The undecided voter

[michaeljohn]

That's me. It will probably come down to picking the lesser of two evils, as it has for me for the last 20 years.

Let's look back a bit over that span...Bush Sr. vs. Dukakis. Neither man impressed me much at all. IMO both were ineffective. I believe the only time an eight year sitting Veep won when he took a shot.

Clinton won in 1992 with his charisma and campaign "America wants a change". He can thank Perot and the recession for that win. His health care plan he promised never came to light as the Democrats sat too smugly and proceeded to lose both Legislative branches in 1994.

1996, Clinton was still himself, and Dole offered little. I don't even remember who I voted for, maybe Nader in spite.

2000 Bush vs. Gore. Two dull men. Gore proved himself unworthy with his recount antics. Everyone seems to hate Bush. 1988 and 1960 saw the same results, an 8 year sitting Veep not allowed in.

2004. Bush vs. Kerry. Well, I stated earlier that Gore could have ran and won here, but he didn't play his cards right. Did we really need a change? Kerry was scary....

Now, the Democrats control both houses and stand to gain seats, in spite of the lowest approval rating for Congress in history. Could they get the executive office this time? If so, they need to remember 1992-1994 when they got voted out. I believe Obama is using the Clinton tactic of change in his message. He has charisma too, something I mentioned only three other presidents in recent times had: Kennedy, Reagan. and Clinton. Well, McCain will bring change too. Either leader deserves a chance, we may actually have two decent candidates. Or we may not...It still comes down to the VEEP choices, and I don't know much about them. Chances are either will end up as President before 2012, we all know why.

I have stated before one tactic is to vote all incumbents out....It will never work. If I was able to orchestrate such a scenario, I would have these results:

Executive office and House entirely independants. One third of the Senate independant. Equally divided between Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, etc....

Now, they work together, taking turns passing each other's independent agendas. With all the Democrats and Republicans looking on from the outside, they will have to get their act together if they want to get back in office. I don't think America will go to pieces in 2 years of independant control.

Otherwise, no matter who wins, we will be voting one major party out next election, and the other major party back in. We never learn.

Yeah, I know people are passionate about their party and candidates around here, but really. Each major party needs to get its shit together.

I remain undecided. Won't be saying much about this election. Just wanted to say that and give the undecided voter a chance to sound off with why they are undecided.

[yellowfish]

i feel every time i vote for the lesser of the 2 evils it only encorages the evil
i truly hate politics
they all lie and most get caught out
so if you vote for a liar you technicaly are encorageing them

sorry my 2c on politics

[shiiboi]

Whenever there is a less-than-enthralling choice among the major party candidates, I vote for a '3rd' party.

I agree with Yellowfish that voting 'the lesser of 2 evils" just encourages them. Not voting at all excludes you from being counted. The silent majority is the ignored majority.

Voting 3rd party makes a small move towards breaking the stranglehold the dems and repubs have given themselves on the electoral process. When '3rd' parties get sufficient votes in an election, they don't have to waste all of their resources just getting on the ballot in the next election. They also have to be invited to the presidential debates and will receive some attention from the newsmedia.

And if enough people voted for a 3rd party candidate, well they'd win wouldn't they? The republican party was a '3rd' party until 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was elected president. Don't fall for the dem and repub bullshit that voting for another party is 'wasting' your vote or taking away your voice. It's voting the lesser of 2 evils that does that.

Unfortunately, the 2 biggest '3rd' parties chose candidates from the republican and democrat parties this year.

The Libertarian candidate is Bob Barr-- just a right-of-center republican with a voting history counter to Libertarian goals. He's essentially Palin with actual government experience. But he's no Ron Paul.

The Green candidate is Cynthia McKinney, who believes all the lunatic 911 conspiracy theories. But her voting record as a congressional democrat is more centrist than Obama. And it's hard to believe that the Greens chose a candidate who is such an outspoken critic of Al Gore. I'd follow the money to see if she's being supported by any republican 527 groups trying to make her spoiler against Obama among blacks.

I still consider myself 'undecided,' right now, but I'll hold final judgement until after the presidential debates are over.

[CD]

I've read enough political posts from finley (aka michaeljohn), to seriously doubt he's undecided. I would bet that I'm not the only one who feels the same way. No offense.

