Portrait of the average American voter...

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



No, unhappy a whole new batch got IN. Better the devil you know than
the devil you don't.

Andrew MacPherson wrote:
(David J. Littleboy) wrote:

Turnout was over 40%

That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
(by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
significantly higher.

There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
they represent.

Andrew McP

I often don't vote for specific offices if I know that my wife and I
will vote for opposite candidates, we both just stay home. I suspect
this is pretty widespread among married couples. There were about 30
races on my ballot that were uncontested, so why mess with them? For
the contested issues/offices my wife and I voted for the same ones more
often than not, so both of us voted. ALL the candidates/issues I voted
for won. Can't do better than that.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:42:02 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
they represent.

I often don't vote for specific offices if I know that my wife and I
will vote for opposite candidates, we both just stay home. I suspect
this is pretty widespread among married couples. There were about 30
races on my ballot that were uncontested, so why mess with them? For
the contested issues/offices my wife and I voted for the same ones more
often than not, so both of us voted. ALL the candidates/issues I voted
for won. Can't do better than that.

If you don't care for the unhealthy lock the two major parties
have on elections (they control who is allowed in presidential
debates, among other things), it would be beneficial to vote for the
same candidates that you would otherwise vote for, but cast your
vote using alternate parties when the candidates appear on multiple
lines. At least in some states, if minority parties collect more
than some specified number of votes they'll automatically be
included on the next election ballot. Staying home in cases where
two votes would cancel each other out only helps the repo-men and
the demons.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???

For a bigger bunch of sleazes.

"Andrew MacPherson" wrote in message
ddress_disguised...
(David J. Littleboy) wrote:

Turnout was over 40%

That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
(by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
significantly higher.

There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
they represent.

Andrew McP

One of the primary reasons I sometimes have a problem getting motivated to
vote is that, most times, I have a real objection to both of the major
parties' candidates, and I hate to feel that my vote is wasted by casting it
for one of the minor, unlikely-to-be-elected, parties, like the Peace and
Freedom or Green.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

Skip wrote:
"Andrew MacPherson" wrote in message
ddress_disguised...
(David J. Littleboy) wrote:

Turnout was over 40%
That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
(by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
significantly higher.

There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
they represent.

Andrew McP

One of the primary reasons I sometimes have a problem getting motivated to
vote is that, most times, I have a real objection to both of the major
parties' candidates, and I hate to feel that my vote is wasted by casting it
for one of the minor, unlikely-to-be-elected, parties, like the Peace and
Freedom or Green.



No such thing as a wasted vote.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:42:02 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
they represent.
I often don't vote for specific offices if I know that my wife and I
will vote for opposite candidates, we both just stay home. I suspect
this is pretty widespread among married couples. There were about 30
races on my ballot that were uncontested, so why mess with them? For
the contested issues/offices my wife and I voted for the same ones more
often than not, so both of us voted. ALL the candidates/issues I voted
for won. Can't do better than that.

If you don't care for the unhealthy lock the two major parties
have on elections (they control who is allowed in presidential
debates, among other things), it would be beneficial to vote for the
same candidates that you would otherwise vote for, but cast your
vote using alternate parties when the candidates appear on multiple
lines. At least in some states, if minority parties collect more
than some specified number of votes they'll automatically be
included on the next election ballot. Staying home in cases where
two votes would cancel each other out only helps the repo-men and
the demons.


First, the debates are NOT run by the parties, but by TV networks, who
are solely responsible for choosing the parties represented.

Second, how can offsetting votes benefit, or harm either repo-men, or
demons (should you believe in such)?

Ron Hunter wrote:

First, the debates are NOT run by the parties, but by TV networks, who
are solely responsible for choosing the parties represented.

True, but often the major parties set conditions under which they will
participate, and one of the conditions is that the minor parties are not
allowed to participate.

Mark² wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

I was very involved with a local ballot measure, and I have to say that
my 20D, and Canon G2, played a big part in our overwhelming victory over
the evil-doer developers, who outspent us about 50 to 1.

Our mailers were awesome, with photographs and comics rather than
excessive text, while the evil-doers must have decided to run their
campaign without any campaign consultant as their mailers were horrible.

Compelling photographs make the difference between someone who tosses
the mailer in the recycle bin without a glance, versus someone that
actually looks at it for two seconds before tossing it.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:58:57 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

If you don't care for the unhealthy lock the two major parties
have on elections (they control who is allowed in presidential
debates, among other things), it would be beneficial to vote for the
same candidates that you would otherwise vote for, but cast your
vote using alternate parties when the candidates appear on multiple
lines. At least in some states, if minority parties collect more
than some specified number of votes they'll automatically be
included on the next election ballot. Staying home in cases where
two votes would cancel each other out only helps the repo-men and
the demons.


First, the debates are NOT run by the parties, but by TV networks, who
are solely responsible for choosing the parties represented.

I'm not an expert on this, but I recall reading or hearing that
whereas at one time an independent organization (League of Women
Voters?) managed the big televised presidential debates, at some
point, control of debate rules, such as who is allowed to
participate in the debate passed to a coalition of people drawn only
from the Republican and Democratic parties. The TV networks may be
responsible for selecting venues or moderators, but not who is
actually allowed to participate in the debates. I'm sure that
someone else hear knows the real debate details, but if nobody
settles the issue, wait for the next presidential election and
someone, somewhere will probably explain all . . .


Second, how can offsetting votes benefit, or harm either repo-men, or
demons (should you believe in such)?

If, for instance, I wanted to vote for Elliot Spitzer for NY's
Governor, who appeared on several lines, and I wanted to help one of
the smaller parties, I wouldn't set the lever (NY still used big,
clunky mechanical machines this year) for him under the Democratic
line, but would choose one of the others that he appeared on, such
as Green Party, Independence Party, Home Workers Party, etc. When
Mayor Bloomberg ran, I believe that he ran on both the Republican
and Conservative lines. It's not that votes cast via the minor
parties would actually harm the R and D parties so much as it would
help the minor parties, some of which might not be able to appear on
succeeding ballots if they don't amass enough votes.