Here's a choice for you in this presidential election: Which would you choose, "None of the Above" or either of the two major choices?
You can also vote in the same poll in the upper-right of this page.
We'll be discussing this topic on the Gary Sutton Show today, so let me know what you think!
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
New poll: Is "None of the Above" a good voting option?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Hi Gary, I think that even in a time when we may or may not have a candidate we completely agree with, or love for that matter, we still have an obligation to choose the one we feel will take the country in the direction we'd like. For me, it's about issues. All of this talk of personal lives and what a candidate has done is irrelevant, or at least not as important as the issues on the table. Is it me, or has this discussion been missing from the election?
I say, line the two candidates side by side and go down the list, issue by issue, and see which candidate best serves, or at least says he will best serve, your concerns.
With that said, as Americans we have an obligation to not only vote for one or the other, but also make the vote count by voting for a viable candidate. While I love the idea of this country someday moving toward a multi-party system, for now we must work with what we've got.
Enough with the empty rhetoric of name calling. I don't care if you are liberal or conservative, republican or democrat, vote for the person you agree with when it comes to the issues.
Whether or not the candidate can accomplish anything once they're in office stands to be seen. We really can't predict what they will do. We can guess, but without knowing the circumstance that will arise, we cannot be sure. What kind of president would Bush have been under different circumstances?
Autocratic regimes and dictatorships often hold elections with one candidate on the ticket. Our system is so much better because we offer 2, instead of one choice?
Is there a choice?
Are the elections actually honest and accurate?
I doubt it.
So even if there was a Tweedledum preferred to a Tweedledee the possibility is that the fix is on.
We saw it in '00 and '04-----what makes it any different this time or into the future? The electronic voting machines can easily be altered ----every changed vote means a subtraction from one candidate and an addition to the other so it doesn't take that many changes in a close contest to sway it.
I agree with Anonymous----2 isn't much of a choice, especially when both come from the same political pool even if they're at opposite ends of the pool---they're still swimming in the same corporatocratic water.
Greed wins.
Gary,
Do you see why this line of thinking engenders? You get a reasonable response from Vito and then total nihilism from the Anonymous twins.
I've have warned before that implying that both parties and candidates are equally bad simply allows the shallow and uninformed off the hook since they need know nothing or believe in anything. And that type of votes will vote lib 100% - it's the home for mindless drones, after all.
I would suggest you start a segment on "who should not vote". We would be much better off if those who know nothing of the issues or their own country would simply stay home on election day and watch Oprah.
trenton,
So vote for McCain or don't vote at all? This man with 7 houses and 26 years in the beltway can somehow represent Americans? He's an elitist and you're in denial. You're, like most, unwilling to look outside the box. That's why we'll never get real change.
Strange world among loyal tribalists isn't it?
Let's see, we dumped John McCain in 2000 because he was a (gasp)...MAVERICK who wouldn't play nice in the tent.
Now we are to vote for John McCain because he is a (applause, applause, hooray).....a MAVERICK.
So let me understand this: The guy who wasn't good enough in 2000 is now the champion of the tribe becasue the 'chosen one' has earned himself a whooping 30% approval rating during his reign.
Partisan politicians and their followers are a real treat aren't they?
It's always the wingnuts that favor less participation in democracy
Speaking of wingnuts, RB, I just saw an interview with a bunch of people from rural Ohio:
They were convinced that Obama was a Muslim who took his oath on the Koran, had ties to Islamic terrorists, and refused to sing the National Anthmn or recite the Pledge of Allegience to the Flag.
So much for the media informing America of the truth. Democracy's downfall won't be from the outside, it'll be from an uniformed populace.
Am I the only one that is upset about voting for the lesser of 2 evils? My God we're still getting evil when we do!
I'm hoping someday that we'll have a third party...how bout a common sense party!
It'll never happen, Flinnie. The reason is that 'Republi-crats' make the rules, and there's no way an outsider is going to be admitted to the clubhouse.
Maybe on a local level, or even a state level once in awhile, but don't expect a third or independent candidate to win a national election. Critical thinkers like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich even get squashed by their own tribe.
Voting "none of the above" isn't a bad idea. It would probably take a few election cycles to build momentum but if people are patient, it really could force a change in the way our political system works.
If you really believed in original Republican values you would vote for Ron Paul (or even Bob Barr for that matter).
If you like Democrat ideas then Barack is your man.
I say, line the two candidates side by side and go down the list, issue by issue, and see which candidate best serves, or at least says he will best serve, your concerns.
Vito, I like this idea -- one could set it up a Pepsi Challenge for candidates. Without seeing names or parties, might a lot of us be surprised by the outcome?
I have a question about your comments on candidates' personal lives as a factor in voting decisions.
Let's say we are lined up on the issues with Candidate X. What happens if Candidate X is insincere? Isn't character a factor trying to figure out the outcome
Jay,
Not sure what campaigns or candidates you're following but McCain and Obama are both sincere and both seem to be strong in character, at least as far as politicans go. It comes down to issues.
Jay, my reply to the issue of character and sincerity would be, we are dealing with politicians and politics and I'm not sure that we can rely on sincerity at all.
Just look at the tactics used, by both sides, time and time again in political attack ads. A quick investigation into the facts claimed in those ads will show that not only are the claims made often stretched or distorted, they are often complete lies.
At the end of the day, we're dealing with liars. It's sad, I know, but these are the cards we are dealt. So, while I like the idea of a Pepsi challenge type system, I agree with you that there is much more to it.
We still have an obligation, though, to make an informed decision based on the issues. The unfortunate part is that much of the information we are given to make an informed decision comes from a very distorted media.
And while there are many like us who do investigate, and perhaps even over think all of this, most of the voters who will show up on game day are going with the what the Obermanns, the Hannitys and the Limbaughs are pounding into their heads on a daily basis.
I suppose where I'm going with this is that, I have no easy solution. Most likely, there is no easy solution. All I can do is listen to the information given to me, do my best to decipher what is true and what is not, and then make the best informed decision possible.
Something else you said really got me thinking too. Oh, how much would we learn about ourselves and perhaps about elections in general, if given the option to make a blindfolded vote? Although, I do believe that at the end of the day, most people choose this way. The single issue voters, I mean, or those so tied to party affiliation that they are completely unwilling to consider different options.
Thanks for getting my brain working...
Vito, I found 2 online quizzes that do just what we're talking about.
I'll post 'em up as a new blog entry momentarily.
Anon, if you're comfortable with the characters of the major party candidates, that's cool. I'm just trying to get at the sorts of criteria we use (or might use).
Just remember this, Vito, and others:
John McCain's campaign manager was quoted as saying, "The election won't be about issues."
There you go. Sadly he's probably right.........it'll be about lipstick on pigs, lapel pins, nutjob ministers making inflammatory remarks, extra-marital affairs, who puts their hand over their heart during the National Anthmn, who's a Muslim and who isn't, hockey moms, pregnant daughters, gay marriage, abortion, creationism being taught in public schools, and on and on.
The fact we are involved in 2 wars, the economy is on the edge of the crapper, healthcare costs are forcing more people to drop their plans as our premiums rise every year, illegal immigrants are still coming across the border, Osama Bin Laden is still running around somewhere in Pakistan or Afghanistan 7 years after 9/11, gas prices and the stock market continue to ride the rollercoaster while we pile up the greatest debt in US history and gov't has grown to a size never seen before.
But, hey, first things first......let's elect the next president using the same criteria we used to elect Homecoming Kings and Queens and class presidents just like we did in high school.
Discussing and debating issues is boring. It's more fun to examine why Barack Obama would say electing "Mr. Change McCain" would be like putting lipstick on a pig. What's next? Discussing the REAL meaning behind the saying, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?' Sounds like a real slam on John Kerry because he sorta looks like a horse.
Pardon my rant, but I'm getting real pissed off here.
Post a Comment