Super Tuesday
Did you (or you going to) vote? |
|
|
| We're going today. Go Romney! |
| I had to skip class to come stay in the suburbs so I can vote this morning and make it back for my afternoon class, shoulda done early voting! |
I am not voting because I am registered in one party and my candidate is the other - I thought about just voting in my party for the most obscure candidate as a way of playing iwht people's minds  but thought I'd be a grown up for once. |
Our primary isn't until next Tuesday. I don't like ANY of the candidates...on ANY side, though. 
To show how much I know about voting...you can't vote outside of your party? Not even for primaries? That's lame. |
| During primaries, you must declare your party, so you can vote of delegates. That doesn't not mean, when the real election comes you have to vote that party...its just for the primary. |
| This is a pretty interesting website. Not the best way to determine who to vote for, but pretty fun and informative.
www.electoralcompass.com |
| Can you add a category for "no, because I'm not allowed to".
In the Great State of Arizona, we have "closed primaries". Therefore, if you're registered as an independent, you are not allowed to vote in the primary. When I lived in Illinois, I was able to choose which primary I wanted to vote in. So, as a result, no one really gets a good picture of how the AZ general election will go. |
| Sue! You need to move back here! |
North Carolina's primaries aren't even held until May. By then, the national nominations are pretty well decided. I still vote, though, for our state & local elections - at least my vote will count for something.  |
| No, we vote next week in MD. But I do have a gripe. After the first round or so of votes many of the candidate's I would support are no longer an option. I have watched the majority of the debates and am I paranoid or what, it seems the media selects 2 candidates and they receive the majority of the questions? The last CNN Republican debate, Huckleberry had to remind the moderater he was not there to umpire the debate between McCain and Romney, he like to participate in the game.
I'm a Rudy fan....after 9-11 and living 15 miles from Camp David, 60 mi from Washington and 200 from NYC, he can do no wrong in my eyes. Yes, there were many things that could have, should have been better, but he had the fortitude to take charge. I truely feel the media's coverage is selecting our candidates and to some degree selecting or next president. |
| I am so surprised that Rudy hasn't better. He was a stellar leader during our biggest homeland crisis ever. |
| I agree with the gripe about many of the candidates being gone by the time it reaches certain states' primaries. I mean, what if a lot of the later states all wanted the same person 100%, but the first few states had already knocked them out. Doesn't seem like fair representation of the US... |
I will vote later, for the lesser of the evils I guess.  |
barney1 wrote: I agree with the gripe about many of the candidates being gone by the time it reaches certain states' primaries. I mean, what if a lot of the later states all wanted the same person 100%, ...
But since it isn't likely to happen that way how else could it be done - how about a national primary day? can you imagine the campaigns trying to handle that one  |
| I voted early, two weeks ago........ Now I just hope it gets counted!
Laurie |
| I am in favor of a national primary. We had it for the 1st time this year, only many of us were left out |
| Maybe the parties could hold a lottery each year to determine when each state will get to vote, and or apportion delegates in some manner that further violates the "one person, one vote" principle to ensure that voters in less populace states get some attention... but a national primary would be horrible I think.
There would be nothing but TV ads from rich folks running nationally, no chance to see how a politian handles the rigors of a campaign, no chance for unknowns in the party, no chance for independents or other "3rd party" candidates. I think we need a strong new party nowadays to shake things up a little.... OK, a lot. It's a tough problem. |
| Have any poor people ever run? Did the lesser known or third parties stand a chance....NO. This is the worst primary ever....I will go and cast my worthless vote next Tuesday for what it's worth. Ending " super Tuesday " is the answer. |
| Well we all went to vote after work.
I agree about how the media pushes two candidates in your face and does not want you to make your own decision. And now it is raining, snowing, and sleeting outside. A terrible terrible night outside. Mary |
| Mary...its a miserable rotten night here too. We're suppose to get 14-16 inches by tomorrow night at this time! Nice to have sheepies to cuddle with! |
| Hey Deb, send some of the snow to Maryland. We had about 6" in Dec, then a couple of ice storms. At the risk of sounding like a kid......I want snow. |
| I wish I could. I REALLY wish I could! |
Quote: I don't like ANY of the candidates...on ANY side, though.
Ditto |
| All of mine have been ignored by the media, so couldn't raise funds, ya da ya da..... |
| With this election, I just keep thinking...who's likely to do the least amount of damage. And believe me, that is not an easy question to answer! |
Ron wrote: M I think we need a strong new party nowadays to shake things up a little.... OK, a lot.
I really believe that the two parties have completely lost touch with the "average" American. Our two parties seem to represent Hollywood and an Evangelical church somewhere in Iowa/South Carolina. There's lots of room between the two for a third opinion. |
| Our primary isn't until April.
I'm not even saying who I'm rooting for since it's one of the big 2 candidates on one side. I have a feeling that people will be gathering wood for the crucifixion!!! |
Bailey's Mom wrote: Ron wrote: M I think we need a strong new party nowadays to shake things up a little.... OK, a lot. I really believe that the two parties have completely lost touch with the "average" American. Our two parties seem to represent Hollywood and an Evangelical church somewhere in Iowa/South Carolina. There's lots of room between the two for a third opinion. I agree. I mean, since when has being Republican meant that you have to be an Evangelical Christian or some other far right wing conservative? So annoying. |
| Personally, I think there should be one national primary day.
I also think we should eliminate the electoral college and try to be actually democratic, where everybody's vote counts. We go all over the world pushing democracy, then when we vote it doesn't count, it just goes towards electing delegates, watering down the individuals' vote. We have the technology to vote directly for our candidates, yet our elected officials don't want to have to work that hard to get elected or re-elected, so they never allow an amendment to allow direct voting. Have to say that neither party has been doing a bang up job of protecting their constituents rights or addressing our concerns. It is past time we stood up for our rights and elected better representation across the board. Still I am voting in the primaries for one of the candidates. If you do not vote, you will not get counted. Elected officials and those running for office buy voters lists. if your name isn't on one of those list, then they do not worry about what you think. So vote. Doesn't matter for whom, just vote and get counted. |
agingright wrote: If you do not vote, you will not get counted. Elected officials and those running for office buy voters lists. if your name isn't on one of those list, then they do not worry about what you think.
So vote. Doesn't matter for whom, just vote and get counted. I always tell people that if they don't vote they can't complain - but some people say I am a little bossy |
| It is currently the thing to bash the Electoral College, but it is there for a reason.
We are not a democracy. We are a representative republic. If we were a Democracy we'd be voting on every single item from county, city, state, federal.....we'd be in the voting booth constantly. Keeping that in mind, it is not the people directly that elects the president, but the STATES! (contrary to what the media might lead you to believe...and frankly the media is the reason for a lot of misinformation) Back then as well as now, it is an attempt to keep heavily populated states from running the country (like it seems they do anyway). For instance, Rhode Island has as much right to elect the president as California, but obviously the number of votes from Rhode Island cannot be equal to California because of the striking difference in populations. So each state has a certain number of electoral votes depending on its population. Then, each of the counties vote, the votes are counted, and the majority of votes for that state determine who the state votes for in the electoral college. The candidate with the must support from the states is elected president. One interesting scenario was in 2000 when it appeared more people in total voted for Al Gore but (despite the controversies in counting votes) the George W. Bush had more electoral votes. In that situation the Supreme Court quickly reinforced it is the electoral college and not the popular vote, that elects the president: the states had elected their president, regardless of the overall number of total votes. It is the state that determines where the Electoral votes go. More recently, one of the major benefits is that it allows the elections to be certified and valid. Suppose that in the 2008 Presidential election, Rhode Island buys voting machines from a totally incompetent manufacturer, and this isn’t revealed until the night of the election, when the state with a population of a million or so reports that 120 million people have voted for the Republican and 135 million people have voted for the Democrat—and worse, as there’s no paper trail, they can’t establish how many people actually voted or who they voted for. If the margin of victory in the national election is under 200,000 votes otherwise, the whole thing would be a disaster under a simple majority system—there’s no way of knowing whether Rhode Island would sway the election or not. But under the electoral college system, it’s possible to say, well, the Republican has 315 electoral votes, the Democrat has 217, even if the state went strongly for the Democrat, the Republican would still win nationally. On another level, it uses the two-party system adversarially to minimize voting fraud. Once a party gets to 51% of the vote—enough to cast the whole state’s electoral college votes for that candidate—there’s no point in further cheating. Otherwise, there would be a significant temptation for a party that strongly controls an area (Democrats in Massachusetts, just to pick on Ron... ) to conduct widespread vote fraud and inflate the number of votes for their candidate significantly, “cancelling out” votes for their opponents from other areas.
So there are several benefits to doing it this way. Whether they outweigh the benefits of “one man, one vote” approaches is a different question. |
SheepieBoss wrote: On another level, it uses the two-party system adversarially to minimize voting fraud. Once a party gets to 51% of the vote—enough to cast the whole state’s electoral college votes for that candidate—there’s no point in further cheating. Otherwise, there would be a significant temptation for a party that strongly controls an area (Democrats in Massachusetts, just to pick on Ron...
) to conduct widespread vote fraud and inflate the number of votes for their candidate significantly, “cancelling out” votes for their opponents from other areas.So there are several benefits to doing it this way. Whether they outweigh the benefits of “one man, one vote” approaches is a different question. Not all state's use the all or nothing approach for electoral college votes - but I think your argument still holds. |
kerry wrote: agingright wrote: If you do not vote, you will not get counted. Elected officials and those running for office buy voters lists. if your name isn't on one of those list, then they do not worry about what you think. So vote. Doesn't matter for whom, just vote and get counted. I always tell people that if they don't vote they can't complain - but some people say I am a little bossy I feel that way too, but what do you do when there's no one you want to vote for? I wouldn't want to be responsible for putting X in position if I REALLY didn't like them, but felt just as strongly that Y sucked too. |
| We should break Wyoming up into 51 little states so that it can have 102 Senators for its 500,000 population.
I say: Fur for Everyone! My platform will be: A squeaky toy in every crate! I will be the provisional head of the new Sheepie Party! Elections will be held forthwith! One paw, one vote! |
I voted!  |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|