Wasted votes

Also, why are we arguing anyway. None of us are going to change our minds about how we will vote.

I'm dropping out of this conversation and sticking with discussing public policy
issues.

 

There is no argument when it comes to Peroutka. Voting for him is like throwing your vote in the trash.

PS - Sorry if my little attempt at humor frustrates you.

 

There is no argument when it comes to Peroutka. Voting for him is like throwing your vote in the trash. </font>[/QUOTE]Now you're arguing with someone who is on your side.

 

From both sides, I hope you mean.

As am I.

 

You know what it means.

Like I said he's not a serious candidate.

I like his ideas but all of us here know theres no way he can get them done.

 

Pete, no disrespect intended, but that's a lousy reason to refrain from voting. If you truly have no desire to vote for the POTUS position, you are free to refrain from that vote, but there are numerous other items on the ballot that require voters' attention. There are state and local measures, bonds, and initiatives that affect you directly. There are county supervisors, judges, commissioners, school boards, and even your local city or towne councils that are part-time (or often volunteer) positions with grass-roots folks running. These local items are typically non-partisan and apolitical, and usually win by a handful of votes.

 

I can't figure out why the man some Christains choose to hate is the one who most precisely articulates Christian principles.

 

Thank you PJ, that is exactly what I meant!

I am used to Bro. Curtis' &lt;snipped by moderator&gt; remarks. He either does not know any better, or he is just a fool. I hope it is the former.

[ October 15, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Pete, no disrespect intended, but that's a lousy reason to refrain from voting.</font>[/QUOTE]Johnv, got me slightly out of context there mate

"That's why I don't vote. If seat went to preferences then my vote would end up in hands of one of the majors. No thanks."

Here we in Oz we have the PREFERENTIAL SYSTEM. Please read that link, it gives a real example of how a candidate that got 26.7% of the primary vote got in ahead of a candidate that got 40.9% of the primary vote thanks to preferences. (Note: I don't endorse the "first past the post" scam. If the parties can't get a decent candidate that can at least get the magic 50% + 1 vote then they don't deserve to get in.)

The preferential system is supposedly to put the candidate the voters hate the least in, to me it is just a scam and I will not have anything to do with it. EVERY box has to be numbered in order from first choice to last...There were candidates in recent election that I would have considered voting for, however if the seat was close and it went to preferences eventually my vote would have ended up in the hands of one of the majors...or worse.

A few years ago a bloke down here had a great idea of using an optional preferential system, that is, voting 1 for preferred candidate, and voting 2 for the rest, putting them equal last so they don't get your vote. However the majors kicked up a stink and I believe they made that practice informal.

POTUS voting isn't an option here Down Under Maybe it should be though, because our current PM is Dubya's lap dog...but anyway...

None of that in Oz mate. We have candidates going for seats and thats it.

 

... as you interpret them.

 

So, everything is relative? No wonder you support liberal politicians.

 

I'm a conservative, but thanks for playing.

 

What the heck does that mean?

If you are a conservative, why do you enthusiastically support the liberal policies of George W. Bush?

Or do you support him in spite of his policies...and if so, why?

 

You and I are beginning to wear a trench in the ground from going around this tree, Jim. It's apparent that you're one of those folks that think since you own a hammer, all the world's a nail.

 

Conservatives used to be for fiscal responsibility. Bush has let the deficit rise to the point where it threatens America.

Conservatives used to be for limited government. Bush has implemented a huge new entitlement program (the cost for which, he hid from conservatives in his own party to get them to vote for it)

Conservatives used to be for local control of public schools. Bush has now put the federal government firmly in charge of public schools.

So pizza, if you're really a conservative, why are you backing someone who does all the liberal things?

 

*sigh* I guess I am not as smart as you, Galatian.

 

I'm guessing that it doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

Liberals are people who do liberal things. Are you denying these things are liberal, or are you denying Bush did them?

 

pizza, it doesn't really matter whether you're as smart as Galatian or not. You're obviously smart enough to consider the possible alternatives to your arguments. But that takes a bit of wisdom and humility, rather than smarts. I'll bet you can muster plenty of those, too...if you want to.

If you do, one of two things will happen...you'll refine your position to a more correct stance, or help convince someone else to refine theirs, or maybe some of both. But ducking out of the argument with wise-cracks doesn't help anyone, especially yourself.