I think Kerry is going to beat Bush. I despise Kerry, but I think Bush has been a disaster. I think Kerry will be a disaster too, but it's hard to say if he'll be worse than Bush or not. I will not be voting for either. If I vote, I will vote Libertarian or what's that other party... the Constitutional Party or something like that.

Anyway, make your predictions here.

I have no idea.

whoever is better at tampering with electronic voting systems

ask Florida

If I was a Republican strategist I would think that turning Iraq over to a Democrat would be a great move. I figure that six months after inaguaration it would be Kerry's war.

as a Republican strategist right now, you would be putting your faith in Jesus Christ.

I think this says it all ... A CNN poll released on Friday showed "that 49 percent of those polled approve of the way the president is handling his job, while 47 percent do not".

Colin, the question will be where the 47% is and where the 49% is. Because of the convoluted system under which your president is elected, it is possible (see 2000) for the man with less votes to be president.

Any poll taken has to be considering in context of the electoral college. Unless the survey matched that layout, it wouldn't reflect on the final result.

Alex

There will be a winner, but the American public is going to be the loser... not matter who wins!

Waaaay too much time between now and November to even try and guess. :(

I agree.. and the poll's margin of error is +/- 2% points ;)

I'm the 4th Party Candidate




3 Parties weren't enough

because of the winner take all electroal college thing, a vote for the third party actually often ends up being a vote FOR the guy you don't want.

Let's say Bush is ahead by 1 vote, and you don't want him in, but you can't bring yourself to vote for kerry... so you vote for ralph nader or whoever the actual third party dude of the year is, and there ya go, Bush gets 100% of the electoral college votes.

People much wiser than I have said that the third party candidates the last time around had an overwhelming effect on who has been in the White House for the last 3 years.

Alex

It doesn't happen often, politcally speaking, but you and I actually agree on something
;-)

I sure hope kerry wins or we're in deep shit.




they both suck

we'll be in deep shit either way

I agree with Nader... It's not his fault Bush is in the White House.

Anyone that wants to blame the 3rd party for their candidate's loss is misplacing the blame. People should vote for whomever they want to be President.. Maybe it's time we head away from the two party system?

All politicians are scumbags.

That's why I said I have no idea, Alex. I was pointing out that the US population is roughly split in their opinion of Bush. Anyone that commits to an opinion of one or the other winning is more guessing than anything else.

And no, the man with less votes cannot win. The states vote, not the people.

You can.

Kerry would be a total freaking disaster, but the way Bush has spent money like crazy and erased our borders he wouldn't be much better.

Alex, it's been 3 years. Let the vote thing go - especially since about a dozen independent reviews of those stupid chads verfied that no matter which way you count them, Bush won.

carrie, I am not looking at Florida by itself. The third party (what there was of it) was on the ballot in every state, and in every state, some people voted X instead of D or R. Like some of the people here, they see it as a protest vote, a "I voted but not for you scumbags" type deal. When you take those votes aand put them back into play, well...

Colin: Bush had less individual votes than Gore. Bush is President. Please explain "one man one vote" for me?

Alex

Are you certain about that Alex?


You've all heard me about your vote is worthless, Hell I was saying it 4 years ago ah ha ha ha ha ha

and if you vote you have NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN!!

Forget kicking anyone out of office, show your true disdain by not voting

Vick, it is the most outrageous thing about a system that claims one man one vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presiden..._election,_2000

500,000 more people wanted Gore rather than Bush, forget all the chads and dimples and BS... but those 500,000 people's opinion is negated by the electoral college system that limits the power of any single vote.

Alex

Alex, I'm pretty sure that "one man one vote" relates more to equal distribution of congressional and state legislative districts than it does to Presidential elections.

Alex - I don't think that counts absentee ballots and I've seen the count done a few different ways with different results

Also if Bush didn't win the total popular vote it's not the first time in history we, the USA have elected a President based on the electoral college result
http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college2.htm

Bush won more states, Gore won some more heavily populated states

I've always said the system is fucked but I don't have a better solution
OTHER THAN NOT VOTING

I was a big Bush supporter but now my perspective is a little different. Still I'd rather have Bush than Gore or Kerry

Picking the lesser of two evils is not at all appealing

In the US, states vote for president - each state getting 2 votes plus an additional number of votes based on their population.

Read the Constitution.

I doubt that a system of one man, one vote would be any better. The same people would be bitching about teh same things for the same reasons.

p.s. I didn't vote in the poll either

Get in practice DON'T VOTE!

Which article is that contained in?

Alex ... the horse is dead. Please do not beat the horse any more.

There is nothing "outrageous" about it. Bush is, if I'm not mistaken, the 3rd President elected without winning the popular vote (and if I'm not mistaken, the 2nd Republican put into office in part due to a controvery involving Florida).

The Constitution of the United States does not now, nor ever has it, allow for the direct election of the President. Much to the chagrin of many conservatives, commoners, public school graduates, non-property owners, womens, and darkies and other minorities can vote directly for local and state officials, plus Senators and Congressmen.

The only thing that comes close to being outrageous in the entire Bush v Gore debacle is the failure of Anton Scalia to recuse himself from post-election cases.

bush will win

The end is near, I agree with PD in 2 consecutive posts

Good grief :nyanya:

The only thing that interferes with what you have to say is reality. Been there, done that, used to have a "John Anderson for President" bumper sticker.

Like it or not, we live in a two-party system. If you think it's fucked up when one party has the Presidency and another the House and Senate, imagine how much of a clusterfuck it would be if we had a 3 way split.

May I?

There are many different variations on the theme of democracy. Consider that there are more than one hundred democracies and that they have many different voting systems.

How many nations have complete and utter direct democracy where each citizen can vote on every legislative issue? I am pretty sure the answer is none. Local town meetings are about as far as this can reasonably go.

So then, how do decisions get made? Republicanism, of course. Representatives are chosen to vote on the issues. Some nations have various processes for a referendum (like in the US, states can have referendums).

There were pros and cons to the US electoral system in 1789 and there are still today. They were known then and they are known now.

John Anderson is the first candidate I supported for president. At age 10, I stayed up to watch the election and was saddened when he got whipped by Reagan.

PD: The past is the past, and the only thing that can be done is to learn from history. In the end, third party protest votes are not only wasted votes, but can in fact allow for the election of the person you want the LEAST.

If you are going to protest... don't vote.

Alex

Alex, that was my point too.