Mock election


PDA






RealGun
April 5, 2004, 10:12 AM
How would you vote today?
Duration - one week
To be repeated monthly until the election or until John McCaine (Sen.-R-AZ) and company restrict it (Campaign Finance Reform Act).

If you enjoyed reading about "Mock election" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
USMC_2674
April 5, 2004, 01:41 PM
So what exactly does All Republican's mean if we are voting for a president?

I am voting for Bush.

RealGun
April 5, 2004, 02:16 PM
"All" means straight ticket. "All Republican", for example, means you are voting for all the Republicans on the ballot, no matter what. That would include George Bush for President.

The poll does not address voting for a party or mixed party affiliation without voting for a Presidential candidate. "All" means a choice by default, based only on political party.

There is room for four more choices in a future iteration. Feel free to make suggestions.

Significant voting for third party can be broken out into specifics in a separate, third party-only poll. I do not intend to minimize third party interest. The poll is intended to be unbiased within the limits of 16 polling choices.

Zeke Menuar
April 5, 2004, 02:28 PM
As of right now, I am not going to vote for either Bush or Kerry. I am looking for a third party candidate that is worthy. As a last resort I'll write in Bill the Cat and Opus. Those of you that used to read the comics know what I'm referring to.

As far as the local and state elections, I vote for whatever candidate looks like he/she won't raise my taxes or mess with the gun laws. Usually that is Republican but not always.

When I vote for ballot measures I almost always vote down any measure that raises taxes or costs me money. The tax structure here in Monsoon Central is more "F***** up than a football bat". Even if the politicians in Salem actually come up with a good idea, there is no guarantee that the money will get to where it is supposed to go. They are always begging for money, predicting gloom and doom and by some miracle, state government goes on. What a bunch of thieves and liars.

ZM

Shooter 2.5
April 5, 2004, 10:40 PM
We might as well get used to calling kerry the president according to this. I can assure the people on this board the dems aren't going to vote for Nader.

All we had to do was elect Bush, keep the House and add a few pro-gun Senators and we could have rolled back any gun control law we chose.

But Nooooo. [Steve Martin voice]

:cuss:

TaurusCIA
April 5, 2004, 11:34 PM
But I still like Kerry Berry pie and Blue Kerry muffins.:uhoh:

Unlucky
April 6, 2004, 12:55 AM
I'm holding my nose and voting Bush. Kerry is putrid already and the election is 7 months away.

RealGun
April 6, 2004, 07:12 AM
It's time to quit yakkin' and start voting. This thread is not meant to continue the yada-yada. I think we've heard all the arguments on other threads. You'll comment as you wish, but it would be most appreciated to have comments about the poll itself or about any trends apparent in the ongoing results.

We'll examine the possible motives for the "stupid poll" votes when we're finished at the end of the week (7 day poll). At this point I take it as a count of those who are non-participants in the American political process, save heckling the pre-election debates.

This poll proves little conclusively and is only meant to be interesting. One does have to kind of put their money where their mouth is.

Devonai
April 6, 2004, 07:17 AM
I'll vote for Bush for President, and Libertarian for anything I else I see on the ballot. If there is no Libertarian candidate, I'll default to Republican.

RealGun
April 6, 2004, 07:17 AM
Shooter 2.5

"We might as well get used to calling kerry the president according to this."

[RealGun]

Uh, so far, that would be kind of a dyslexic view, wouldn't it? I don't follow you.

Shooter 2.5
April 6, 2004, 08:00 AM
Realgun,

Because 20 % of the gun owners are going to waste their votes on a third party candidate. The dems aren't going to do that and this is a gun web site where you would think the posters would do everything possible to vote out the anti-gun politicians.

Since they aren't doing that, welcome President Kerry as your new gun grabbing president.

RealGun
April 6, 2004, 08:51 AM
Shooter 2.5:

Because 20 % of the gun owners are going to waste their votes on a third party candidate. The dems aren't going to do that and this is a gun web site where you would think the posters would do everything possible to vote out the anti-gun politicians.

Since they aren't doing that, welcome President Kerry as your new gun grabbing president.

[RealGun]
That's a good observation. I suspected that was where you were headed and wanted to have it stated explicitly, which you did. However, some concentration of third party interest, particularly of the libertarian bent, is inevitable on a gun forum. I think they would be dreaming to imagine that evidence of their views here would be representative of the general electorate, voting primarily on personal wealth issues, directly or indirectly, whether Democrat or Republican. Votes for Bush or Kerry I believe measure how many are willing to deal with mainstream politics as an issue of pragmatism. I think the idealists keep the pragmatists honest, but they are no more than idealists, accomplishing nothing but being a conscience. For some, that is satisfying apparently. It is their choice.

