• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

poll

And on an unrelated topic: anyone think this whole communicate with people from all over the world and exchange ideas through the internet thing will ever take off?
I hear its a big failure and they're gonna close it down any day because of lack of interest.
 
subgenius said:

Well of course I'm just talking about problems with counting regular intended votes. You got any problems with figuring out who you voted for? Or "spoiled ballots" or whatever that Florida thing was?
Or can you guys walk and chew gum at the same time?
Click to expand...
Jeebus, will you guys make up your mind! Did "Gore The Boring" lose because of a right-wing conspiracy to commit ballot fraud or did he lose because Ralph Nader pulled away his "rightful" votes? :p
 
peptoabysmal said:
Jeebus, will you guys make up your mind! Did "Gore The Boring" lose because of a right-wing conspiracy to commit ballot fraud or did he lose because Ralph Nader pulled away his "rightful" votes? :p
Click to expand...
Watch "Being There" with Peter Sellers. Idiots are always chosen by the powers that be to thwart the legitimate will of the people.

Gore lost because a vast right-wing conspiracy disenfranchised voters and payed Ralph Nader to run. Bush was not part of the conspiracy just a stupid pawn of the greedy and power hungry who want to repeal taxes for the rich, throw the elderly out into the street, take candy from toddlers and burn babies with matches.

Don't worry though. Kerry is not beholden to the powers that be. He is a member of the "good" party. If he can just defeat the corrupt right-wing, he will carry out the will of the people in the name of peace, justice and the American way.

maybe this will be the first year that I don't vote.
 
peptoabysmal said:

Jeebus, will you guys make up your mind! Did "Gore The Boring" lose because of a right-wing conspiracy to commit ballot fraud or did he lose because Ralph Nader pulled away his "rightful" votes? :p
Click to expand...
Just asking a question small head, do you mind not trying to inject your agenda?
If you can read, you would see my question was neutral. And if you go further with this straw man, it will be apparent you just want to derail.

I asked the person from Australia whether they had similar problems verifying votes as both Republicans and Democrats alike assert in the Fla. elections. Just asking a technical question, is that OK without being interrupted?
Or should I specify that only people from Australia are requested to reply? Are you interested in whether they have similar problems or are you just interested in derailing threads?
 
subgenius said:

Well of course I'm just talking about problems with counting regular intended votes. You got any problems with figuring out who you voted for? Or "spoiled ballots" or whatever that Florida thing was?
Or can you guys walk and chew gum at the same time?
Click to expand...
Re "Florida thaing", short answer is no. That's all been covered off fairly solidly for some time. There ARE still issues to do with preventing someone voting more than once on the day at two different polling places. It's actually possible, but, although you will definitely get found out later, your actual voting paper is anonymous, and it's in the box and counted by then.

Technically, "spoiled" ballots are if you screw up putting the numbers in the boxes as you want, and you have to go get another ballot paper. It's called an "informal" vote if you fail to fill in the ballot paper according to the instructions. Informals don't count.

Funnily enough, we found that chewing gum makes you stop walking. Curious, no?
 
Zep: "Funnily enough, we found that chewing gum makes you stop walking. Curious, no?"

No, I can hardly sleep and break wind at the same time.
 
That is quite a clear distinction. Within the US approximately 40% of people would like to see bush re-elected. Outside the US the figure is closer to 4%.
 
Sorry Geoff. The waves of nausea prevent me from voting at this time.

On the one hand we have an obvious lier who has drawn people around him who score quite high on my personal scare-o-meter. On the other we have a man who has been on the take for 30 years and whose personal beliefs have become a sort of geometric mean of the wishes of those that hold the purse strings. My usual tendency to vote for a fiscal conservative is thwarted. They both spend like drunken sailors, Bush for a war and Kerry for everything else.

I would not expect a direct answer from either one about anything.
 
This seems like an appropriate place to link to an article on the subject of voting methods:

The perplexing mathematics of presidential elections

Please note I am not trying to make any point. I just find the subject fascinating.

Keith Devlin has a knack for illustrating the counter-intuitive. The gist seems to be that, in any election involving more than 2 candidates and no matter which vote counting scheme you use, there is no way ensure that the will of the majority prevails.

Yet more evidence that "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others we've tried" (Winston Churchill).
 
Zep said:
Semi-serious question for the US politico-wizards.

Let's assume, for some reason, a particular person was not a candidate for president but he was well respected nationally and was considered generally that he SHOULD have been a candidate. In fact, let's give this mythical guy a name: Michael Mouse.

Question: What would be the result if a majority of voters in each state were able to add Michael Mouse's (party's) name to their personal ballot and then vote for him as their preferred candidate? For example, I went into the polling booth, got my voting paper, wrote "Michael Mouse Party" on the bottom and indicated he was my preferred candidate?

Does such an informal vote register as the will of the people to elect the candidate/party of their choice EVEN THOUGH it was not an "official" candidate?

I expect this isn't really possible for punchcard or electronic voting but possible for paper-based ballots.
Click to expand...

In a paper-based ballot (ours at least) a vote that contained ANYTHING except an X at any of the indicated places is ineligible.
 
Christian Zionist scum!!!!!!!!!!

To the rest of the world it appears the Bush is only out to appease Christian Zionist scum in his country to win votes. This will only add fuel to the flames to the war on terrorism as the Arab Islamic world will be more incensed then ever since the recent deals he made with Chiron and the occupation of the west bank.
 
Zep said:
Semi-serious question for the US politico-wizards.

Let's assume, for some reason, a particular person was not a candidate for president but he was well respected nationally and was considered generally that he SHOULD have been a candidate. In fact, let's give this mythical guy a name: Michael Mouse.

Question: What would be the result if a majority of voters in each state were able to add Michael Mouse's (party's) name to their personal ballot and then vote for him as their preferred candidate? For example, I went into the polling booth, got my voting paper, wrote "Michael Mouse Party" on the bottom and indicated he was my preferred candidate?

Does such an informal vote register as the will of the people to elect the candidate/party of their choice EVEN THOUGH it was not an "official" candidate?

I expect this isn't really possible for punchcard or electronic voting but possible for paper-based ballots.
Click to expand...

Already happened.....

...all Micheal Mouse votes were obviously confused Democrats in Palm Beach County.....and had they been (re)counted properly would have won Florida for Gore! :big:

-z
 
Re: Christian Zionist scum!!!!!!!!!!

crocodile deathroll said:
To the rest of the world it appears the Bush is only out to appease Christian Zionist scum in his country to win votes.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's about the level of it. Although I think they believe he is also out to please the big business interests who fund his campaign, too.

The results of the poll couldn't be clearer really. One has to ask whether the 40% or so who support Bush within the US have got any idea that almost nobody on the planet outside Israel wants to see Bush retain the Presidency.

I'd also love to know which non-US person voted for Bush. :)

Would 40% still vote republican even if the candidate was a chimpanzee?
 
Re: Re: Christian Zionist scum!!!!!!!!!!

JustGeoff said:


Yep. That's about the level of it. Although I think they believe he is also out to please the big business interests who fund his campaign, too.

The results of the poll couldn't be clearer really. One has to ask whether the 40% or so who support Bush within the US have got any idea that almost nobody on the planet outside Israel wants to see Bush retain the Presidency.

I'd also love to know which non-US person voted for Bush. :)

Would 40% still vote republican even if the candidate was a chimpanzee?
Click to expand...

Geoff, Geoff, Geoff....tsk, tsk...
(shaking head ruefully)

Your poll is an interesting one and very even-handed but for one small consideration. JREF is full of humanists and skeptics. Not exactly what I would call a properly representative slice of American demographics.

The most interesting aspect of your poll to me is that Bush garnered as much as 40% of the American vote on a skeptic/humanistic forum! All know how liberal humanists are.... yes, even American ones!

Your poll sir, seems to be working against you position and is anything but "clear".

-z
 
Re: Re: Re: Christian Zionist scum!!!!!!!!!!

JustGeoff said:
That is quite a clear distinction.Within the US approximately 40% of people would like to see bush re-elected. Outside the US the figure is closer to 4%.
Click to expand...

rikzilla said:


The most interesting aspect of your poll to me is that Bush garnered as much as 40% of the American vote on a skeptic/humanistic forum!

-z
Click to expand...

Let's see...

US voters : Bush 16
US voters : Kerry 39

If you multiply the number of US Bush voters (16) by 100 and divide the result by the total number of US voters (16+39=55) , you only get 29.09%.
And you have to divide by the total number, otherwise you get the answer to the question "what percentage of Kerry voters are Bush voters?" (41%)... ;)

Me: non-US, Kerry.


(edited to add a quote)
 
Of course I live in Indiana so my vote doesn't really count. We haven't given electoral votes to a Democratic canditate in >50 years.
 
daenku32 said:
Of course I live in Indiana so my vote doesn't really count. We haven't given electoral votes to a Democratic canditate in >50 years.
Click to expand...

We are all victims of our electoral situation. Where I live is the place which has returned the highest ever green vote in a british general election; the green party got 15% of the vote and pushed the liberals into 3rd place. But its traditionally tory and Blairs labour party stole it in 1997. So who do I vote for? Do I follow my ideals and vote green so the greens get even more than 15% of the vote? Or do I vote Labour, even though I hate Blair, because anything is better than letting the tories back in?

Decisions, decisions....... :)

Actually, I don't think I can vote for Blair again. I am glad I have more than two choices though.

Can anyone suggest a positive reform to the US electoral system?
 
subgenius said:
Zep, I can't even understand your question, but if this will help: we don't even count real votes anymore.
Click to expand...

Although I don't want to belittle Zep's honest question, I don't see where it makes a difference whether or not the people's popular choice could be involuntarily voted in - I mean, shortly before 2004 a death-row inmate was executed in Florida and when the executioner pulled the switch, he inadvertantly cast a vote for Bush. ;)
 
I guess the polls feature is acting up again. I replied to another poll and my reply ended up here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom