Lately, I've been really apathetic to the political process because, to me, the candidates really stink. I couldn't care less who wins the national election because I don't think either will do much for me, and I think that they're both full of it.

Being from MA, I know that the state will spend its electoral votes on a Democrat. It always has, it always will. Voting for a Republican or a Democrat is downright useless here. So, I figured I'd vote for a 3rd party candidate, and try to get them Federal funding. But which one?

I heard on the radio about a site that would ask you questions and determine what candidate reflects your views the best (http://www.govote.com/votematch). It really worked well for me, and I'm actually going to vote for a 3rd party rather than waste my vote writing in "Ross Perot, the nut" again (He said he'd sell Air Force One because he had his own plane! How could I resist?).

If you go there, make sure that you click on the questions and read them. "Strongly Oppose", "Oppose", etc., do not mean precisely what you may think, and they change on a per question basis.

So now I'm OzzyOsbourne, Perl writer, Libertarian.

I'll be in my bunker writing Perl if anyone needs me...

-OzzyOsbourne

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(jcwren) RE: Voting Help in the US
by jcwren (Prior) on Oct 20, 2000 at 18:43 UTC
    The problem is that while many of the third party candidates (which is really a misnomer, since we're NOT a two party system) look good to many people, they think they're "throwing away their vote". The ONLY time you're throwing away your vote is when you don't vote. If all the people who would supposedly vote third party actually did, Harry Brown would be in office already.

    --Chris

    e-mail jcwren
[reply]

      I noticed that Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush are at the top of their polls - which makes sense, as there are ideas are very generic and trying to appeal to a large majority of people. The other candidates tend to have sharper ideas, so one or more is likely to "clash" with yours a form a less-perfect "fit." Interestingly enough, although the top two are Democrat and Republican, the combined third party tallies whips them both. Perhaps if the third party system wasn't so splintered...

      We need a "geek-techno" party in this nation. Someone who can actually understand the Internet and maybe even write a Perl script. :)

[reply]

      ...which is really a misnomer, since we're NOT a two party system

      When only 2 parties get into the TV debates, we are a 2 party system. When the smaller guys have equal access to the media, I will reconsider. I would love a 13+ party system, myself...

      -OzzyOsbourne

[reply]
RE: Voting Help in the US
by Petruchio (Vicar) on Oct 20, 2000 at 20:43 UTC
    Actually, if I were you, I'd vote for whomever the heck I liked anyway.

    Figure, pundits are saying this should be the closest presidential race since 1960. If either Gore or Bush wins on electoral votes but loses on popular votes, at least there's a good chance of pissing enough people off that we can change the Constitution and ditch the Electoral College.

    Like I said... "if I were you". Which I'm not... so do your own thing. Actually, the funding is a good point. Maybe you should vote Nader; if the Green party becomes more prominent, it'll split the liberal vote. ;-)

    Incidentally... sure the candidates suck; but I think this is easily the most important election in 20 years, probably a fair bit longer. With four Supreme Court judges poised to retire, and two more solidly in the minority camp, things can really change... even if (as seems inevitable) the President's a big weenie.

    Btw, now that I think of it: am I the only person that really wishes the two big party running-mates were the major party candiates?

[reply]
RE: Voting Help in the US
by amelinda (Friar) on Oct 20, 2000 at 22:26 UTC
    I'd like to submit the World's Smallest Political Quiz for your Party Determination Needs.

    My current annoyance is the FUD tactic bumperstickers. You know, the ones that say "A vote for Nader is a vote for [Bush|Gore]"... what a crock. I really hate how the media (yeah yeah, that nebulous bugaboo) has everyone so focussed on the candidates that they don't even get to vote directly for. It's like everyone's forgotten about the Electoral College or something. Of course, the people can affect the Electoral College (but the media doesn't want you to remember this) by voting locally. Vote for good local folks and it trickles upward. Just my two pfennigs.

[reply]
RE: Voting Help in the US
by swiftone (Curate) on Oct 20, 2000 at 22:50 UTC
    Discover magazine has an interesting article on different methods of voting, and how our system pretty much dictates a two-party (majority) system, because of the splitting votes problem. It's fluffy, like most of Discover's pieces, but interesting nonetheless.

    SwiftOne, who will be voting for Nader, and would prefer an approval voting method.

[reply]
      Not only is this system, as Borda says, a system only for honest men, it is also a system only for informed men. While it's a kinda cool idea, I just don't see it gaining a lot of popular support because, well, it's hard1. Ok, it's harder than going to the voting booth and pushing the "vote all [democrat|republican]" button. Given that that is too much trouble for a large number of people2, what's going to make this appealing enough to overcome their apathy?

      man, I'm gonna run out of pfennigs if this keeps up. :grin:

      1 I'm not talking about hard for you, or for me. I'm talking about the average citizen. PM ain't exactly average.
      2 Anyone got numbers handy on the percentage of people who vote in this country? How about broken down by age?
[reply]
        Not only is this system, as Borda says

        Well, don't forget that I want the approval vote, which is less complicated than the Borda system. The approval vote simple says "vote for any and all that you would be willing to run the country". Certainly different people will set the limit in different places, but overall it guarantees that the candidate with the greatest general appeal will be elected. (While this may result in a wave of mediocrity, welcome to democracy).

        I don't like the Broda system, as it assumes that the amount of difference between pick one and two is the same as between pick three and four. Another way to do it is to offer y votes, where y=Number of candidates * some constant, and let you split those votes amongst the candidates. This wouldn't make much change in the single-candidate voters, but would change the results of those who are split between two or more candidates. It's much more complex though, and overall I prefer the approval vote.

[reply]
      I've always like the single-transferable vote system. You pick candidates in order preference and your vote goes to the first pick.

      Then, all the votes are tallied and the lowest man is booted and all of his votes are passed on or dropped in the case of those who didn't list a second preference.

      The tally and drop procedure continues till one candidate has more than 50% of the votes remaining. Bam, winner.

      --
      $you = new YOU;
      honk() if $you->love(perl)

[reply]
        extremely said:
        I've always like the single-transferable vote system
        The STV system can be used for trading votes among different factions. This may not be a problem in full-scale general election but I know anecdotically about a case where one large country's candidates wondered what hit them (they didn't get any people on the board, because the other countries traded votes).

        They know how to play the game now.

        A good electoral system must also be easy to grasp.

        /jeorgen

[reply]
RE: Voting Help in the US
by ivory (Pilgrim) on Oct 20, 2000 at 22:59 UTC
    There is a wonderful article in this months Discover magazine that I strongly urge you all to read. The article basically talks about the failures of our particular voting system (plurality voting) and explains a couple of different voting procedures that might give third party candidates a fair shot.

    Ivory

[reply]
RE: Voting Help in the US
by royalanjr (Chaplain) on Oct 20, 2000 at 18:28 UTC
    You are not in that bunker alone. A LOT of folks feel exactly the same way. It's pretty sad in a way, but the politicians bring it on themselves.

    Roy Alan

[reply]
RE: Voting Help in the US
by jptxs (Curate) on Oct 21, 2000 at 07:41 UTC

    You already indicated you're aware of the Libertarians, but have you see their cool politics quiz?

    It's here and it could be helpful to anyone trying to figure out where they really stand - because you know your opinions but do you really understand who shares them? 

    "sometimes when you make a request for the head you don't
want the big, fat body...don't you go snickering."
                           -- Nathan Torkington UoP2K

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
      The quiz that you mentioned is just a much simpler version of the one in the original post. It almost seems too simple...

      -OzzyOsbourne

[reply]
        If it gets much smaller than 10 questions, it might be too small. As for the external validity of the WSPQ, they have been working on it for many years to make it accurate. Were they successful? It was recently used by a real polling company, and you can see the results here.
[reply]

Back to Meditations