There are more than 2 choices. - Page 2 - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 08-08-2004, 10:20 PM #22
terry_wendel
I disagree!
 
terry_wendel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by SlingerXL
... *reads again*



So you stress the importance of voting for who you think will run the country the best but don't even vote yourself? What the duece?
Sucks, doesn't it? It's also important to study, but people (I) don't do it. I know it's important and that I'm probably a moron for not doing it, but I'm lazy. It goes with the territory.
__________________
GEORGIACARRY.ORG
Supporting The Right of Georgians to Keep and Bear Arms.
terry_wendel is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 08-09-2004, 05:52 PM #23
atticus_finch
LANCE>CHE!!!!
 
atticus_finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Garden State
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by SlingerXL
Wowser. Nice job on the faulty math. More choices = better quality politician. And there were three choices in 1996. Clinton won with over 50% anyway.
i mean 3 significant parties

ones that can actually win the electoral votes of at least 1 state
__________________
I hate Jack & Coke
atticus_finch is offline  
Old 08-09-2004, 05:56 PM #24
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by atticus_finch
i mean 3 significant parties

ones that can actually win the electoral votes of at least 1 state
That still doesn't mean one of the canidates can't get ~50% of the votes. If there's say, 5 choices; LB, Repub, Dem, Reform, and Green, and they all have an equal hold on the population of the U.S. wouldn't that mean that there's a greater likelihood that the best leader will be elected even if he doesn't get above 33% of the total vote?
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-09-2004, 05:57 PM #25
Westopher
Currently AFK
 
Join Date: May 2001
 has been a member for 10 years
Cool

If you think your math is right on... it is impossible for someone in a three party system with 33% of the votes to win.

33% Party A
30% Party B
18% Party C
19% Party D

Who has the majority? Get the point?
Westopher is offline  
Old 08-09-2004, 06:27 PM #26
atticus_finch
LANCE>CHE!!!!
 
atticus_finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Garden State
 has been a member for 10 years
the whole point is that this means 67% of the population didnt vote for the person in power...i just dont think that it would be a good situation
__________________
I hate Jack & Coke
atticus_finch is offline  
Old 08-09-2004, 06:43 PM #27
Westopher
Currently AFK
 
Join Date: May 2001
 has been a member for 10 years
Cool

But he got the majority. Limiting it to two parties would force beleif choices.
Westopher is offline  
Old 08-09-2004, 07:21 PM #28
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Westopher
If you think your math is right on... it is impossible for someone in a three party system with 33% of the votes to win.

33% Party A
30% Party B
18% Party C
19% Party D

Who has the majority? Get the point?
I have the example of a 5 party system... not a 3 party one making your example void.
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-11-2004, 12:46 PM #29
terry_wendel
I disagree!
 
terry_wendel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
 has been a member for 10 years
56.7% of the people didn't vote for Clinton. It still worked out for the better.
__________________
GEORGIACARRY.ORG
Supporting The Right of Georgians to Keep and Bear Arms.
terry_wendel is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 12:57 PM #30
atticus_finch
LANCE>CHE!!!!
 
atticus_finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Garden State
 has been a member for 10 years
i guess if u mean postponing the war on terror until they decided to take out two building and part of another is good...then yeah i guess it did work out for the better
__________________
I hate Jack & Coke
atticus_finch is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 01:00 PM #31
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
There was no war on terror.
zack is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 01:01 PM #32
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by atticus_finch
the whole point is that this means 67% of the population didnt vote for the person in power...i just dont think that it would be a good situation
So you'd prefer it that they vote for a party that they don't agree with? The same number of people will SUPPORT the president. It's an illusion.
zack is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 01:02 PM #33
atticus_finch
LANCE>CHE!!!!
 
atticus_finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Garden State
 has been a member for 10 years
right now i think the democrats and republicans are way to alike...they should get rid of the republican party and put in a libertarian party that is more chilled out
__________________
I hate Jack & Coke
atticus_finch is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 01:16 PM #34
RedfordRenegade
Paintballer Non-esquire
 
RedfordRenegade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York,think Mountains
 has been a member for 10 years
RedfordRenegade plays in the APPA D4 division
I'm thinking that both parties have been hijacked by monied interests. It's money that fuels politics now and not much more. That is a big part of the problem right now. We aren't faced with candidates, whose ideas we can actually cogitate on, we are faced with brand names, who collect cash, and spout verbage for the masses, in order to garner more cash, to put into the kitty, to get elected, to pay back the folks who put money into the kitty. The very idea that political ideals have anything to do with the process right now is absurd. At least I still vote.
RedfordRenegade is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 01:23 PM #35
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
I would say that there are many politicians that truly care about how America does. But, since everyone's viewpoint on this isn't objective, let's just agree to disagree.
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 01:27 PM #36
sangerpb
Retired
 
sangerpb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
sangerpb is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
^^ good point. Its sad but true, I also still vote. Atticus is correct, all of you that say Democrat is this and Republican is that are wrong. They are still backdooring you the same in th end. I hope none of you think the Republicans or Democrats have your best interests in mind when they are making decisions that affect your retirement or whats left of it lol. And if you disagree with me ask yourself if you are seeing more and more old people working after the age of 55. I am, I'm seeing people work till they can't work anymore, then retiring and having to work at walmart to pay for their meds. Don't think your party will save you, I have no magical answer on how to solve it, I just want to make people aware.
__________________
And if someone tries to destroy his dream…he will destroy that person. Even if that person is myself.
FEEDBACK
sangerpb is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 01:51 PM #37
RedfordRenegade
Paintballer Non-esquire
 
RedfordRenegade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York,think Mountains
 has been a member for 10 years
RedfordRenegade plays in the APPA D4 division
Slinger, quite true, but a politician that actually serves their constituents are a dying breed these days.

The past few years I have stewed on the (conspiracy) theory that government actually wants the people to remain divided. Divided we are weak, only through unification of the people will we ever break the back of partisan politics and try to restore some semblence of efficiency and respectability in government.
Remember the whole, united we stand, divided......thing.
If the populace remains divided both sides in power have the ability to benefit greatly. On the surface, both sides would be attacking each other while secretly feeding together from the wealth trough, dividing the people and pitting them against each other.
All there would need to be is an obvious common link between the two.....(skull and bones) but to bring that to the surface would be reguarded as being conspiracy.
RedfordRenegade is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 02:13 PM #38
atticus_finch
LANCE>CHE!!!!
 
atticus_finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Garden State
 has been a member for 10 years
^respect meter has dropped to a new low
__________________
I hate Jack & Coke
atticus_finch is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 02:22 PM #39
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by RedfordRenegade
Slinger, quite true, but a politician that actually serves their constituents are a dying breed these days.
Depends. If you think that politicians should always pander to the majority's opinion, then no, not many serve their constituents, but if you think of it as politicans who do waht they think is best for the country, I believe they are the majority. Taking bribes would be the end of their career if it was ever found out and I'm not sure many people are willing to lose their entire livelyhood for a couple grand.
SlingerXL is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 09:16 PM #40
Westopher
Currently AFK
 
Join Date: May 2001
 has been a member for 10 years
Cool

Quote:
Originally posted by zack
There was no war on terror.
Just how would one go about having a war on terror? Bombing all of the backwater circuses? It was a name. You can't have a war on terror.

Quote:
Originally posted by atticus_finch
right now i think the democrats and republicans are way to alike...they should get rid of the republican party and put in a libertarian party that is more chilled out
The Libertarian party already exists...
Westopher is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 09:49 PM #41
atticus_finch
LANCE>CHE!!!!
 
atticus_finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Garden State
 has been a member for 10 years
i know it exists...but i think if there wasnt a libertarian party theyd probably vote republican because of the similar fiscal issues

i just think that the republican party should get its **** together as far as social issues and just become the libertarian party.
__________________
I hate Jack & Coke
atticus_finch is offline  
Old 08-12-2004, 09:53 PM #42
SlingerXL
Stands to reason
 
SlingerXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
SlingerXL is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
Yes, and the democrats should become the Socialist party. Let's eliminate the middleground. There's no time for it.
SlingerXL is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump