I would like to ask the admins ... is it some coincidence that the bar representing Romney is red, and the bar representing Obama is blue? 
Vote today... Mitt Romney or Barack Obama
- Thread starter Peter Breuninger
- Start date
- Status
Hehe....Mike, the one that is italicized is the one you voted for.
Tom
Hi Tom,
I think that it was italicized prior to my voting. In any case, it's a silly point.
It will be interesting to see how accurate it is to draw an inference from our board's sample.
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Co-Owner, Administrator
The Joys of Third Party Voting, or How I Learned to Love the Electoral College
Tung Yin Law Professor, Lewis and Clark Law School
Here in Oregon, where I live, voting is done entirely by mail. The ballots, secrecy envelopes and return envelopes are mailed to all registered voters a few weeks in advance of Election Day. You vote from the comfort of your home and mail back your completed ballot (or you can drop it off at a collection location if you don't want to pay for the stamp). I just filled out my ballot and for the first time ever, I voted for a third party candidate for President of the United States.
My general voting heuristic has been to vote for divided government. (This law review article has had a lot of influence on my thinking, in that it argues persuasively that modern political parties have largely nullified the original conception of separation of powers; when Congress and the White House are in the hands of the same party, the checks and balances don't operate the way they should.) Admittedly, I don't always follow that rule. In 2008, for example, divided government would have meant voting for McCain, but I couldn't actually bring myself to vote for a ticket with Sarah Palin for vice president.
In any event, this year, the divided government rule doesn't yield an obvious choice, because it looks like the Republicans will hold on to the House, while the Democrats will hold on to the Senate. I suppose that if one party takes control of both houses, it's more likely to be the Republicans, but split control of Congress is far more likely.
Anyway, it just happened that this year, there was a third party candidate whose positions appealed quite broadly to me. Not all of them, but my views are idiosyncratic enough that it would be impossible to vote for someone who shared all of my views unless I were to write myself in. I've done that before, actually (I'm not in any party, so I wasn't a third party candidate), but this year there seemed to be no need.
I've had friends implore me not to "throw away my vote," but I don't see it that way. In terms of affecting the outcome of the presidential election, the chance is pretty much zero that mine will be the deciding vote. This is even more so when you factor in the Electoral College -- I live in Oregon, which Nate Silver currently rates as a 99 percent chance of going for President Obama. Put another way, if the President is at risk of losing Oregon's seven electoral votes because I vote for a third party candidate, he's going to get crushed in this election. Thus, my friends can point to the example of Florida in 2000 (when Ralph Nader got more votes than the difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush) all they want, but the simple response is that Oregon in 2012 is not Florida in 2000.
But what, then, is to be gained by voting for a third party candidate who stands even less of a chance than Mitt Romney does of winning Oregon's electoral votes? Well, I see the act of voting as being more than the binary choice of the Democratic candidate or the Republican one. There is an expressive component to voting that goes beyond the role that the vote plays in selecting the winner.
One can debate whether Nader voters in 2000 made a wise choice to support him over, presumably, Gore in a tight election. But Gore wasn't entitled to the support of those voters; he needed to earn those votes and for whatever reason, he didn't. Message sent.
To put it another way, a vote for a major party candidate counts the same whether it's an affirmative, enthusiastic vote for that candidate; an impassioned vote against the other candidate; or a lukewarm vote for whoever is perceived to be the lesser of two evils. The third kind of vote is perfectly understandable in a tight election in a battleground state, but message of discontent isn't likely to get through. A third party vote, on the other hand, sends a stronger message of discontent. If enough people vote for third party candidates, then the winner of the election can well find himself (or herself, in a future election) with less than 50 percent of the popular vote, as has happened numerous times, and therefore much less of a claim to any sort of mandate. It's "You weren't as lame as the other candidate" rather than "We like you, we really like you."
Life is short. If my vote isn't going to matter, then I'm going to vote my conscience.
Tung Yin Law Professor, Lewis and Clark Law School
Here in Oregon, where I live, voting is done entirely by mail. The ballots, secrecy envelopes and return envelopes are mailed to all registered voters a few weeks in advance of Election Day. You vote from the comfort of your home and mail back your completed ballot (or you can drop it off at a collection location if you don't want to pay for the stamp). I just filled out my ballot and for the first time ever, I voted for a third party candidate for President of the United States.
My general voting heuristic has been to vote for divided government. (This law review article has had a lot of influence on my thinking, in that it argues persuasively that modern political parties have largely nullified the original conception of separation of powers; when Congress and the White House are in the hands of the same party, the checks and balances don't operate the way they should.) Admittedly, I don't always follow that rule. In 2008, for example, divided government would have meant voting for McCain, but I couldn't actually bring myself to vote for a ticket with Sarah Palin for vice president.
In any event, this year, the divided government rule doesn't yield an obvious choice, because it looks like the Republicans will hold on to the House, while the Democrats will hold on to the Senate. I suppose that if one party takes control of both houses, it's more likely to be the Republicans, but split control of Congress is far more likely.
