a close one, i just might say a prayer and vote for Kerry.

So what do you think about the Electoral College?

 

[Duke]

At the very least, we need a supreme court that will point out that the "two party system" is not enshrined in the constitution and that EVERY state has to allow EVERY party over so many members in elections. Yes, even Libertarians!

Actually, every state does allow every party (no matter how few members) to be in the general election, as long as you get your candidacy registered.

But if you are going to have a primary, your party needs to have X number of members before the state will hold a primary election for you. This is because the primaries are only to choose candidates to represent each particular party, not to decide who is allowed to run at all.

When I was registered in Maryland, there were enough members that there was a Libertarian primary. In Delaware, there are not that many of us, so we don't get a primary - but I'm still allowed to register as Libertarian.

 

[Shadow]

I'm voting for...Bill Clinton!💡


All messing around aside though, I would vote for Bush, because although Bush is screwing things up right now, Kerry would screw something else up just as bad.

 

[Frenchie4256]

The Electoral College was a brilliant idea for an 18th century agrarian population. No matter what some of the posters think, it's not the 18th century anymore. The problem is, if we decide on a simple majority vote, four states can pretty much take the election. It's a lot more complicated than either side pretends it is. I really don't know what the answer is.

 

[Klostrophobic]

I'd vote for none of the above. And in November I plan to exercise my right to vote for someone with a reasonable platform. I've done zero research on this at this point, so I don't know who is getting my vote.

It's a shame that only Kerry and Bush have a chance at being elected, though.

 

[Jordan]

George Bush will be getting my vote. Putting that weak, isolationist Kerry in office would give it just enough time for more trouble to brew around the world, so that another Republican would be left to clean up his mess and take the blame for his problems.

 

[Dorifto]

I'd vote for none of the above.

Thank you Mr. Brewster.

 

[Frenchie4256]

Say what you will about Kerry (not my favorite) but he's not an isolationist, unless, of course, you wish to redefine the term. Bush does not want allies, so I'd guess he would be the isolationist. Both candidates will insert America's will into the wider world, Bush will do it alone. America is not exempt from history.

 

[Famine]

Actually, every state does allow every party (no matter how few members) to be in the general election, as long as you get your candidacy registered.

But if you are going to have a primary, your party needs to have X number of members before the state will hold a primary election for you. This is because the primaries are only to choose candidates to represent each particular party, not to decide who is allowed to run at all.

When I was registered in Maryland, there were enough members that there was a Libertarian primary. In Delaware, there are not that many of us, so we don't get a primary - but I'm still allowed to register as Libertarian.

Okay... I never "got" Republicans and Democrats anyway... What the flaming Satan's knickers is a "Libertarian"?

 

[Danoff]

What the flaming Satan's knickers is a "Libertarian"?

They usually sound a lot like Duke and myself. Small government, maximum freedom.

 

[Famine]

I see... perhaps you're best placed to explain what the difference between a Republican and a Democrat is - where they graze and what they eat, for example.

It's all Greek to me - all we see over here are a pair of animals with stars and stripes on them.

 

[87chevy]

I see... perhaps you're best placed to explain what the difference between a Republican and a Democrat is - where they graze and what they eat, for example.

It's all Greek to me - all we see over here are a pair of animals with stars and stripes on them.

^

which would you rather have for your president, an elaphant or an ass?

 

[Danoff]

I see... perhaps you're best placed to explain what the difference between a Republican and a Democrat is - where they graze and what they eat, for example.

Easy, Democrats care about their fellow man - wanting to help out those who are less fortunate. Republicans are evil greedy bastards who only want to hurt everyone else.

Pretty easy right? Odd that so many elections are so close when its so obvious which party is better...

Ok just kidding, here is the real definition.

Democrats stand for social freedom and fiscal oppression.
Republicans (recently) stand for fiscal freedom and social oppression.
Libertarians stand for social freedom and fiscal freedom.
Green Party stands for... basically they're hardcore democrats. So they're not really a real party.