There are probably some motives for rejecting the mainstream choices that are less admirable, more compulsive spoilers than idealists.

Werewolf
April 6, 2004, 09:53 AM
RealGun

As an exercise in activism you might consider sending the results of this poll weekly to the campaign manager of each presidential candidate. Explain the source of the vote, the demographics, the number of THR users etc.

The number of THR subscribers means we are a statistically valid representation of internet using gun owners (which means we are on average better educated and make more money than the non internet user). The information could be useful to both candidates in guaging where gun owners like us stand - especially GWB...

To establish a confidence interval of plus or minus 5 points you need to get at least 1200 of us to vote each week.

Might make a difference - couldn't hurt.

12-34hom
April 6, 2004, 10:21 AM
Out of the 75 votes cast so far, i see one simp would vote for Kerry.

God help the USA if; Kerry should become President, it could be the last free election held in the USA.

I also heard the the Governor of Iowa {Vilsack} is on the "short list" of possible running mates for V.P. This states economy has been decimated by his politics, but on the good side he promised not to run again as governor of this state.

12-34hom.

Greg L
April 6, 2004, 10:25 AM
Straight Meadow Party ticket :D .

RealGun
April 6, 2004, 10:34 AM
Werewolf wrote in part:

"As an exercise in activism you might consider sending the results of this poll weekly to the campaign manager of each presidential candidate."

[RealGun]

The poll could be taken that seriously if THR readers will register their votes.

The concept is to end the poll after a week and come back 3 weeks later, after current events have had some possible influence. A continuous poll would not offer anyone a chance to indicate a change of heart.

The sands do shift as the election date approaches. A major misstep in the interim by the incumbent administration could change sentiments considerably. Opponent support could erode also due to some campaigning gaffe or expose. Any position could improve or deteriorate. Expression of third party support has the potential to gain dramatically or could fall away pretty completely in percentage terms.

Hopefully the election will not be decided in the late going based upon superficial considerations, like who seemed the slickest in a debate, who had the better body language, or who wore the better looking tie. I think informed voting is to be preferred, but hey, that's politics.:rolleyes:

RealGun
April 7, 2004, 10:11 AM
They aren't commenting, so I will take it that, if you can't prevail, discredit the process.

Devonai
April 7, 2004, 02:51 PM
Next time don't allow an invalid choice. If people think it's a stupid poll they'll either abstain from voting or vote realistically and then complain down here.

RealGun
April 7, 2004, 03:58 PM
Devonai: "Next time don't allow an invalid choice. If people think it's a stupid poll they'll either abstain from voting or vote realistically and then complain down here."

[RealGun]

If there is another poll, it will not provide visibility for overly cynical views of the whole process. Demonstrating their presence on THR will be a tired subject beyond the first poll.

JohnBT
April 7, 2004, 05:01 PM
"possible motives for the "stupid poll" votes"

1. All polls are stupid.
2. Some folks are in a bad mood.
3. Or have a hangover.
4. MYOB.
5. This poll is stupid (for whatever reason related to the choices)
6. The only vote that matters is in November.
7. And so forth.

Some people are soooooo touchy.

John...put me down for the President in November - I am registered and I do vote. Kerry's still flip-flopping like a beached fish. The last time I saw lips like his they had a hook through them. :)

Triad
April 7, 2004, 05:12 PM
All we had to do was elect Bush, keep the House and add a few pro-gun Senators and we could have rolled back any gun control law we chose.
Uh huh. That's why we've seen so much gun control repealed during Bush's first term right?

murrie
April 7, 2004, 05:30 PM
Because 20 % of the gun owners are going to waste their votes on a third party candidate.

I have to say this is a highly offensive statement. I am sure you didn't mean it that way but as someone who puts an extreme amount of thought into picking the candidate that most closely matches my political view points the very idea of a wasted vote is absolute nonsense. The only wasted vote is one that is not cast.

You sound just like the Democrat "Anyone but Bush" crowd.


I personally will have to think hard about voting for Bush since he only comes close to matching my political view in very generic ways, and as a gun owner am left wondering what Bush has done to earn my vote; though I do believe that that WW4 may very well be the trump card that plays my hand in his favor.
Kerry is a joke and would never get my vote.
Almost any Libertarian candidate would be a better match my philosophy than either of your "valid" candidates. .


I voted "other party" since I have not completely decided to vote for Bush, but since you think that any vote but a Bush vote would be 'throwing away my vote' id like to change my vote to "stupid poll"

RealGun
April 7, 2004, 05:52 PM
murrie wrote:

"I voted "other party" since I have not completely decided to vote for Bush, but since you think that any vote but a Bush vote would be 'throwing away my vote' id like to change my vote to "stupid poll""

[RealGun]

The poll does not sponsor the view that only a Bush vote is a valid vote. It is no more than an attempt at an interesting thread, taking advantage of the nice polling capabiity of THR.

In order to consider a topic of politics manageable one can simply say what they believe and not get too involved in responses based upon another's having had too much coffee.;) I think flaming, even of the milder kind, is counterproductive on any topic on any forum.

USMC_2674
April 7, 2004, 05:55 PM
At some point, the system will be ready for a 3rd party...

Get a 3rd party candidate who is worthy of trying... who has held an office before... who can show the rest of the uninformed people that he or she is right for the job.

Until that point, a 3rd party vote isn't wasted... it does have a SMALL effect of showing that someone out there isn't happy. You would need to have a LARGE effect to make it WORTH voting that way though.

Particularly in THIS election... a third party vote can make things a LOT worse.

While you may not want Bush in the Whitehouse when compared to your third party candidate (I agree by the way), you can't possibly want Kerry there instead of Bush. And at THIS time with THIS election, a vote for anybody except for Bush IS a vote for Kerry to win.

Believe me, Iwish it wasn't so, and I look forward to the day when either A) libertarians start running under Republican platform and we have some GOOD republicans or B) the nation is ready for 3rd party candidate in the primary elections.

Semper Fidelis

Michigander
April 7, 2004, 05:56 PM
I think the "Stupid Poll" choice is a good idea. But to be fair, there should also be "Wow! This Poll Rocks!" choice as well.

murrie
April 7, 2004, 06:39 PM
Sorry Realgun, I get VERY worked up whenever someone tries to pull out the "throwing away your vote" nonsense.
You are correct flames get us nowhere, and no your poll did not sponsor the idea that a bush vote is the only valid candidate, but your comment about the 20% throwing away their votes indicates that is what you feel.

The only vote that is thrown away is the one that is not cast.



Particularly in THIS election... a third party vote can make things a LOT worse.

While you may not want Bush in the Whitehouse when compared to your third party candidate (I agree by the way), you can't possibly want Kerry there instead of Bush. And at THIS time with THIS election, a vote for anybody except for Bush IS a vote for Kerry to win.
USMC_2674

I almost agree, except that you will never convince me that voting for one candidate is actually a vote for another.

I vote for whomever I believe will do the best job running the country. I do NOT vote against a candidate that i do not like.

Like i said I believe that WW4 will be Bushs trump card for me, though I have not made up my mind. A libertarian with a strong anti-terror stance, that states they will persue this war to its complete and total victory, could very easily get my vote.

Michigander
April 7, 2004, 06:51 PM
A libertarian with a strong anti-terror stance, that states they will persue this war to its complete and total victory, could very easily get my vote.

I don't think you'll find any libertarian who will state that they will persue this war to its complete and total victory. Certainly not the "war" against Iraq.

RealGun
April 7, 2004, 07:53 PM
murrie wrote in part:

"but your comment about the 20% throwing away their votes indicates that is what you feel."

That comment came from Shooter 2.5, independent of the poll sponsorship by RealGun. Any issue with that commentary does not fairly reflect upon the poll itself.

RealGun
April 10, 2004, 09:14 PM
Current counts summarized:

Bush - 62%

Kerry - 3%

Other party - 22%

Write In - 2%

Didn't appreciate the poll - 10%

128 votes (so far)

Treylis
April 10, 2004, 09:20 PM
All we had to do was elect Bush, keep the House and add a few pro-gun Senators and we could have rolled back any gun control law we chose.
Uh huh. That's why we've seen so much gun control repealed during Bush's first term right?

Funny, you noticed that too, eh? ;-)

RealGun
April 12, 2004, 06:33 AM
the percentages look like this:

Bush - 71%

Kerry - 2 %

Other party - 25%

Write In - 2%

I think the significant percentage of Other party votes suggests that a poll about whether RKBA is an issue in this or any election would be appropriate. I believe a high percentage think it is, and thank goodness for that, coming from a gun forum. But that percentage needs to be much higher, if we are to believe the group really has their eye on the ball.

I respect an Other party or Write-In vote. I just don't think it is useful when cast for a high office. It can do more harm than good. It can be a vote against the status quo or it can indirectly be a vote for a worse situation, if not thoughtful and disciplined. Just my opinion. I have to wonder if there is an underlying belief that voting can't make a difference anyway, so I'll vote as I please for personal reasons. What if 50 million gun owners all voted together, especially in high concentration States? It is a state by state battle after all. Electoral votes are what count in the end, as we learned once again in the last election. That's why Libertarians bandy about the notion of all moving to the same State. Another approach is to simply be more patient, working from the bottom up.

