LogFAQs > #909576411

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Are you registered to vote?
Zeus 09/27/18 10:22:51 PM #45:	Viking_Mudcrap posted... And how does he make it matter? By doing nothing? if he doesnt do anything, then it will never change. This is such a flawed logic with the third parties. "Yeah, I don't vote for them because they will never win" ..... well... yeah they won't win because nobody votes for them... I remember Gary Johnson, he was asked something along the lines "How does it feel to run for president in a third party when you know you won't win?" and he lost his shit. As he should have. Then he might as well vote for a major party because, while they'd still lose, there's a greater chance of an impact. Viking_Mudcrap posted... If a sub-developed country like Panama can have, at least, 5 political parties with equal chances of winning.... why can't USA? ...what? I don't even... How is any of that correlated? It just makes no sense. It's like saying that countries with far more paper clips should have more gopher farms. The two things just aren't even remotely connected. ParanoidObsessive posted... Not really. New Jersey is one of the last states to have primaries. By the time we get to vote, we have almost no say in whose running, and really only get to rubber-stamp the decisions that have already been made by that point. It also doesn't help that, by the nature of having staggered primaries, the results of the first few crucial votes will always skew and influence later primaries. Which is why so many people have complained about which states get to hold their primaries first in the past, and why those states guard their prerogative so jealously. But again, ultimately, my vote is pretty much meaningless on the larger stage. Because the presidency is the only office? >_> ParanoidObsessive posted... Not really, because the system itself as it currently exists is still going to funnel very specific candidates to you. You're not voting for the best candidate for any given job, you're voting which of the terrible options you're presented with get to win over the others. Not necessarily true, given the trouble that establishment candidates have had lately. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:909576411] in Are you re... [t:77039222]...</cite> <quote><cite>Viking_Mudcrap posted...</cite> <quote> And how does he make it matter? By doing nothing? if he doesnt do anything, then it will never change. This is such a flawed logic with the third parties. "Yeah, I don't vote for them because they will never win" ..... well... yeah they won't win because nobody votes for them... I remember Gary Johnson, he was asked something along the lines "How does it feel to run for president in a third party when you know you won't win?" and he lost his shit. As he should have.</quote> Then he might as well vote for a major party because, while they'd still lose, there's a greater chance of an impact. <cite>Viking_Mudcrap posted...</cite> <quote>If a sub-developed country like Panama can have, at least, 5 political parties with equal chances of winning.... why can't USA?</quote> ...what? I don't even... How is any of that correlated? It just makes no sense. It's like saying that countries with far more paper clips should have more gopher farms. The two things just aren't even remotely connected. <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Not really. New Jersey is one of the last states to have primaries. By the time we get to vote, we have almost no say in whose running, and really only get to rubber-stamp the decisions that have already been made by that point. It also doesn't help that, by the nature of having staggered primaries, the results of the first few crucial votes will always skew and influence later primaries. Which is why so many people have complained about which states get to hold their primaries first in the past, and why those states guard their prerogative so jealously. But again, ultimately, my vote is pretty much meaningless on the larger stage. </quote> Because the presidency is the only office? >_> <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted...</cite> <quote>Not really, because the system itself as it currently exists is still going to funnel very specific candidates to you. You're not voting for the best candidate for any given job, you're voting which of the terrible options you're presented with get to win over the others.</quote> Not necessarily true, given the trouble that establishment candidates have had lately. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1