Bitcoin Forum

I am tired like most of our two party poltical system other countries have many functioning parties why not the U.S. So I am going to start the anybody but Obamney campain all you have to do is not vote for Obamney and vote for anyone else. If Jill stien (green party) is on my ballot my vote is going to her.  At one time I debated upon voting for Gary Johnson but he is to far to the right of the libertarian party to get my vote (not a big ancap or arms deregulation fan).    PROTEST WITH YOUR VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+1

Even write-in if you want.

I'm Baratt Obamney, and I approve this message.

No, but seriously, If you still v*te, don't v*te for either puppet. Hell, v*te Rosanne in. She can't screw it up any worse, and at least she'll be funny.

I've been on the fence about voting third-party, or voting Obama because he's not quite as bad and it would count for more.  Thoughts?

Not quite as bad? You're joking, right?

He's broken every campaign promise, and jokes about killing people with predator drones.

Please, Don't v*te at all, rather than backing him. If you must, v*te for one of the 3rd parties, or write in Ron Paul. Or Mickey Mouse.

sigh, I know.  I just can't bring myself to potentially help Romney win.

And there are people who think the exact same thing about Obama. Imagine if both groups voted Johnson.

                     I know what you mean but like myrkul said. As well as his bailouts for large coperate banks and wall street while he looked the  other way as occupy wall street was proded,pepper sprayed, tear gased and forced out of the parks and thrown in jail for peaceful protest. The republicans want to frame him as a socialist but in reality he isjust like them (Bail out the rich/ Ignore the poor) I like to compare Obama to president Jimmy Carter a desillusioned right leaning democrat.

.
Don't let the Democrats trick you! The only vote that helps Romney win is a vote for Romney. When votes for Nader "helped Bush win" in 2000 the Democrats were quick to point the finger at him and his supporters, but then what did they do to FIX the spoiler effect when they finally won power?

Nothing.

They did nothing to fix the spoiler effect and never WILL do anything to fix the spoiler effect because it keeps THEM in power too. So when we say "lesser evil" or blame ourselves for not compromising with 49% evil, they laugh all the way to the bank. Obama and his ilk have perpetuated this dilemma on purpose... that alone should be reason to refuse him.

Yes, there's a .00001% chance your vote will "let Romney win" because you could have voted Obama, but it's a scam perpetuated by both parties. Just vote for whoever you think is best - if everyone had the conscience to do that instead of try to game their fellow Americans, we'd be living in a much more peaceful place.

When there is even one scrap of evidence that your vote is counted in any way, I might consider it.     

Such evidence could consist of:

1) some attempt at a verifiable exit poll system, not controlled and "adjusted" by the people who bought the voting system
2) some attempt at a secure voting system, verifiable by the voters not just the people who bought the election

It doesn't have to be perfect.  I'd just like a little more attempts to pretend there is actually some counting of votes involved. 
That these things are possible and within budget is clear.  It is also clear that all attempts to implement them have been blocked.

This has been true for a long time, but it is has been coming to the head in the last decade as the people who wind up with the position are more and more clearly ones that did not have majority support, and companies like Dibold are more and more public with their commitments and sales pitches. 

Some people are upset by this; that's why all those imperial stormtroopers went to Tampa where they publicly announced the candidate would be chosen not by voters but by "officials".     

I'm done with the two parties as well, no more lesser of two evils voting for me ever again. I'm voting Gary Johnson as I agree with him on almost everything he says.

    Couldn`t agree with all of you more,You get what you vote for and I know you have all heard that voting for a third paty canidate is a waste of your vote 1. Voting for either of these clowns is just as big of a waste of your vote. And 2. As for the people who say that it is impossible for third parties to win, the progressives used to be a thrid party and we are not trying to win (not yet but it is a goal). This vote is meant to make a statement the system won`t change unless you force it to.

Damn straight. Lesser evil are for chumps. Vote for the greater evils, and be rewarded with a quick death.

   Suicide Booth : Please select your mode of death.  And once more                                 I am Mitt Romney and I support this message.

Waste of time. Third-parties have no chance of winning, so voting for them is pointless. Rather than wasting ~30 minutes voting, use that time to educate people about libertarianism (or whatever).

What we need is instant run-off voting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)  Then we'd be able to vote our hearts AND hedge against the greater of two evils.

If you're doing the write in thing, there is no choice but Jay Bierce.

So....

Wolf A's ballot reads:
 Wolf A: 1
 Wolf B: 2
 Sheep: 3

Wolf B's ballot:
 Wolf A: 2
 Wolf B: 1
 Sheep: 3

The Sheep's ballot:
 Wolf A: 3
 Wolf B: 2
 Sheep: 1

Wolf A: 1 number 1 spot, one number 2 spot, and 1 number 3 spot.
Wolf B: 1 number 1 spot, two number 2 spots, and 0 number 3 spots.
Sheep: 1 number one spot, 0 number two spots, and 2 number 3 spots.

First run:
Sheep is eliminated.

Second run:
Wolf A is eliminated.

Who picks dinner:
Wolf B.

Vote for satoshi

I never claimed that it would solve the fundamental problems with democracy, just that it would weaken the hold of the two party system.

Why polish the doorknobs on the Titanic?

Does that metaphor mean you expect the US government to collapse in the near future?  Then why even have this conversation?

You got me there. ;) I'm of the opinion that voting, for any candidate, just encourages them to keep holding elections.

The thrid party? Got a manifest?

Voting for a third party says "I support this broken and corrupt system and this is who I want to be in charge".

Not voting says "I don't support this broken and corrupt system".

This +9000.

 ;D

You know how the media gets all hot and bothered about voter turnout? It's because it legitimizes the system all their friends control. If some tiny minority went and picked themselves a leader it would be clear that he's just their leader, getting everyone involved keeps up the illusion that we all consent to the system. I don't.

I'm not saying that voting actually makes you responsible for following their terrible laws. If you think it can protect you, go for it. Maybe this time you'll actually tip the scales in the "should we rape the ladies in the lifeboat" political hypothetical. After you lose the rape vote again you can still try to drown the bastards.

One of these people is wrong. I'm willing to bet it's not FreeMoney.

In one town I lived in, the pro government school folks tried to get passed a huge expansion of the existing school. The voters turned it down. They waited the absolute minimum time required by law to put it on the ballot again, only this time the vote was scheduled for February. (This was in Minnesota.) They knew that most of the older folks on fixed incomes would be too afraid to go out to vote, plus it was the only thing on the ballot so most voters wouldn't bother. Only 14% of registered voters bothered to vote, and it just barely passed. It was still seen as legitimate even though less than 8% of registered voters voted in favor, and that's less than 5% of the population.

The idea that people will stop supporting government when enough people stop voting seems like fail to me.

Then do I ever have the deal for you! Let's bet on it. If any third-party candidate wins, you pay me 100 BTC. If Democrats/Republicans win, then I pay you 0.0001 BTC. Since you're not just being hyperbolic to promote a political argument, it's practically free money!

Do you honestly think a government led by Gary Johnson would be as corrupt or broken? Ask a dozen random people if they interpret low voter turnout as protest or apathy. You can send a clear message against corruption and inefficiency by voting for someone who will fight against them.

It is free money, but such a small amount isn't worth my time. I'll do a bet of my 1000 BTC to your 2 BTC.

So you're so rich that simply posting a receiving address is worth a whopping 2 BTC to you, but you're so poor that you can't offer more than 1000 BTC? Why the higher odds all of a sudden? To make things easy, I'll even send you my 0.0001 BTC immediately yet patiently wait for you to save 100 BTC in the unlikely event that I win.

Assuming you agree that there IS a nonzero chance that a third party will win (like they have in the past), then increasing that chance is potentially worthwhile.
Value of voting = (expected benefit if win) x (change in chance to win) - (cost of voting)
Costs are gas money, waiting in line, etc.
Personally I'd put a HUGE value on removing the Republicrats from power, so even if the odds are very low it's worth doing.

To quote: “If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.”

I'm not an American, and I don't know much about Gary Johnson. But a quick look at his policy page (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues) reveals plenty of weasel words. For example, he calls for an end to "bloated stimulus programs and unnecessary farm subsidies". No problem then with stimulus programs that are not too bloated, or with farm subsidies that are "necessary"? And he wants to eliminate "needless barriers to free trade", which suggests that some barriers to free trade are "needed".

Also, campaign promises are not legally binding and the historical track record of elected candidates is not good.

And he doesn't seem to have a problem with accepting a comfortable salary extracted under threat of force from his constituents. Just sayin'.

I think he meant to imply that all such barriers and subsidies and such are unnecessary, but yeah, I don't trust him with the ring, either.

As per this website I hate Obama a little less than Romney.
http://www.isidewith.com/results/86508473

Wow... That site shows everything that is wrong with electoral politics. You, for instance, have to select from choices that range from 66% to 78%, and each issue, it looks like, has a different best choice.

So you're stuck with the least-worst... Johnson.

    I enjoyed what "ShireSilver" said in response to rhis statement and I have to agree. I have seen this happen many times in my voting district as well. The point is that not voting fixes nothing and they will still hold elections whether the voter turn out is 70 percent or if it is 1 percent. Now dont get me wrong in way am a I going to garuntee you there will not be currouption nor can any politician truly say they are currouption free and not be lying. Becuase I believe that humans are munipulateable and money and capitalism breed currouption and make it hard for people to trust one and other but thats a philosphy for a differnent time. So my answer to why polish the door knobs on the titanic: There is always time to turn around or change course.

Be thankful you dont live in Australia where they fine you for not voting.

btw I have a large stack of fines sitting in a drawer collecting dust  :D

OK one more link for y'all :) 
Deek Jackson of FKN news sums it all up pretty well as usual:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq6vF00x31Y

http://www.isidewith.com/results/88127669
95% - Jill Stein

75% - Obama
34% - Romney


LOL US politics call me a green as well, but I want the greens to win here and the libertarians to win in the US, it would be hilarious...

Going through the obama list of issues, a lot of them are listed as agreed but the "similar" answer rule seems to be in obama's favour a little bit...

And if you can't trust some random website... who can you trust?

How can they even enforce something like this?  Is it next time you vote they wont let you until you pay your fines?  Do the restrict your attempts to get a driver's license or something of the sort?  If they do nothing why even bother with the fines, its just posturing.  The government wastes 100's of australian dollars trying to collect 10's of dollars in fines...

If the USA did this, they would just pile on more fines for not paying your fines, wait until after it has reached obscene proportions, and then garnish your wages (if any) or arrest you.

I've been fined twice, The first time for not voting, the next time for not replying to the fine, The next letter I got informed me that I had been unenrolled because of false information (I didn't update it to my new address) - Haven't heard from them since

But yes, they stop you from getting a license.

^-^