Anyway, it just happened that this year, there was a third party candidate whose positions appealed quite broadly to me. Not all of them, but my views are idiosyncratic enough that it would be impossible to vote for someone who shared all of my views unless I were to write myself in. I've done that before, actually (I'm not in any party, so I wasn't a third party candidate), but this year there seemed to be no need.
I've had friends implore me not to "throw away my vote," but I don't see it that way. In terms of affecting the outcome of the presidential election, the chance is pretty much zero that mine will be the deciding vote. This is even more so when you factor in the Electoral College -- I live in Oregon, which Nate Silver currently rates as a 99 percent chance of going for President Obama. Put another way, if the President is at risk of losing Oregon's seven electoral votes because I vote for a third party candidate, he's going to get crushed in this election. Thus, my friends can point to the example of Florida in 2000 (when Ralph Nader got more votes than the difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush) all they want, but the simple response is that Oregon in 2012 is not Florida in 2000.
But what, then, is to be gained by voting for a third party candidate who stands even less of a chance than Mitt Romney does of winning Oregon's electoral votes? Well, I see the act of voting as being more than the binary choice of the Democratic candidate or the Republican one. There is an expressive component to voting that goes beyond the role that the vote plays in selecting the winner.
One can debate whether Nader voters in 2000 made a wise choice to support him over, presumably, Gore in a tight election. But Gore wasn't entitled to the support of those voters; he needed to earn those votes and for whatever reason, he didn't. Message sent.
To put it another way, a vote for a major party candidate counts the same whether it's an affirmative, enthusiastic vote for that candidate; an impassioned vote against the other candidate; or a lukewarm vote for whoever is perceived to be the lesser of two evils. The third kind of vote is perfectly understandable in a tight election in a battleground state, but message of discontent isn't likely to get through. A third party vote, on the other hand, sends a stronger message of discontent. If enough people vote for third party candidates, then the winner of the election can well find himself (or herself, in a future election) with less than 50 percent of the popular vote, as has happened numerous times, and therefore much less of a claim to any sort of mandate. It's "You weren't as lame as the other candidate" rather than "We like you, we really like you."
Life is short. If my vote isn't going to matter, then I'm going to vote my conscience.
Given the demographics of the board -- predominantly male, middle-aged and affluent, I'm a bit surprised that Romney isn't running away with it.
Tim
Tim
Yes, but you could say the same thing re NYC (although not predominantly male, but middle aged affluent, largely educated or professional, or self-employed (and ditto Los Angeles and San Fran in CA) and they tilt heavily the other way, toward democratic.
I suspect increasing numbers of affluent, middle aged, (dare I add: white) males, are turned off by the GOPs infatuation with the religeous right, and Romney's failure to stand up against extremism within the party. I know plenty solid conservatives that cannot stomach this and are jumping ship and vote libertarian.
---So far this WBF member's poll seems to reflect exactly the real situation across the entire USA;
dead heat with a very slight margin (advance) for Barack.
* And remember, I voted too, and I know what my vote did exactly. :b
dead heat with a very slight margin (advance) for Barack.
* And remember, I voted too, and I know what my vote did exactly. :b
--- Hey, I've heard from some of the media out there that WBF is full of mediaphiles.
___________________
* By the way, did you heard also 'bout Panasonic and Sharp possibility of stopping making TVs?
...Seems to be solid news now, after about three years of rumors.
...Should be good for Samsung, and perhaps Sony too.
___________________
* By the way, did you heard also 'bout Panasonic and Sharp possibility of stopping making TVs?
...Seems to be solid news now, after about three years of rumors.
...Should be good for Samsung, and perhaps Sony too.
Yes it does...4 more yrs of Obama will be a disaster for this country both economically and at the judicial supreme ct level should he have to appt new judges.
He's pro business...Obama is not despite his bs act. As a major stockholder of a biz that employs over 2500 people I can tell you as a director our biz and many others will just sit on the sidelines with our money until the economic tumor leaves the white house. 4 more years of a meager economy with no good jobs. I feel bad for the kool-aid drinkers. I think that is about all I will say regarding the matter.
That's the reason the economy is tanking...people waiting for others to fix the problem. Companies are hoarding billions and billions of dollars earning interest and pleasing their shareholders instead of creating jobs and investing in the future, which is what creates growth and prosperity.
Interesting point of view ... After the catastrophe of 2008 ... Anyone who thinks the economy was going to get back straight to pre (artifical)-2008 levels in 4 years must have been drinking a very alcoholic version of Kool-aid or taking a more potent mind-altering substance ... Out of this discussion .. I have voted already
Uh-oh. I would so like to contribute on this subject but don't want to get the thread shut down. And remember, I also live in proximity to NYC, and worked there, the Kingdom of Mad Mike. Give me good ol' fashioned mafia style corruption anyday.
- Status
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |