Moderators Kindness Posted February 13, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 13, 2008 Yep. It always amazes me how many people switch votes just to be on the percieved "winning" side. I agree that's what goes on, but it would make sense if people were jumping ship to the most electable candidate. Rational votes are cast for the candidate closest to the middle, but at least one "political spectrum unit" towards the voter. Irrational votes are cast for the candidate that most closely matches the voter's views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 He passed 78-22, but the dems were 22-22. You quoted me before my smartass edit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Incubitabus Posted February 13, 2008 Author Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 You quoted me before my smartass edit! You had to edit to be a smartass, mine just comes out smartass to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 I agree that's what goes on, but it would make sense if people were jumping ship to the most electable candidate. Rational votes are cast for the candidate closest to the middle, but at least one "political spectrum unit" towards the voter. Irrational votes are cast for the candidate that most closely matches the voter's views. Which is so ridiculous. If we all voted for who we REALLY wanted, washington would be much different than it is now. Personally, I call that irrational. I understand the logic behind what you are saying and agree that that is how it is, but it's just so wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 13, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 13, 2008 Which is so ridiculous. If we all voted for who we REALLY wanted, washington would be much different than it is now. Personally, I call that irrational.I understand the logic behind what you are saying and agree that that is how it is, but it's just so wrong. Depends on your perspective. When I vote (which is never in national elections) I vote for the candidate that best represents the greatest number of constituents, not the person that most closely matches my preferences. Because I value the opinions of those that disagree with me as much as I value my own (in recognizing I am not infallible), I think those candidates are the right person for the job more so than someone that is going to promote what could be considered my agenda. This concept confuses most people, but it is the most natural and comfortable for me. That said, I always vote for someone that values their own thought process over a "party line" - I just look for independent thinkers that find themselves in the middle of the spectrum, even though my personal opinions are often weighted heavily to the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members justinbass Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 Which is so ridiculous. If we all voted for who we REALLY wanted, washington would be much different than it is now. Personally, I call that irrational.I understand the logic behind what you are saying and agree that that is how it is, but it's just so wrong. We live in a two party system, so that's how it is. You end up voting against the person you want to loose, and not for the person you want you win. EDIT: it is worth mentioning that this is the closest I have ever come to talking politics on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 Depends on your perspective. When I vote (which is never in national elections) I vote for the candidate that best represents the greatest number of constituents, not the person that most closely matches my preferences. Because I value the opinions of those that disagree with me as much as I value my own (in recognizing I am not infallible), I think those candidates are the right person for the job more so than someone that is going to promote what could be considered my agenda. This concept confuses most people, but it is the most natural and comfortable for me. That said, I always vote for someone that values their own thought process over a "party line" - I just look for independent thinkers that find themselves in the middle of the spectrum, even though my personal opinions are often weighted heavily to the right. Not confusing. Just not for me. I figure if everyone votes for the person they REALLY want to be in office, then it will take care of itself. If it works for you, more power to ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 We live in a two party system, so that's how it is.You end up voting against the person you want to loose, and not for the person you want you win.EDIT: it is worth mentioning that this is the closest I have ever come to talking politics on the internet. Not the point. Even in a two party system you have choices. Especially in the primaries. I have heard more people than I can count say things to the effect of "I really want X to win, but I'm going to vote for Y because they stand a better chance of winning". If you extrapolate that, it makes no sense. If everyone who really wanted X to win voted for X......X would win. People would actually get what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 13, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 13, 2008 I figure if everyone votes for the person they REALLY want to be in office, then it will take care of itself. Which is EXACTLY why I don't vote. It takes care of itself. Two party, race to the middle, popular vote... you end up with a centrist vote every time. Unfortunately, the problem of finding independent thinkers for the job isn't solved, but my votes will never solve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 You had to edit to be a smartass, mine just comes out smartass to start. showoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 13, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 13, 2008 Not the point. Even in a two party system you have choices. Especially in the primaries.I have heard more people than I can count say things to the effect of "I really want X to win, but I'm going to vote for Y because they stand a better chance of winning". If you extrapolate that, it makes no sense. If everyone who really wanted X to win voted for X......X would win. People would actually get what they want. In the primaries, if everyone that actually wanted someone non centrist to win voted for that candidate, that candidate would be nominated and get routed in the national election. The ONLY way to win a national election is to appear to voters to be the closest to the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 In the primaries, if everyone that actually wanted someone non centrist to win voted for that candidate, that candidate would be nominated and get routed in the national election. The ONLY way to win a national election is to appear to voters to be the closest to the middle. I disagree. And GW is living proof of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 Which is EXACTLY why I don't vote. It takes care of itself. Two party, race to the middle, popular vote... you end up with a centrist vote every time. Unfortunately, the problem of finding independent thinkers for the job isn't solved, but my votes will never solve that. But everyones votes combined could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 I disagree. And GW is living proof of that. Rebuttal...John Kerry, Al Gore. The dems outlefted the rightists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 First time around, GWB tried to come across with stuff like 'I'm a uniter, not a divider' etc. Second time around the whole country was a lot more right wing due to 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 13, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 13, 2008 Rebuttal...John Kerry, Al Gore. The dems outlefted the rightists! FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 13, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 13, 2008 But everyones votes combined could. I spend several years studying this and came to a different conclusion, but what do I know? I prefer the hard sciences to the political sciences because I am absolutely positive when I've found the right answer in dealing with statics and dynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 Rebuttal...John Kerry, Al Gore. The dems outlefted the rightists! Well yeah. and now....OBAMA. Probably even further left than those 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted February 13, 2008 Moderators Share Posted February 13, 2008 Well yeah. and now....OBAMA. Probably even further left than those 2. Reality != perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 I spend several years studying this and came to a different conclusion, but what do I know? I prefer the hard sciences to the political sciences because I am absolutely positive when I've found the right answer in dealing with statics and dynamics. The problem isn't with the statistics, it's with people's attitudes. Until they realize that if "they keep doing what they been doing, they're gonna keep getting what the been getting" it will never change. Unfortunate, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Incubitabus Posted February 13, 2008 Author Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 Well yeah. and now....OBAMA. Probably even further left than those 2. And the only reason for that is that the pendulum is swinging back. Bush was so far to the right, and such a terrible leader and representative for our country, that the public Is more inclined to swing to the left (not quite Kennedy Left, but more so than Kerry or Gore). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 Well yeah. and now....OBAMA. Probably even further left than those 2. SHHHH!!!!!...well guarded secret from/by the media...DO NOT SPEAK OF IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Incubitabus Posted February 13, 2008 Author Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 I think you have Obama confused with guL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 Maybe people realise it and just want a change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 13, 2008 Members Share Posted February 13, 2008 Maybe people realise it and just want a change? No, most have no idea. The funest thing I've seen over and over during this election cycle is "I'm for Ron Paul! ...or if not him, Obama!" You have to almost be a politcal imbecile to support that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.