 

[Frenchie4256]

Yes, American political parties are hard to understand, sometimes even for Americans. The Democrats are sort of halfway between the UK Conservatives and the "New" Labour Party.
The UK has no equivilent of the Republicans, as far as I know, just as America has no true leftist party, except for those little things that grow up in Chicago or the East Village, print a newsleter, then die.
The most humorous thing to me is that American conservatives think the Democrats are leftists! If there ever was an actual leftist party in the States, even a mild one like the "old" Labour Party, the Republicans would go crazy.
A friend of mine did a project for grad school comparing Bill Cllinton's social legislation against Richard Nixon's. Nixon was about 30% more liberal, yet the Republicans thought that Clinton was Castro without the beard. I guess most of the Republicans today are too young to remember the "liberals" of the 1950-1960's. They would make Kerry look like Rush Limbaugh.
America has been drifting right for 30 years, and no one remembers what a real liberal is anymore.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, American political parties are hard to understand, sometimes even for Americans.

Doesn't seem that difficult to me. I outlined it above.

A friend of mine did a project for grad school comparing Bill Cllinton's social legislation against Richard Nixon's.

I'd like to see that paper and just how the conclusions were reached.

 

[Solid Lifters]

George Bush will be getting my vote. Putting that weak, isolationist Kerry in office would give it just enough time for more trouble to brew around the world, so that another Republican would be left to clean up his mess and take the blame for his problems.

My exact thoughts.

Bush is broccoli, Kerry is apple pie. Kerry might taste good, for the moment, but Bush is better for you. When choosing a president, always go for what is good for you.

I'm voting for Bush. Why do so many think he's going to ruin the country? Aren't things fine? Yes, they are.

Yes, things could be better, but they could always be better. It's when things need to better, and solutions are presented to make them better, that's when you know that things are fine. Things are fine.

 

[Frenchie4256]

I must be the old guy here, so I'll take it upon myself to teach history (like I don't do enough of that). Before Ronald Regan, Republicans were not "small government" types. Sure, there were some around, but not only did they not control the party, they were barely detectable. Republicans back in the 60's -70's defined themselves against Democrats by their foreign policy. Richard Nixon signed one of the largest "welfare" increase bills since 1964. If you do not consider their foreign/defence policies, Nixon and Ford were NOT conservative by the current Reganesque litmus test.
When I arrived in DC at the end of the Watergate period, a "liberal" was as likely to be a Republican as a Democrat.

 

[Danoff]

Democrats stand for social freedom and fiscal oppression.
Republicans (recently) stand for fiscal freedom and social oppression.
Libertarians stand for social freedom and fiscal freedom.
Green Party stands for... basically they're hardcore democrats. So they're not really a real party.

This is, in my view, an accurate description of the parties today.

 

[ledhed]

Reagan redefined the republican party, before him the party was drifting to the left to get elected. I agree that Nixons social policys were alot more liberal than Clintons, the drift to the right came about IMO because Jimmy Carter was about the worse president in modern times and scared even the democrats. Then you had the republican landslides of the 80's forcing the democrats to drift to the right to even get considered for election. I can't see a true liberal democrat being elected in these times.

 

[Duke]

I must be the old guy here, so I'll take it upon myself to teach history (like I don't do enough of that). Before Ronald Regan, Republicans were not "small government" types.

Republicans (recently) stand for fiscal freedom and social oppression.

danoff mentioned that.

On another note: as if I would consider voting for Kerry any way (not on your tintype - you think Bush is arrogant? You should hear how Kerry talks to his own citizens), but I'm really getting pissed off at the Democrats lately.

I would never ever vote for Ralph Nader for anything above Dog Catcher, but dammit, he has the right to run for election if he wants to. The Democrats in numerous states are actually suing to keep him off the polls, because they are scared he will cost them this election. They've filed nuisance lawsuits claiming his petition numbers are faked. They are also pressuring the hell out of him privately (he was told "get your ass out of this race immediately", in literally those words) during a meeting with head Democrats.

That's bullpuckey. Shut up and run your man. If he's that damn good, he'll get elected.

 

[Brett]

Michael Badnarik.