Quick question... when was the last Democrat running for Pres that you voted for?

[licupssy]

Our constitution doesn't really support a 3 or more party system very well, since a majority of electoral college votes are needed to become president. As can be seen in the election of 1824 even though Jackson had the most popular and electoral votes, Adams won since only the top 3 candidates are eligible for the vote held by the House of Representatives and Clay as Speaker of the House threw his support to Adams and two Representatives didn't vote for Jackson even though Jackson had won in their states. (Since the Federalist party dissolved all the candidates were running as members of the same party.)

Right now we have 6 parties with candidates for President but there is no viable third party that would draw enough votes to get a majority. So in not voting or voting for a third party you're allowing someone else to determine who becomes president.

If you don't vote, your saying I'm going along with majority but if things go bad don't blame me.

Being idealistic and voting for a 3rd party candidate really takes things out of your hands. Even if your candidate gets any electoral votes and prevents the other candidates from getting a majority of the electoral votes then you giving the Presidency to which ever party has control of the votes in the House of representatives. That is complicated more with each state getting only one vote so for some states that's going to depend on which party has the most members in each of the larger states.

Until they come up with a "none of the above" choice. Where, if it gets a majority of votes, the election goes back to choosing new candidates and a new election. It's best to pick the best of the candidates with a chance for a majority. If your lucky they may be opposed by some one better in the next election so they don't end up president for two terms.

In the presidential election of 1824, Andrew Jackson received a plurality, but not a majority, of electoral votes cast. The election was thrown to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was elected to the presidency. In this case as well, a deep rivalry was fermented, this time between Andrew Jackson and House Speaker Henry Clay, who had also been a candidate in the election.

According to the current system, the same one used in the election of 1824, if no candidate wins a majority vote in the electoral, the President and Vice President are chosen per the 12th Amendment. The selection of President is decided by a ballot of the House of Representatives. For the purposes of electing the President, each state only has one vote. A ballot of the Senate is held to choose the Vice President. In this ballot, each senator has one vote. If the President is not chosen by Inauguration Day, the Vice President-elect acts as President. If neither are chosen by then, Congress by law determines who shall act as President, pursuant to the 20th Amendment.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/ElectoralCollege1824-Large.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Election_in_House1824-Large.PNG

[shiiboi]

Our constitution doesn't really support a 3 or more party system very well, since a majority of electoral college votes are needed to become president.
Actually, the framers of the constitution hoped that the provisions such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and indirect election of the president by an electoral college would deter the formation of parties, which are usually the result of systems with proportional representation.

Right now we have 6 parties with candidates for President but there is no viable third party that would draw enough votes to get a majority. So in not voting or voting for a third party you're allowing someone else to determine who becomes president.

If you don't vote, your saying I'm going along with majority but if things go bad don't blame me.
Your statement is completely backwards.
If you don't vote, you're allowing someone else to determine who becomes president. You're saying: "Ignore me."

Our constitution was written to elect candidates, NOT parties. The candidate who receives the most electoral votes wins. If you allow yourself to be tricked by the dems and repubs propaganda that they are the only viable candidates, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Vote for who you want and believe to be the best candidate, and the results are the results, period.

[licupssy]

Actually, the framers of the constitution hoped that the provisions such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and indirect election of the president by an electoral college would deter the formation of parties, which are usually the result of systems with proportional representation.
None of this makes any sense. The electoral college was a compromise between those that wanted congress to pick the president and those that wanted a popular vote. Each state could determine how electors were chosen. Although it's not done, electors may vote for whoever they want.

Although Washington opposed political parties feeling they would lead the country into civil war, you already had the division of Federalist and Anti-Federalist at the time of the 1789 election.

Your statement is completely backwards.
If you don't vote, you're allowing someone else to determine who becomes president. You're saying: "Ignore me."

Exactly what I said but I would say people, especially the poor don't vote, because they feel ignored and that it doesn't matter who wins the election. working class and poor people aren't middle class or rich.

Our constitution was written to elect candidates, NOT parties. The candidate who receives the most electoral votes wins. If you allow yourself to be tricked by the dems and repubs propaganda that they are the only viable candidates, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Does really make sense but for one thing you need a majority of the electoral college to win as noted in the 12th Amendment. If not the House votes on the President and the Senate picks the Vice President. In either cases you need to win by a majority. This is effectively noted in the election of 1824. Effectively you could end up with a mismatch of Obama and Palin or McCain and Bidin depending on how the vote went in the House and Senate.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[shiiboi]

The electoral college was a compromise between those that wanted congress to pick the president and those that wanted a popular vote. Each state could determine how electors were chosen.
Indirect election was adopted to address the concern that citizens in each state would vote for a 'favorite son' and no candidate would receive a majority. The electors were to be 'knowledgeable' and 'informed' citizens who would break the deadlock created by direct election- that's the basis of the electors' voting freedom.

see "The Electoral College" (http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php)


Although Washington opposed political parties feeling they would lead the country into civil war, you already had the division of Federalist and Anti-Federalist at the time of the 1789 election.
Federalists and Anti-Federalists were factions but not actual political parties. The first actual political party was the Democratic-Republican party formed from among the anti-federalist factions who organized to elect Thomas Jefferson in 1800 (Jefferson himself denounced the party that got him elected; Jefferson opposed political parties). The federalist party was quickly founded afterward to counter the D-C's. But both parties were disbanded because of unified patriotic sentiments during the war of 1812- historians call this 'The Era of Good Feelings.' This lasted until after the 1824 election you referred to in your earlier post. Andrew Jackson supporters believed that the election was stolen from him by a conspiracy between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay- they formed the modern Democrat party to get Jackson elected. Henry Clay countered the Democrats by founding the Whig party. The modern '2 party system' concept was based on the idea of a party in power and an opposition party-- but it has no basis in the consitution.
...as noted in the 12th Amendment. If not the House votes on the President and the Senate picks the Vice President. In either cases you need to win by a majority. This is effectively noted in the election of 1824.
The original election process outlined in the constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3) called for the President to be the candidate with the most votes, and the VP to be the candidate with the second highest votes. The 12th Amendment changed the process to elect president and vp separately, but it is still concerned only with CANDIDATES, not parties. There is no provision in the US constitution for the existence of parties, much less a mandate that there specifically be two.

[ravenshrike]

The Libertarian candidate is Bob Barr-- just a right-of-center republican with a voting history counter to Libertarian goals. He's essentially Palin with actual government experience. But he's no Ron Paul.

The Green candidate is Cynthia McKinney, who believes all the lunatic 911 conspiracy theories. But her voting record as a congressional democrat is more centrist than Obama. And it's hard to believe that the Greens chose a candidate who is such an outspoken critic of Al Gore. I'd follow the money to see if she's being supported by any republican 527 groups trying to make her spoiler against Obama among blacks.

Palin has expressed strong support for the Drug War? News to me. Mind you I doubt she's come out against it since the majority of the American public cannot separate an object from the will of the users. See Obama's and Biden's statements on guns for confirmation of this. But neither has she outright supported it to my knowledge, unlike Barr who most certainly has


As for your conspiracy theory on McKinney, I'm trying to decide if you truly believe that or if it's just second nature for you to accuse republicans of anything and everything.

[licupssy]

Indirect election was adopted to address the concern that citizens in each state would vote for a 'favorite son' and no candidate would receive a majority. The electors were to be 'knowledgeable' and 'informed' citizens who would break the deadlock created by direct election- that's the basis of the electors' voting freedom.
Actually the 2nd amendment does not state anything about a popular vote but allows each state to decide how the electors were chosen. What your referring to was the electors were in question so the 2nd amendment required them to vote for two people one of which could not be a resident of the electors state.
Federalists and Anti-Federalists were factions but not actual political parties.
Yes but it's the ideology of each that propagated them into becoming organized into parties.
The original election process outlined in the constitution (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3) called for the President to be the candidate with the most votes, and the VP to be the candidate with the second highest votes. .
Don't forget to become president you still needed a majority otherwise it fell on the house to vote for President out of the top 5 candidates and then that required a majority vote to pick a president and that to be decided before you could have a Vice President.

Regardless of the ability to run as a independent candidate, you can count the number of elected presidents that didn't belong to a political party on one finger. Things are a lot more complicated today and the only ones that can even get noticed would be someone like Ross Perot. In 1992 he got 19,000,000 of the popular votes and 0 electoral votes. When you consider the greatly lopsided electoral vote count between Bush and Clinton, it's greatly possible that he helped Clinton win the election. If they each had taken a percentage of the electoral votes compared to the popular vote then what ever party controlled the house would have picked the president. Taking it a bit father. If he had gotten the majority he would have be an ineffective since he would have been at the mercy of the Democrats and Republican in the House and Senate.

[michaeljohn]

I've read enough political posts from finley (aka michaeljohn), to seriously doubt he's undecided. I would bet that I'm not the only one who feels the same way. No offense.

Quick question... when was the last Democrat running for Pres that you voted for?
I wouldn't have made this topic if I was decided. You'll have to trust me, I speak the truth. I have no motivation to make a thread like this if I was decided, I want to see what other people like me have to say. I am tired of reading all the crap people post touting their candidates and slamming the others. I have no clue who I will vote for. Part of me wants to see Obama get in just to see what he can do, and part of me wants to see McCain get elected to see what he's made of. Obama can run again later, McCain is good for one shot. I think he even stated he would only try for one term. Besides, this election is about the VP too, you know as well as I that that one of them just may ascend to the highest office before 2012. i did say above I hardly know a thing abut them, so it's impossible for me to be decided. Please stay on topic, thanks.

You guys really don't know me, you just think you do.

[BackdoorJesus]

I remain undecided...Just wanted to say that and give the undecided voter a chance to sound off with why they are undecided.

How bout the rest of you people stop questioning the original poster's political leanings and stop with the civics lesson on how the electoral college works, and actually address his initial topic line, which I have courteously reposted for you above. :rolleyes:

[CD]

I wouldn't have made this topic if I was decided. You'll have to trust me, I speak the truth. I have no motivation to make a thread like this if I was decided, I want to see what other people like me have to say. I am tired of reading all the crap people post touting their candidates and slamming the others. I have no clue who I will vote for. Part of me wants to see Obama get in just to see what he can do, and part of me wants to see McCain get elected to see what he's made of. Obama can run again later, McCain is good for one shot. I think he even stated he would only try for one term.

You guys really don't know me, you just think you do.
I'll ask again: "Quick question... when was the last Democrat running for Pres that you voted for?"

I've just heard a lot of negativity from you regarding pretty much every Democrat running, so I questioned how "undecided" you really were.

Back on topic:
I look at McCain and see that he may cut down on the wasteful spending better then Obama would. However, I look at Obama and see that he may cut out unnecessary fighting in Iraq which would save possibly more money per year. Most of you know I'm all about the paying off of the debt, so if we could only combine their goals, we'd be set!

There are aspects about McCain that I like (especially Palin :coold: ) just like there are aspects of Obama that I like. I guess the only reason I'm leaning towards Obama currently is that I don't see this country erasing our huge deficit by just cutting out wasteful spending and keeping the current tax cuts from W Bush.

[shiiboi]

How bout the rest of you people stop questioning the original poster's political leanings and stop with the civics lesson on how the electoral college works, and actually address his initial topic line, which I have courteously reposted for you above. :rolleyes:
Honestly BDJ, I don't think this thread has spun offtopic yet.
CD's questioning Finley's 'undecidedness' was a legitimate challenge to the premise of his post-- not an ad hominem attack.

The 'civics lesson' was also on topic. My response to Finley's request for undecided's was that I include more than just the 2 major party candidates in my decision-making process.

Licupssy argued that our election system cannot support more than 2 parties. I argued back that our election system does not support parties at all, much less 2 specific ones. At this point we're arguing past each other so I won't pursue that line anymore here.

This is probably the most useful and timely topic posted in EOH in a while (or at least the first one not about oil). I think Fin is capable of standing up for himself?

[BackdoorJesus]

I'm not defending anyone, I am just trying to direct the conversation (moderate, if you will) in the direction that the original poster intended. And sometimes my dear friend licupssy can veer quite a ways off track, but regardless...

My indecision this year stems from the fact that we do not have two very good choices from the two major parties, and the candidate from my own Libertarian party is not really a Libertarian so I can't even throw my vote in that direction as I have been able to do in the past when faced with no better choice.

Additionally, I have seen this whole "sweep out all the bad old politics, and bring in a fresh new change" mentality before...in the 1976 election, and I don't want a re-run of that where people just vote for a hollow promise of something different that never can deliver, simply because it's supposedly different. Not buying that crap again.

The last time I voted & felt truly comfortable with it, and more importantly that my vote was making a difference, was when I voted for Perot.

[shiiboi]

As for why I am still undecided:

I've always respected McCain's willingness to stand up for a certain policy even when it was risky. I believe that he genuinely wants to lead.

But McCain himself declared that he doesn't have a firm grasp on domestic economics. He shows evidence of his ignorance when he uses increases in GDP as evidence that the economy is strong (the GDP is artificially inflated by the wartime military budget, funded by deficit spending which is tightening credit markets for private industry-- a growing disaster). He's promised to choose advisors from among all political factions to help him manage domestic policy-- but Bush promised the same, and W's adminstration has been a case of the wolves handed the keys to the henhouse.

I've read Obama's books and I believe that he is a genuinely a new kind of politician. His views are driven more by a pragmatic view of what will be effective than ideology or political theory. He is essentially a problem solver. He has Reagan-like charisma and personal power.

Unfortunately, unlike Reagan, Obama has little experience getting major policy decisions implemented. His congressional voting record literally is one of not voting. As an 'outsider,' particularly one who has pissed-off the Clinton wing of the Democrat party, he may find himself in the Jimmy Carter seat as president. Like Obama, Carter was an outsider and by the second year of his presidency the republicans and democrats were united in their opposition to him, resulting in a horrible recession and a foreign policy in shambles.

So with both candidates there is an experience gap, for which there is no shortage of crooks looking to exploit. Perhaps it's not fair to either candidate to use Carter or Bush as examples.

I've already stated my dismay about the Libertarian and Green party candidates.

I'm hoping the debates will clear up some of my fears, so I remain uncommited until then.

[michaeljohn]

I said in my first post, I will have little to say about this election. I see the electoral college as a hurdle for any third party candidate. Look at 1992, Perot got 0 votes in the electoral college, but took enough votes away from Bush to assure Clinton would be elected. There are plenty of other examples in history.

I gave my solution, which will never happen. Or wait a minute, maybe it will. That's a whole new topic, but whether you are religious or not, you have to be aware that biblical prophecy tells us the AntiChrist will appear on the scene with all the answers. All he has to do is tell everyone to vote out the incumbents, replace with independants, and it will happen if the prophecy is true. Biblical prophecy aside, we have a chance to do it on our own, but we won't. We just keep repeating the cycle.

Who have I voted for over the years? Jeez, ask a woman how many guys she has fucked. Some things are considered rude. I will say this, I have been registered both Republican and Democrat in my lifetime and I have been registered "Decline-to-State" for as long as can remember. It all started in 1988 for me, as I stated in initial post.

I'll be undecided until November I am afraid. Please keep giving your reasons why you are undecided. We are a pretty big force, and every party wants to swing us to their side.

[shiiboi]

...the electoral college as a hurdle for any third party candidate.The electoral college hurdle is the same for every candidate.

The special problem '3rd party' candidates face are state ballot rules. If a party receives fewer than a certain percentage of votes in an election, they must collect a certain number of signatures on a petition to get a candidate on the ballot in future elections. While in political office, dems & repubs set these vote percentages directly below their own numbers, and set the petition signature numbers unreasonably high, so that while they are on the ballot automatically, '3rd' party candidates have to spend half their money just getting listed.

In the last presidential election, the dems challenged in court every single one of the signatures Nader collected to get on the ballot-- causing him to spend all his campaign money on lawyers and court costs instead of campaigning.

These rules are not fair and they can be changed if we demand it.

...Perot ... took enough votes away from Bush to assure Clinton would be elected.This is the brainwashing that the dems and repubs have foisted on the american public.

Perot's votes did not belong to Bush. Citizens who voted for Perot wanted Perot to be president. It they'd wanted Bush, they would have voted for Bush. In the same way, Nader's votes did not belong to Gore or Kerry either.

Saying that Perot 'took votes away' from Bush is the same as saying that Clinton took enough votes away from Bush to get elected. But isn't that how it works? People vote and the majority wins.

But apparently, people often don't vote for the candidate they actually want because they are bullied or frightened into voting for a major party candidate-- or more correctly against a certain candidate.

That's why negative campaigning is used so frequently. They don't try to convince undecideds to vote for a candidate, but rather to vote against the other major party candidate. This trick can only work if voters can be convinced that only the 2 major party candidates can win. Don't be fooled.

[ravenshrike]

In all these elections, people voted and the majority won. But apparently many didn't vote for the candidate they actually wanted because they were bullied or frightened into voting for a major party candidate.

And if there wasn't ever a candidate you wanted to vote for? The Lib party always nominates idiots who don't understand if you want to get anything done you have to educate people about why you want what you want. The Green Party is full of loonies, as evidenced by the nomination of McKinney, a woman who herself is batshit crazy. The CP is hardline isolationist, which is not workable in the current globalized environment. As well they want to give the states even more power than they have, not just limit federal power. No thanks, fuckers like Daley are Tyrants enough without even more power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJtB4vWLfv0

[shiiboi]

And if there wasn't ever a candidate you wanted to vote for? The Lib party always nominates idiots who don't understand if you want to get anything done you have to educate people about why you want what you want. The Green Party is full of loonies, as evidenced by the nomination of McKinney, a woman who herself is batshit crazy. The CP is hardline isolationist, which is not workable in the current globalized environment. As well they want to give the states even more power than they have, not just limit federal power. No thanks, fuckers like Daley are Tyrants enough without even more power.In my opinion, this is the result of the unfair system the 2 majors have created. Within the 2 majors are many different rational factions who would split off into their own parties if the deck wasn't so stacked against '3rd' parties.

Candidates who run on 3rd party tickets knowing that they're unlikely to win under the current unfair system usually have a personal agenda.

I suspect that Barr & McKinney's choice to switch to 3rd parties this election cycle was the result of Joe Lieberman's success running as an independent in Connecticut in the last election. They're hoping to draw national attention (and hopefully a noticable percentage of votes) from the dissatisfied among their 'real parties' - thus gaining some power for themselves when they return to those parties.

For their part, the 3rd party organizations are hoping that having nationally-known candidates on their tickets this year will finally get them automatic places on the ballots in the future.

[BackdoorJesus]

In my opinion, this is the result of the unfair system the 2 majors have created. Within the 2 majors are many different rational factions who would split off into their own parties if the deck wasn't so stacked against '3rd' parties.

On a side note I think that this point is particularly apparent in the Democratic Party this election cycle.

I maintain that their candidate is really going to have a much tougher time of it than a Democrat actually should against a Republican in this election simply because their party is so fractious that nearly one half of them tenaciously supported another candidate, and some still do.

The far left barely beat out the moderates for the nomination of that party and now there is still quite a bit of dissension in their ranks even though they spin that they are "going to unify for the good of the party".

Unfortunately for them, in choosing the inexperienced far left candidate rather than choosing the more experienced centrist candidate, they have made the road more difficult for their own unification, for sure, but now it is also more difficult for them to secure the swing voters (myself included) who are way more centrist.

But what would have happened should the party have actually split up, half behind Clinton and the other half behind Obama?

Surely the Republicans would win in that scenario - or would they? If the fact that there would be no money behind the candidate that split off were not an issue, I would imagine a decent 3-way split with it still being anyone's election to win or lose, and probably the Republicans would win but perhaps there would be more lost to a candidate able be positioned between the two major parties inasmuch as most voters really are positioned somewhere in between as it is.

Unfortunately, the money is the thing though isn't it? It just takes too much to run a successful campaign and without major party backing this is all a fantasy really. Perot could only do it because he had a shitload of his own money to make himself a viable candidate, but if money were not such a huge factor in party loyalty, where might we be?

I would be leaning more towards Clinton than McCain at this point, yet I am leaning more towards McCain than Obama as things currently are...how many other undecideds would also be rethinking it? We can only speculate.

[shiiboi]

I maintain that their candidate is really going to have a much tougher time of it than a Democrat actually should against a Republican in this election simply because their party is so fractious that nearly one half of them tenaciously supported another candidate, and some still do.I think you're right plus McCain is a likable guy who many pro Hilary democrats won't fear to have in office for the next 4 years while Hilary rebuilds her campaign for the next election.

But what would have happened should the party have actually split up, half behind Clinton and the other half behind Obama?I think that scenario would have resulted in a 3-way close race only if Hilary won the nomination and Obama split off as an independent.

I don't see Obama as the left-wing democrat choice- Edwards was. Obama's victory was secured by independents, first-time voters and disaffected republicans, who would continued to support him as an independent. And he is a fundraising powerhouse.

The reverse, a Hilary independent candidacy, would have been a disaster all around. The Centrist party faithful wouldn't have broken ranks-- they are the ones who told her to get out of the race when the results seemed inevitable.
-----

I'd like to toss another variable out for the undecided crowd: how have the VP choices influenced your opinion?

[michaeljohn]

Well, I remain undecided. I missed all the debates, no time. Hell, I only have 50 posts in the last four weeks, I used to get that done in two days. I can say this about the Republicans, Bush's policies have been very very good for my profession. Governor Schwarznegger has fucked up what Bush did, at least for now. He has failed to pass legislation that would further crimp my opportunities and has underlings in the state assembly trying to rework what he failed with. I'll keep doing what I'm doing and it won't matter who is governor.

We are going to get change, no matter who is elected. Both main candidates deserve a chance. Maybe we should rework it this time so the loser becomes Vice President? Yeah, I know that's impossible, but the idea has merit.

[ravenshrike]

Maybe we should rework it this time so the loser becomes Vice President? Yeah, I know that's impossible, but the idea has merit.
Originally that was the plan. The person with the 2nd most electoral votes was to become VP to the President. However, as long as the senate remains popular vote(which would need an amendment to change it back) it wouldn't make any sense to go back to that way of VP pick.

[michaeljohn]

Well, I am back. As I said in my first post in this thread, my disenchantment with those running for president started in 1988, I haven't really liked any major candidate all that much since then and whoever I voted for I felt was the lesser of two evils. From what I have seen in this campaign, I can honestly say I have nothing against either major candidate, or their running mates. I think both deserve a chance. However, edge to the Democrats for VP. Where I live, obama will win the electoral votes, so my vote only means I exercised my rights. It's all going to come down to the swing states, and I don't live in one. Kind of frustrating to know my vote won't make a difference, but I am not alone. Time for me to have a closer look at who else is running. I do not believe in apathy. I just practice procrastination and my time is running out to make up my mind.

[joerockhead]

I do live in a swing state.

I will vote, and vote on all items.
All new member's of Congress as well.

[shiiboi]

I just practice procrastination and my time is running out to make up my mind.
There have been a few times when I made my final decision in the voting booth, holding my breath.

[rjsincs]

the way i see this election is this: ask yourself 2 questions: 1. do you like the way the country is going as far as war/ economy/ social/ and political issues. and 2. do you make more than 100,000 dollars a year. if you answer no to either of those then you want obama. if you say yes than you want mccain. its simple as that.

its not a knock or an endorsement. i would def say that for some people that mccain is the way to go. he is a very bright person who is more than capable of running this country. however obama in different ways is just as capable. i dont think we all out lose with either candidate. however i do believe obama will be better for the majority of the country.

its no secret who im voting for but its not that i hate mccain its just that i feel obama would better help me and my friends and family as well as most people that i can relate to and associate with. i feel that mccain will cater to the rich people who are well enough already.


unfortunately this maybe more than any other election you have a longevity issue with both candidates. mccain with the age and obama with the death threats. so you should also be very cautious of your vp also. i congratulate sarah palin for how far she has gotten but i dont think shes prepared or intelligent to be president. being govener of one of the most remote and sparsely populated states is not the same as being governor of california, new york, texas, pennsylvania etc alaska may be huge but most of it is baren tundra with few people living there.

i def dont agree with a lot of things with biden but he is light years ahead of palin in terms of capability, intelligence and experience.

btw i appreciate that the spell check on mccain recommends cocaine as the correct spelling and obama as Alabama haha