Thread: Who DID you vote for?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I have never cast a vote as I did this morning.....
I voted for only one issue, and one issue only, and the candidate that I voted for is not even solidly in my corner on that issue....

I have never been so disappointed in the election process in this country,

WE NEED 2 MORE PARTIES...!!!!!

The Liberal Party, The Democratic party, The Republican party, and the Conservative party....

Let the chips fall where they may!!!!!! because this 2 party, us against them crap has to end....
Trust me the best man/woman ain't gonna win, they ain't even in the race, for any side.....

I am now done ranting you may now return to your regularly scheduled programming......

Here in Missouri we had the usual suspects on the ballot(dems vs reps) we also had the Libertarians and the Constitution party, both of these are solid pro gun if that is what you were referring to.

Seems the guys who wield the straights are a more conservative lot, or at least less liberal perhaps....hmmm.

Originally Posted by iron maiden

Seems the guys who wield the straights are a more conservative lot, or at least less liberal perhaps....hmmm.

Yeah, but how about the earlier poll: who are you going to vote for? where Obama was the popular choice?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Yeah, but how about the earlier poll: who are you going to vote for? where Obama was the popular choice?

Maybe a lot of those were convicted felons and thus not allowed to actually vote?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Yeah, but how about the earlier poll: who are you going to vote for? where Obama was the popular choice?

But that was because JMS invited non-USians to vote as well.
And over here, there is an overwhelming support for Obama, simply because he is less likely to go warmongering, and instead focus more on economic issues.

EDIT: That is why I included a non-vote option in this poll, and asked only the americans to vote, since that is what this election is about.

Originally Posted by Bruno

But that was because JMS invited non-USians to vote as well..

Right!

So do you think these:

Let's see about our demographic here: SRP Conversation regulars

- you have money to buy a computer and an internet connection, and the skills to use them (few dialup hold-outs)
- you are predominantly white (no black (*)people, judging from the picture thread)
- you are male.
- you participate in political discussion.
- you take to activities of the past
- you are 'manly' men

To be honest, it would surprise me if Obama came out ahead in my poll.

are indicators that int'l SRP members will vote for Obama, but are also indicators that US-voter SRP members will vote for McCain? Or does the relevance of those demographics pale in comparison to the simple national vs international question?

I don't understand the correlations and I'm no statistician, but it's still interesting to look the trends here!

Originally Posted by jockeys

Maybe a lot of those were convicted felons and thus not allowed to actually vote?

Ooo good point! I wonder who they could be among us?!

Oh, mark one for my daughter too

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Right!

So do you think these:

are indicators that int'l SRP members will vote for Obama, but are also indicators that US-voter SRP members will vote for McCain? Or does the relevance of those demographics pale in comparison to the simple national vs international question?

the demographics I mentioned are relevant in the context of a society where the 2 major options are rep / dem, and where that choice has an influence on every aspect of your national politics.

I don't know how I would vote if I was a US citizen. Being who I am, I would probably still be a democrat, but I am not sure. I think I would decide on an election by election basis. Even over here, I am not a faithful voter. But I digress.

The major reason why JMS's poll was skewed by non-American votes is that for us, only 2 aspects are really relevant, and that is the approach to foreign affairs and dealing with the financial crisis.
there are only 2 realistic candidates:
Obama: will probably improve foreign relations, not start another war, and deal with the economy
McCain: will probably continue the same road as Bush, has a significant chance of dying mid term and leaving he US with President Palin: a right wing extremist, pretty stupid and christian fundamentalist.

So you see: all the internal issues that have a relation with the specified demographics in one way or another, are simply irrelevant for non-Americans. For the issues that we care about, there is a very large difference between both candidates. Obama is who we would prefer, for those very specific reasons I already mentioned.
If we had to choose based on everything that is relevant to you, the turnout would be more divided. But for us, the issue is much simpler. The only demographic that is relevant for us is that we are non-Americans.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Right!

So do you think these:

are indicators that int'l SRP members will vote for Obama, but are also indicators that US-voter SRP members will vote for McCain? Or does the relevance of those demographics pale in comparison to the simple national vs international question?

I don't understand the correlations and I'm no statistician, but it's still interesting to look the trends here!

Ooo good point! I wonder who they could be among us?!

Oh, mark one for my daughter too

Hey Lee, she's really growing! She's a cute little voter.
I voted as well.

Originally Posted by Big Red

I'm with sixgun on needing more equal access for parties. I don't fully understand the reason the two big parties are the only ones that actually have a chance of competing. ...

Red

I don't fully understand it either. It's evidently structural, because the U.S. has gravitated strongly to two parties, and two parties only, from very nearly the beginning of our history. I have read that it has to do with our not having a parliamentary system of government like Canada and most European countries, but have to admit I don't know enough about parliamentary government to fully understand the connection.

We're not about to change the fundamental structures of our government as written into the Constitution. It does seem to me, though, that we could at least look into some form of instant-runoff voting, where you rank your choices on the ballot, and if your first choice doesn't make the cut, your vote goes to the second and so on. That would let people like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul, or parties like the Greens or Libertarians, be in the race without being regarded as spoilers. We might still end up with two major parties, but other parties could at least have a stronger chance at influencing policy.

~Rich

Originally Posted by Bruno

Let's see about our demographic here: SRP Conversation regulars

- you have money to buy a computer and an internet connection, and the skills to use them (few dialup hold-outs)
- you are predominantly white (no black (*)people, judging from the picture thread)
- you are male.
- you participate in political discussion.
- you take to activities of the past
- you are 'manly' men

To be honest, it would surprise me if Obama came out ahead in my poll.

(*) Am I allowed to use this term, or is it considered derogatory? I didn't mean to use it as such. Correct me if there is a better nomer.

You're probably right on the whole (and I agree that "black" isn't considered derogatory, by the way). But still, I fit all your descriptors --all that I have a right to ascribe to myself anyway; I might have to leave it to others to judge if I'm a "manly" man-- and happily cast my vote for Obama.

Which I don't mention to open the floor to a political fight but more to point up that we're not monolithic. In fact, the best generalization about us might be that we're individualists and at least a little bit eccentric.

~Rich