The more and more I think about who I am going to vote for, the more I am drawn to this guy, being that he is the Libertarian candidate. It is nice to know there is another Libertarian here at GTP. Though I am not registered as one--registered Republican, mainly on the basis so that I am eligible to vote in the presidential primaries; here in the state of Oklahoma, the primaries are closed--I truly am attracted to what the Libertarians believe in politically.

ah, primaries, what a great institution. You have to be a member of one of the parties to vote in them. so all those people who want to support the lesser known, more moderate canidate in, can't support him/her through the primary unless they are registered as a member of the proper party. It's ridiculous, primaries should be different, or not at all.

Actually, this is not true.

It all depends on what state you live in; this is based on whether your state holds a closed, open, or blanket primary. The most common form of the primary is the closed primary, in which voters must be registered members of the political party or declare their party affiliation before they are allowed to vote in that party’s primary election; voters may participate in a different party’s primary in subsequent elections if they change their party registration. About 40 of the 50 states use closed primaries. An open primary is on in which any voter can vote in any party's primary; voters are given the ballots of all parties and select the party ballot on which they wish to vote in the secrecy of the voting booth. Having selected the ballot of one party, however, the voter in the open primary is confined to the candidates of that party and cannot vote for candidates of an opposing party. A few states use the blanket primary. In this type of primary, the names of all candidates of all parties are printed on a single ballot, and the voter may vote for a candidate for each office, crossing party lines at will.

Voting laws and primary laws are all done by the state. So if you do not like the ways things are run, they need to be changed at the state level.

I scares the **** out of me that John Kerry has yet to lay out a foreign policy. What is he waiting on? Is he waiting for another 767 go flying through a skyscraper?

I'm voting for Bush.

Definitely agree with this, though I do not know about the Bush part yet--I am thinking Michael Badnarik sounds like a good candidate to vote for being that I am a Libertarian. But if I had to pick between Kerry and Bush, I would pick Bush. I do not mean this in an offensive way to anyone who agrees with him, but Kerry is an idiot!

The Electoral College was a brilliant idea for an 18th century agrarian population. No matter what some of the posters think, it's not the 18th century anymore. The problem is, if we decide on a simple majority vote, four states can pretty much take the election. It's a lot more complicated than either side pretends it is. I really don't know what the answer is.

Actually the Electoral College is still a brilliant idea to have in effect today. Like you said, though I do not know if it is true, if only four states could elect president, then the smaller less populated states would have a lesser vote in who becomes elected. This means smaller states and their voters would have a smaller say in what happens in our government, and thus meaning their vote would mean less than say a voters' in a larger state. By having the Electoral College, it keeps the system much more balanced for the states. Plus, do you truly want a bunch of uninformed voters affecting an election of this magnitude in a much more dramatic way?

George Bush will be getting my vote. Putting that weak, isolationist Kerry in office would give it just enough time for more trouble to brew around the world, so that another Republican would be left to clean up his mess and take the blame for his problems.

Though I think I will be voting for Badnarik, at least you agree with me on Kerry.

On another note: as if I would consider voting for Kerry any way (not on your tintype - you think Bush is arrogant? You should hear how Kerry talks to his own citizens), but I'm really getting pissed off at the Democrats lately.

I would never ever vote for Ralph Nader for anything above Dog Catcher, but dammit, he has the right to run for election if he wants to. The Democrats in numerous states are actually suing to keep him off the polls, because they are scared he will cost them this election. They've filed nuisance lawsuits claiming his petition numbers are faked. They are also pressuring the hell out of him privately (he was told "get your ass out of this race immediately", in literally those words) during a meeting with head Democrats.

That's bullpuckey. Shut up and run your man. If he's that damn good, he'll get elected.

Definitely agree with all of this post. Has anyone actually seen a positive message from Kerry at all? All I have seen is negative campaigning and nothing else at all.

Any candidate that can get on the ballot--by this I mean, get all the required signatures, etc. that states require to have your name put on the ballot--then by all means they should be allowed to be on the ballot. The Democrats suing? What kind of crap is that? Like duke said and quoting him, "Shut up and run your man. If he's that damn good, he'll get elected". This is brilliant truth! I would also like to say, if I were ever asked to sign a paper to allow a person to be able to run, I would gladly sign it. A person should not be denied the right to run because of not being able to get the signatures required. And actually in the last election, Nader was not on the Oklahoma ballot, as he did not get enough signatures or something along those lines. But say if I was asked to sign to allow him to run, I definitely would.