Vote swapping

[Fenris]

Hey all..<br><br>I live in a state, much like 46 other states, where my vote for presidency is completely meaningless. John kerry will easily have my states votes no matter how i vote. We don't even see political ads unless its on cable. <br><br>Is there anyone in a key state, floridia, pennsyvania, or ohio that wants to vote for either ralph nader or a third party candidate but doesn't want to see bush get into the whitehouse for another 4 years? I would be willing to vote for another candidate here where it won't hurt kerry's chances in exchange for someone else voting for kerry where it counts. You still get the same show of support for your candidate AND keep bush out of the whitehouse. <br><br>I tried voteswap.com but haven't gotten an answer back yet.

[Tavis]

That might seem fair only if someone else votes for Kerry somewhere where Bush will easily have the votes no matter which how that someone votes. If you want to vote for Kerry, vote for Kerry. If some guy in a swing state wants to vote for either Kerry, Nader, Bush, or some prize eggplant in his backyard, I wouldn't want this little stunt to throw away his right to vote just so you can leverage your own will over a state and a country where it would make a difference.<br><br>Well, if you really want to swap votes, I'm sure I know plenty of Texans who are in the same boat as you. This state is bound to get Bush's vote regardless of what the Texans in this forum decide.

[Septimius Severus]

You don't vote for kings.

[Henohenomoheji]

HELP! HELP! I'M BEING OPPRESSED!!!

[Fenris]

That might seem fair only if someone else votes for Kerry somewhere where Bush will easily have the votes no matter which how that someone votes.

<br><br>Fen: i'm not stoping a bush supporter from doing that. <br><br><br>

If you want to vote for Kerry, vote for Kerry.

<br><br>Why...? Why place a meaningless vote for a candidate? <br><br><br><br><br>If

some guy in a swing state wants to vote for either Kerry, Nader, Bush, or some prize eggplant in his backyard, I wouldn't want this little stunt to throw away his right to vote just so you can leverage your own will over a state and a country where it would make a difference.

<br><br>Fenris: where the heck are you getting this... "give up his right to vote".. first off its entirely voluntary, second its on the honor system, thidrly they still get to vote, just for someone else. <br><br><br>

Well, if you really want to swap votes, I'm sure I know plenty of Texans who are in the same boat as you. This state is bound to get Bush's vote regardless of what the Texans in this forum decide.

<br><br>Fenris= except that i want kerry to win. with nader in the race as a potential spoiler why not try to swap a meaningless vote for a meaningfull one? <br><br>

[Tavis]

<!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 24 2004, 09:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 24 2004, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> That might seem fair only if someone else votes for Kerry somewhere where Bush will easily have the votes no matter which how that someone votes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Fen: i'm not stoping a bush supporter from doing that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Of course you aren't. This is precisely what you want. Well, to be fair, you're trying to encourage at least one person who would vote for <b><i>anyone</i></b> else to use your Kerry vote instead. No need to single out one non-Kerry voter for another.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 24 2004, 09:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 24 2004, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> If you want to vote for Kerry, vote for Kerry. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Why...? Why place a meaningless vote for a candidate?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Becuse your vote is not meaningless. And if it really was meaningless, no voter that wishes to make a difference and has a clue about your motives would trade places with you.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 24 2004, 09:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 24 2004, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> If<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> some guy in a swing state wants to vote for either Kerry, Nader, Bush, or some prize eggplant in his backyard, I wouldn't want this little stunt to throw away his right to vote just so you can leverage your own will over a state and a country where it would make a difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Fenris: where the heck are you getting this... "give up his right to vote".. first off its entirely voluntary, second its on the honor system, thidrly they still get to vote, just for someone else. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Right, entirely voluntary. <b>1.</b> You are bound to find someone willing to do that eventually unless everyone you can find finally understands what you are trying to do. <b>2.</b> The Honor system has little to do with this. I mean, I already assumed you would live up to your word on this, since you are getting such a sweet deal out of it. Trading a vote that you feel is essentially worthless for a vote "where it counts", a vote that can manipulate the outcome in a manner not intended by the election system currently established for this country, would be great for you but downright terrible for anyone else. <b>3.</b> True, they still get to vote, but the vote won't be their own. They'll be <i>yours</i>. Just because it means you will end up voting for Nader or Bush, or write in a vote for someone else, doesn't change the facts. You already said your state will carry Kerry regardless of how you vote. Even if the voter would want to support a third party member, that person will never receive as much support in your state as that member would in the other person's "swing" state. I would love to see you explain how that other person (who would otherwise not vote for Kerry) is not giving up the right to vote. And don't say that that person would normally vote for Kerry, since trading a Kerry vote for a Kerry vote would be too pointless for you to solicit for it. <br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 24 2004, 09:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 24 2004, 09:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Well, if you really want to swap votes, I'm sure I know plenty of Texans who are in the same boat as you. This state is bound to get Bush's vote regardless of what the Texans in this forum decide. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Fenris= except that i want kerry to win. with nader in the race as a potential spoiler why not try to swap a meaningless vote for a meaningfull one?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Of course. Swapping a meaningless vote for a meaningful one would be desireable. Too bad that's not what the person whose vote you wish to swap will get. This idea of yours is corrupt, regardless of whose side you are trying to support. And you totally missed the mark.<br><br>By the way, in my example, I was referring to all the Texan voters who still want to support Kerry in Bush's home state. They are probably feeling just like you when they are in such strong Bush territory, only they know the state will not side with them. But hey, the Bush followers in Texas would probably like to benefit from a vote swap like yours too! Of course, I'm not going to go that way. If there is going to be a winner in this election, it must be a fair fight, and vote-swappers are doing a great disservice to our country when they seek to undermine the election system.

[Ozymandias]

"The wacky morning dj<br>Says domocracys a joke"<br><br>Whilst I can see why it's not illegal, and why you would want to do it, and even though I agree with you (to some extent; I get my Mum's vote because she doesn't use it, and she doesn't want to see it go to waste (and I asked her nicely <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->). Otherwise, I would not get the vote at all.), I do think it makes a mockey of the electoral system. <br><br>I'm not gonnae make this any longer than I have to, and besides, that's about it.

[Fenris]

<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Becuse your vote is not meaningless. And if it really was meaningless, no voter that wishes to make a difference and has a clue about your motives would trade places with you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Of course my vote is meaningless. Have they even bothered to send the vice presidents to new york on the campaign trail? Would they even waste the effort on a stray dog with a "vote for kerry" sign in this election? NO! Kerry is getting all 34 of New Yorks electoral votes and there's nothing that can be done one way or the other about it. <br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> vote that can manipulate the outcome in a manner not intended by the election system currently established for this country<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Fenris Which is an outdated, outmoded colonial holdover based on the time it took a horse to get from southern carolina to albany and to prevent the people from electing a madman to government... ( i guesse that didn't quite work...) It has twice defied the will of the american people and i have the feeling that it is going to again. Oh damn i'm not using the system as it was intended.. boo hoo hooo. <br><br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> would be great for you but downright terrible for anyone else<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>No, it would be great for the person i'm trying to vote swap with because they get a showing for their candidate AND they lessen the chance of bush getting into the whitehouse. Its a win win situation for the two parties involved and IMHHO democracy in general. <br><br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I would love to see you explain how that other person (who would otherwise not vote for Kerry) is not giving up the right to vote. And don't say that that person would normally vote for Kerry, since trading a Kerry vote for a Kerry vote would be too pointless for you to solicit for it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>I would like to see you explain, rationaly, why that person is giving up their right to vote by effectively voting for their candidate in a different state. Instead of natter getting his vote in floridia he gets mine in New York. <br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Of course. Swapping a meaningless vote for a meaningful one would be desireable. Too bad that's not what the person whose vote you wish to swap will get. This idea of yours is corrupt, regardless of whose side you are trying to support. And you totally missed the mark<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->.<br><br><br>For a third party candidate trying to gain recognition and/or automatic entry onto next years ballot the % of the national election is all that matters. I am also assuming here (not a large assumption) that the person voting for Nader would rather see kerry in the whitehouse than bush but wants a protest vote/ show of support for nader.. which they still get. <br><br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> If there is going to be a winner in this election, it must be a fair fight, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>A fair fight would be the popular vote. A fair fight would be not having bush's campaign manager in floridia the same person who certifies the ballots (remember cruela?) A fair fight would be one on one not with nader siphoning off votes. <br><br>This is politics.. no one is playing fair.. why should I? <br><br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> and vote-swappers are doing a great disservice to our country when they seek to undermine the election system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>And the election system is doing a great diservice to the people it is supposed to represent when it goes agianst the popular will. If another country had had its leader appointed using a 200 year old colonial hold over after loosing by half a million votes we would have been screaming about how democracy had been subverted. If i have to diservice my country to serve democracy and the ideals it was founded on then who is it who has the problem.. me.. or the system? <br><br>

[Tavis]

