Presidential Poll II

Ron Paul has 0 chance of winning because he is not the Republican nominee and is not on any ballots, and Gary Johnson has about an equal chance of winning as Jill Stein. Why isn't she listed on the poll?

http://wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=2379723&postcount=2

I've been an American citizen since 1996. Nice try though.

Vengeance for what?

That makes little sense, Dickynoo.

The thing that gets me about Johnson, and why I'd have a hard time voting for him, is that while he hits a lot of the right buttons, he hits one hell of a bad one in that he actually likes the EPA and sees it as an example of "good government".

Everything.
I put everything rotten in life in a pile, put it on a scale next to Sokar, and fired Obama rockets at it.

Now, there is balance.

Location has little to do with nationality.

I live in France, but am an American citizen. So are both of my kids (who are also German citizens).

Azure lives in Canada, but is an American citizen (as well as a Canadian citizen).

Sometimes it is useful to be informed before you make yourself look uninformed...

cite a quote for context?

Both are important.

Perhaps it’s ill-conceived that the US president is both head of government (CEO and policymaker) and chief of state (our first citizen and the face of the US to the world). But that’s what we have.

Good policy or not, I don’t want that eunuch representing anything of my country.

I will NOT vote in a poll that requires ID.

Congratulations, but I was not implying anything in regards to citizenship, but rather your choice of location. I guess living in Alberta can confuse a person like that.

Anyone I vote for is a wasted vote because Tennessee will go to Romney.
Might as well vote for whoever, and I don't really hate everything Obama has done, so why not? It won't matter anyway. A vote for a third party here would be a blip in the statistics and won't do a thing to change our two-party structure.

I'll be voting third party for local elections, where my vote is worth a shit.

I'm voting for President Obama. I live in Connecticut, so it won't matter one lick who I vote for, though. I'd like to entertain a 3rd party choice; however, until there is major structual change in the way we elect the President I do not see the point. The only way I would is if like in our past a 3rd party is poised to take over one of the other parties and thus become the 2nd party. though disappointed in the way the President capitulated to Republicans on many major issues I can not in good conscious vote for Mitt Romney because his party has lost their grip on sanity in the last 4 years. It's even begun to seep into my state Republican party, which is sad because the Party here was the Party that if it was the national party, I would belong to it.

Don't like it?

You are, in my opinion, much too generous with the Republicans. They began to lose their grip on sanity in the 70s, when the Moral Majority started becoming a major influence in the party. Things improved (or, perhaps, did not get particularly worse) in the 80s and 90s, but after 2000 the slide towards insanity became disastrous. During the Bush years we saw how bad the Republicans are when they control everything, just as during the first two Obama years we saw how bad the Democrats are when they control everything.

The only realistic hope, for now (until enough people wake up and reject the "You have to vote for the lesser of two evils because no one else has a chance" dead-end that guarantees the status quo and continuing slide towards disaster), is to split power at the national level between the two parties.

Vote for me, please.

Everybody write in Chad for president! He'll have as much of a chance as anyone else outside of Obama!

i probably won't vote. i will however tell my boss that i need to vote and take a half day off of work to do some homework or something else that will actually benefit me.

Get out and VOTE, dammit! Non-participation is one of the big reasons we have the mess we have.

Really? The fact that my state is 70% Republican, so there's NO WAY my vote for any other party could count, isn't the reason we're in this mess?

Our system stimulates non-participation. Most people are correct in seeing their vote as not counting. I mostly vote for symbolic reasons, I've never lived anywhere that had contested elections for anything other than municipal offices.

No.

for a couple reasons...

1) i feel so far removed from the process that it seems pointless anyway.
2) i don't plan to be in this country forever.
3) i'm woefully uninformed. literally all of my news comes from wordforge, and i have no desire to spend my spare time learning more, because...
4) i genuinelly have other things to do with my time that will either benefit me or entertain me. why would i spend my time doing something that accomplishes neither?

I realize a presidential vote in California is pretty meaningless, but votes on ballot propositions are hugely important. When you're talking about stripping rights away from people, budgetary issues or handing power to major corporations, every vote matters.

I saw it in the wiki article on his platform.

Both the bolded points are sticking points for me, mostly due to my belief that the EPA should not have the power to enact laws, especially not without oversight as it has been allowed to, and due to the fact that I've seen the information about the claims of AGW and I remain skeptical. So between calling a bloated, harmful organization that's destroyed lives over bureaucratic bullshit an example of "good government" and apparently believing AGW has merit, this has basically the same effect for me as learning Ron Paul is a creationist.

Now, if it really was one person = one vote, instead of Electoral College Take All...

Honestly, while i advocate participation in theory...

the reason - virtually the sole reason - that we are in the position we are in is not, in fact, non-voters, but those who DO vote and do so in ignorance.

The ill-informed sheep is FAR more damaging than the sleeper, IMO.

That eunuch who climbed Mount Everest? Among many other physical feats that would kill pretty much any of us or any other office holder in the country?

Yeah, if he wasn't so civilized he'd kick your ass for that.

And "ill-informed" seems to describe an alarming number of Americans. How else explain the contradictory responses to the first two questions here (even allowing for the wording of the questions)?

(Yes, I know it's Newsmax, but they were the ones conducting the survey. So do we decide that it's only their readers who can simultaneously say "Yes, I think X sucks, but I also support the Supreme Court's ruling against repealing it"?)