Otherwise, we should not discuss Presidential campaigns, as if we had any group impact upon them. What we accomplish is only providing a forum for voicing politically counterproductive ideas (anti-RKBA in effect) and for recruiting dissidents. If Kerry's anti-RKBA stance were less clear, or we didn't already know who our best existing allies were (Republican members of Congress), this might be viewed differently.

Other party ambitions will need to focus on moving good candidates through the system of lower level offices, so that they may be taken seriously by many more voters. Starting at the top does not make good sense and will risk helping the "wrong" candidate to prevail, when the votes are counted.

murrie
April 12, 2004, 12:52 PM
Ill say Ive pretty much always voted Libertarian, or at least voted for freedom(back before i knew what a libertarian was) sometimes that has meant a democrat, sometimes a republican (more often than dem, but both parties are about equal in their distaste of freedom) but i have no ties to either party.

As Ive said I vote for whomever I feel would best represent me as a Citizen. The candidates stand on issues that are important to me, as well as their stand regarding issues that are not important to me.


As for the usefulness of my Other vote:

I dont think there is a better way that I could cast my vote than for a 3rd party candidate.
I do not believe that there is a better Vote I could cast for my country and my fellow Citizens than a 3rd party vote.
I believe that unless we break ourselves out of the Rep/Dem 2 part loop the country is in trouble.

The 2 parties are extremely similar in most ways, they currently have a handful of differing opinions and positions but for the majority of issues they are only differences are a matter of degrees.
Both have abandoned us as a People, they are built around keeping themselves in power, not preserving the constitution. They are not concerned with me outside of getting my Vote to keep them in power.

For the most part the Party out of power defines itself not by what it has to offer, not what it will do better or differently but instead it defines itself by trying to destroy the other side. And our media plays right into their hands.


There is no better service that I can do for my country than to do everything I can to break the cycle of decline that the 2 party system has us entrenched in.



I cannot tell you how often I hear "throwing away your vote" or "your voting for candidate X is a vote for Candidate Y", or "Voting for candidate X is useless" or "Candidate X has no chance, I guess ill vote for candidate Y who I don't really like"

The worst part is that these comments usually come from people that agree with me and my belief that the 2 party system is a curse, and that we need change. Sadly they are only helping to perpetuate the current system and are enabling that system to continue to exist for much much longer than it should, which by my count has been far too long already.


The candidates WANT us to believe that the 2 party system is a good thing, they have done everything they can to continue that belief through the Media and IMHO the education system. RealGun and several others seem to have bought into this theory. You state that an other vote "can do more harm than good"
My thoughts are the exact opposite. A vote for the status quo can and will do more harm than good. Giving them the approval of my vote indicates to the politicians that I agree with them and that I agree with the messed up system we currently live.

Just think where we would be right now if everyone whos said "Candidate X has no chance, I guess ill vote for candidate Y who I don't really like" actually voted for the candidate they really supported. What would the country look like if each and everyone of those people voted for the candidate they felt would best to the job, not against the worse candidate of the 2 that have been paraded in front of us as 'the candidates'



I have been doing ALOT of thinking lately about who will get my vote. I feel that this and the next election are two of the most important elections this country has ever seen. There is a stark difference between the two 'viable' (and i say that with distain) candidates and their opinions regarding the War we are currently in.

For the past 20 some years we have been attacked time and time again by Islamic militants bent on the destruction of our way of life. Until 9/11 we have ignored this war; this World War that has been waged against us.

My thinking has brought be to the conclusion that I will be voting for GWB. He is the first administration that has taken the threat seriously, sadly it took the deaths of over 3000 people to really get them to understand this, but they now do seem to understand and are acting accordingly. I do not hear anyone else even close to the level of understanding that the GWB administration has: We are in a Fight for our existence, lose this fight and we may very well lose everything we have ever cared about.
This is WW4, the ultimate trump card. I can say all I want about GWBs stand on personal freedom, the constitution, guns, religion, taxes, increased government, etc.; but his understanding and pursuit of those who wish to destroy us trumps it all.

Believe me once this war is won I will do my best to Vote to get the damage GWB has done corrected and reversed but for now he is the candidate that most closely matches my feelings regarding the most important issue I will probably ever face on any given November 7th.


Michael W N.
-aka Murrie

If you enjoyed reading about "Mock election" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!