This is getting old fast.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> NO! Kerry is getting all 34 of New Yorks electoral votes and there's nothing that can be done one way or the other about it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Ah, yes, but that's who you're voting for, isn't it? Apparently the system is working just fine for you.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Which is an outdated, outmoded colonial holdover based on the time it took a horse to get from southern carolina to albany and to prevent the people from electing a madman to government... ( i guesse that didn't quite work...) It has twice defied the will of the american people and i have the feeling that it is going to again. Oh damn i'm not using the system as it was intended.. boo hoo hooo.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>If you feel it is a bad system, write it up. Rally people to your cause. Democracy is not something to be shortchanged. Anyone willing to put in the effort and gather enough backing by the people can get it done. Until then, this is what you have been given. Crying about it is not going to promote change.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> No, it would be great for the person i'm trying to vote swap with because they get a showing for their candidate AND they lessen the chance of bush getting into the whitehouse. Its a win win situation for the two parties involved and IMHHO democracy in general. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>That only assumes the other voter wishes to kick Bush out of office, and that a nationwide popular vote is all it takes to give a candidate a strong showing. The message a third party makes would be much more visible in a state where the votes are not obscured by a landslide vote for either leading candidate. Also, a person voting for the third party may also be declaring that <i>neither</i> party properly represents the people of that state. This is something that will not go unnoticed by the two main parties. By encouraging future politicians to pay greater heed to the wisdom of the third candidate's platform, their political needs can be served better in their own state.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I would love to see you explain how that other person (who would otherwise not vote for Kerry) is not giving up the right to vote. And don't say that that person would normally vote for Kerry, since trading a Kerry vote for a Kerry vote would be too pointless for you to solicit for it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>I would like to see you explain, rationaly, why that person is giving up their right to vote by effectively voting for their candidate in a different state. Instead of natter getting his vote in floridia he gets mine in New York.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>You didn't answer me.<br>But since you asked so nicely, I do not mind explaining it to you again. People will pay much more attention to a third-party vote in, say, Florida, than in New York or Texas. For the very same reasons you feel your Kerry vote will be unimportant in New York, that other person's translocated vote will appear no more important than yours. Only now you wish to let New York control the votes of another state, completely ignoring a system that, if there was sufficient urge to change, can be changed.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> For a third party candidate trying to gain recognition and/or automatic entry onto next years ballot the % of the national election is all that matters. I am also assuming here (not a large assumption) that the person voting for Nader would rather see kerry in the whitehouse than bush but wants a protest vote/ show of support for nader.. which they still get.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>It is not. National recognition for third parties is also found in taking votes that affect the outcome of the final election, and through efforts in getting that politician's message out to other people. Not all third party voters prefer Kerry over Bush, and that is an assumption perpetuated by your own bias.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> If there is going to be a winner in this election, it must be a fair fight<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>A fair fight would be the popular vote. A fair fight would be not having bush's campaign manager in floridia the same person who certifies the ballots (remember cruela?) A fair fight would be one on one not with nader siphoning off votes. <br><br>This is politics.. no one is playing fair.. why should I? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Wrong. A fair fight would be one that plays by the rules of the election. If any individual was allowed to change the voting system at will, all of the elections would be disputed harshly and will produce inconsistent results. Don't go crying foul just because you don't like it.<br>Oh, and don't you dare rationalize not playing fair by claiming no one else is playing fair. Willful ignorance does not excuse wrongdoing.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> and vote-swappers are doing a great disservice to our country when they seek to undermine the election system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>And the election system is doing a great diservice to the people it is supposed to represent when it goes agianst the popular will. If another country had had its leader appointed using a 200 year old colonial hold over after loosing by half a million votes we would have been screaming about how democracy had been subverted. If i have to diservice my country to serve democracy and the ideals it was founded on then who is it who has the problem.. me.. or the system?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>You talk about abolishing our election system because it is as old as the nation yet claim you are doing it to follow the ideals of our nation's founders. That is a severe contradiction. Your disservice to your country is serving neither democracy nor its ideals, so I'd have to say you have the problem. If the country itself had for some reason ultimately disrupted the ideals of democracy, by say, people playing the system unfairly, then we will have the right to speak up against it. That line, thankfully, has not been crossed.

[Fenris]

<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> If you feel it is a bad system, write it up. Rally people to your cause. Democracy is not something to be shortchanged. Anyone willing to put in the effort and gather enough backing by the people can get it done. Until then, this is what you have been given. Crying about it is not going to promote change.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><br>Fenris: i am not crying about it, i am subverting it, hence the call for vote swapping. You are the one crying foul, you are the one throwing a hissy fit and prancing up the street to the tune of the star spangled banner accusing me denying someones right to vote. <br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You didn't answer me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><br>Of course not. The burden of proof is on you and you failed to live up to it. You are the one asserting that i am denying someone else the right to vote, it is your responsibility to show that i am doing that. Your comments are so far from demonstrating that that there truley is not response. <br><br><br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> That only assumes the other voter wishes to kick Bush out of office<br><br>Not all third party voters prefer Kerry over Bush, and that is an assumption perpetuated by your own bias.<br><br><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><br>Fenris: "Is there anyone in a key state, floridia, pennsyvania, or ohio that wants to vote for either ralph nader or a third party candidate but doesn't want to see bush get into the whitehouse for another 4 years?"<br><br>.. Ok.. so i ASK for a person who doesn't want to see bush in the whitehouse for another four years but i am ASSUMING that the other person wants to kick bush out... hmmmmmmmmmm<br><br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> and that a nationwide popular vote is all it takes to give a candidate a strong showing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><br>Thats a decision i leave up to the othe voter. <br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Wrong. A fair fight would be one that plays by the rules of the election<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><br>Then why aren't you reporting me to the government instead of whining about my act.. oh. .thats right.. this IS allowed by the rules of the election. I AM playing by the "rules" of the election. this is LEGAL. its within the rules so skiv off and quit whining about it. <br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Oh, and don't you dare rationalize not playing fair by claiming no one else is playing fair. Willful ignorance does not excuse wrongdoing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>But it for some reason excuses stupidity in following the herd? <br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You talk about abolishing our election system because it is as old as the nation yet claim you are doing it to follow the ideals of our nation's founders. That is a severe contradiction<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->.<br><br>Let me explain it to you then: The ideals are the same. The conditions have changed. When they formed the united states it was more like 13 individual countries than what we have today. They wanted to have democracy but the states did not want to surrender their sovereignty. They didn't even let people directly elect the senate for crying out loud. Things have changed, we truley are one nation now and its time that the founders dream of one man one vote became a reality. I don't like the electoral college. I am going to fight for its removal, and at the moment that means with the democrats because there's no way bush is going to get rid of the system that put him in. <br><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> , then we will have the right to speak up against it. That line, thankfully, has not been crossed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Then what are you whining about? I'm allowed to swap my vote, you're slapping the label of anti patriot on me for doing something i'm legally allowed to do. Its this sort of groundless, baseless, BS that got mycarthy compared to the salem witch trials.. anything you don't like can be witchcraft/unpatriotic. Theres no reason, no rational, no evidence .. nor is any required. You don't like what i do so i'm unpatriotic. Boo hoo hoo. I care.

[Tavis]

<!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Fenris: i am not crying about it, i am subverting it, hence the call for vote swapping. You are the one crying foul, you are the one throwing a hissy fit and prancing up the street to the tune of the star spangled banner accusing me denying someones right to vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>I don't hear piccolos. And the accusation stands.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You didn't answer me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Of course not. The burden of proof is on you and you failed to live up to it. You are the one asserting that i am denying someone else the right to vote, it is your responsibility to show that i am doing that. Your comments are so far from demonstrating that that there truley is not response.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Asked and answered. I have fulfilled my case. If you cannot understand what I have been writing here so far and have to resort to repeating the question as though I had not written anything, then there is nothing repeating my answer again is going to change. Go back to the other posts you glossed over and read.<br><br>It appears as though you are saying that a person is not giving up a vote by trading with you because you will be making that person's vote in your state. It is not an even trade.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> That only assumes the other voter wishes to kick Bush out of office<br><br>Not all third party voters prefer Kerry over Bush, and that is an assumption perpetuated by your own bias.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Fenris: "Is there anyone in a key state, floridia, pennsyvania, or ohio that wants to vote for either ralph nader or a third party candidate but doesn't want to see bush get into the whitehouse for another 4 years?"<br><br>.. Ok.. so i ASK for a person who doesn't want to see bush in the whitehouse for another four years but i am ASSUMING that the other person wants to kick bush out... hmmmmmmmmmm<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>At least you asked nicely. <!--emo&<_<--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... ns/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo--> Maybe you will be lucky enough to find someone who'd see it your way.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> and that a nationwide popular vote is all it takes to give a candidate a strong showing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Thats a decision i leave up to the othe voter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Yeah, basically any voter that will take your cause. If you don't find one, you'll ask another, and another until someone seesit your way.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Wrong. A fair fight would be one that plays by the rules of the election<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Then why aren't you reporting me to the government instead of whining about my act.. oh. .thats right.. this IS allowed by the rules of the election. I AM playing by the "rules" of the election. this is LEGAL. its within the rules so skiv off and quit whining about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>You can talk about this all you like, but until you do something, there's nothing to report. The reason there is no law explicitly against this is because any laws that could possibly be made against this sort of thing would be virtually impossible to enforce. There is no paperwork receipt you can take with you that validates how you vote (that would undermine the necessity for keeping your vote secret), and there is no way to ensure that you are making this deal with any person, much less exactly one person. I am not questioning your honesty in this matter. I am however telling you that this can easily be done by people who are dishonest, and endorsing this is not going to make it any better. What is legal and what is ethical are not the same thing. Laws are pointless when it is not possible for you to be caught.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Oh, and don't you dare rationalize not playing fair by claiming no one else is playing fair. Willful ignorance does not excuse wrongdoing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>But it for some reason excuses stupidity in following the herd?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Now where is this accusation coming from? If you consider respecting the electoral process is "stupidity in following the herd", you have certainly missed out on the actually elegant nature of the electoral college. It's existence is related to the organizations of our House of Representatives and Senate. It ensures that nationwide elections seek a balance between the disparities between the geography of the United States and the population density of those states.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> You talk about abolishing our election system because it is as old as the nation yet claim you are doing it to follow the ideals of our nation's founders. That is a severe contradiction<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd-->.<br>Let me explain it to you then: The ideals are the same. The conditions have changed. When they formed the united states it was more like 13 individual countries than what we have today. They wanted to have democracy but the states did not want to surrender their sovereignty. They didn't even let people directly elect the senate for crying out loud. Things have changed, we truley are one nation now and its time that the founders dream of one man one vote became a reality. I don't like the electoral college. I am going to fight for its removal, and at the moment that means with the democrats because there's no way bush is going to get rid of the system that put him in.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Here is a news flash. If it works to put the Democrats in power, they're not going to be so eager to remove it either. As far as the electoral college is concerned, your chances of changing it are no different with either candidate in office. If your motivation for electing Kerry is based on that, you need to rethink your priorities. Otherwise, I wish you luck, because I am interested in seeing the best candidate win, no matter who that turns out to be.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin-Fenris+Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Fenris @ Oct 25 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> , then we will have the right to speak up against it. That line, thankfully, has not been crossed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Then what are you whining about? I'm allowed to swap my vote, you're slapping the label of anti patriot on me for doing something i'm legally allowed to do. Its this sort of groundless, baseless, BS that got mycarthy compared to the salem witch trials.. anything you don't like can be witchcraft/unpatriotic. Theres no reason, no rational, no evidence .. nor is any required. You don't like what i do so i'm unpatriotic. Boo hoo hoo. I care.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Allow me to rephrase. That line, thankfully, has not been crossed <b>yet</b>. It would take an upset of a landslide victory (at least enough to make up for the margin for error) to discredit the merits of our current election system. If it ever came to that, then I would take your side in the struggle against. By the way, love that sarcasm. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> That will get you places.

[Henohenomoheji]

please tell me I'm not the only one with no idea as to what these guys are talking about.

[dragonranpu]

well after reading I thought it was about swapping votes but I think it has changed but not sure anymore.

[Ankaris]

Eh, why not. I'll try and explain with what I've observed.<br><br>Fenris lives in a state that will be landslide Kerry, or near enough. Thus, if he votes Kerry, it won't make a noticeable difference to the result in his state.<br><br>He doesn't want Bush to win the election, so, he wants to 'trade' votes with someone else who wants to vote third party in a swing state. He doesn't see anything wrong with this, Tavis does, and thus...<br><br>The ruckus you see above <!--emo&:P--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--><br><br>Personally, I don't have any real thoughts about the matter, other than it's feckin' odd that Nader wants to stand when he has no chance of winning.<br><br>----<br><br>Nader: Woohoo! I got 4% of the national vote!<br><br>Winner: That's very nice Nader. Well done. *goes about running America*

[Tavis]

Ankaris summed it up perfectly, except for the detail I missed as well, saying that the other person voting third party would have to be someone that also prefers Kerry over Bush and is afraid not voting for Kerry will only improve Bush's chances. It is one of those classic cases in which an elected majority (using both electoral and popular vote standards) does not reflect the peoples' ideal choice. When a third party that resembles a moderate version of one of the other two, it can actually weaken the major party that that third party would more closely align with itself. It may entice voters from both sides, but it is usually the one that is least moderate that gets affected the most. Fenris just wants to try to remedy this dilemma with his proposal. I myself do not support it, and my reasons have already been stated <i>ad nauseum</i>.<br><br>I'm sorry I let it get so fierce, but when you do feel strongly about something, it's natural to want to defend it. As long as you are able to understand both sides of this issue, I think I can be at peace with its outcome.