Will you vote for your party's candidate? - Page 2

Joe_Cool · 07-30-2007, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

i'll be voting for my party (LP) candidate unless Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, and even then i may write him in.

and those of you saying it is a "wasted vote" can fuck off, who i vote for is my business and you really have no right to question the validity of my decision.

Actually, I have every right to question anything I choose. And you have every right to do as you please with no regard for what I think. Isn't freedom great?

Publius · 07-30-2007, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Actually, I have every right to question anything I choose. And you have every right to do as you please with no regard for what I think. Isn't freedom great?

Marginalizing my rights is not a legitimate use of your rights even within a libertarian society, but nice try.

DosEquis · 07-30-2007, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

i'll be voting for my party (LP) candidate unless Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, and even then i may write him in.

and those of you saying it is a "wasted vote" can fuck off, who i vote for is my business and you really have no right to question the validity of my decision.

Who you votin for?

Woah, Woah, .. dave.. i am trying to tell you about fucking my wife in the ass and you keep asking me all these personal questions.

/dave chappelle

ballz2wallz · 07-30-2007, 11:13 AM

For those that insist on voting for 'anybody they want' despite them not being a candidate, remember, that's what the primaries are for. The system is set up for people like you to be able to choose 'anybody you want'. In the end, I feel it's best to vote based on what's actually going to affect the country and your life.

Joe_Cool · 07-30-2007, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Marginalizing my rights is not a legitimate use of your rights even within a libertarian society, but nice try.

My having an opinion on what you do with your vote marginalizes your rights?

Publius · 07-30-2007, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

My having an opinion on what you do with your vote marginalizes your rights?

By waving the "if you vote for X, Y will lose to Z, and Z is worse than Y!" argument, it is an attempt to marginalize my right to choose freely by attempting to influence my choice in a fallacious manner.

Joe_Cool · 07-30-2007, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

By waving the "if you vote for X, Y will lose to Z, and Z is worse than Y!" argument, it is an attempt to marginalize my right to choose freely by attempting to influence my choice in a fallacious manner.

Since you still have your right to cast your vote as you see fit, that's just silly. If you allow yourself to be influenced by my opinion, that's your choice. If you don't, that's also your choice.

How exactly do you reach the conclusion that I don't have the right to an opinion on your voting habits? I thought you were pro-liberty. I've got the right to say and think whatever I like about how you vote, and you've got the right to vote any way you like.

Joe_Cool · 07-30-2007, 05:30 PM

And it's not fallacious. A 3rd party candidate splits the vote of the party he's ideologically closest to, and the opposing party wins. See: Theodore Roosevelt, Ross Perot. And possibly even Ralph Nader.

thomez · 07-30-2007, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The consequences of voting for nobody are also grave. It allows people to put into power someone you REALLY don't want, as opposed to someone you kinda don't want.

If you always vote for the lesser of 2 evils you'll always have evil.

Thorgrim · 07-30-2007, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

If you always vote for the lesser of 2 evils you'll always have evil.

No one is perfect, and even if some magical reform/libertarian party came into existance and swept into power...it'd influence them just like the others, and you'd be asking for 'real change' yet again

Dkos and others believe in taking the much better of the "two evils" and rehabilitating them, rather than casting them aside and waiting for a miracle

that's a long wait for a train that don't come

ballz2wallz · 07-30-2007, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

If you always vote for the lesser of 2 evils you'll always have evil.

And if you never vote for anybody that's going to do anything, you might end up with the worse of two evils

thomez · 07-30-2007, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And if you never vote for anybody that's going to do anything, you might end up with the worse of two evils

Honestly I don't see either major party as much worse than the other. I agree with either one very rarely.

Linzyhop · 07-31-2007, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And if you never vote for anybody that's going to do anything, you might end up with the worse of two evils

i was going to write in a party last election, and instead i went with the
"lesser" of the two evils. see what good that did?

garbagemanlb · 08-03-2007, 02:27 PM

I basically will likely vote for the Democratic nominee unless it is Hillary, in which case I will vote third party.

I'd prefer Richardson, but I would vote for Obama or Edwards as well.

JaJae · 08-03-2007, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, Richardson has a lot of relevant experience, but he's been really horrible in the debates so far, like he can't quite be eloquent enough to really do justice to his long list of accomplishments.. and that's where people really begin to know the candidates

I like Richardson a lot as well. I don't think he's gotten his fair shake in the debates though. He doesn't get many questions or much time to speak and the questions he does get are usually pretty stupid.

Joe_Cool · 08-03-2007, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

i was going to write in a party last election, and instead i went with the
"lesser" of the two evils. see what good that did?

Voting for a 3rd party candidate instead of Kerry wouldn't have made Bush less likely to lose. It would have made Bush's margin of victory LARGER.

You don't get to claim that the system is broken just because the guy you don't like won.

Linzyhop · 08-13-2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Voting for a 3rd party candidate instead of Kerry wouldn't have made Bush less likely to lose. It would have made Bush's margin of victory LARGER.

You don't get to claim that the system is broken just because the guy you don't like won.

who said the system was broken?

i was just bitching.

Joe_Cool · 08-13-2007, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

who said the system was broken? i was just bitching.

ah, gotcha.

Darko · 08-15-2007, 06:09 PM

Ron Paul. Write in if I have to. I'm never voting for the lesser of two evils again because it's still evil. I regret ever voting for Bush even though Kerry was a spineless wannabe bush. Voting for straight ticket or the lesser of two evils is why are system is broken and I am not going to be a part of it.