Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

SecretMethod70 · 11-28-2005, 12:16 AM

One can only hope that the public begins to demand more accountability...I think the terrible mismanagement of Katrina relief has left a lasting impression on the public and, slowly but surely, sentiments are changing. The question, of course, is whether or not they are changing enough to create enough pressure for some serious consequences for the administration.

On a side note, regarding host's comment on third party voters. I voted third party and live in a state where there was never a question as to who would be the winner. My vote for a third party candidate had no impact on the outcome of the election whatsoever and I knew going into the voting booth that voting for a third party candidate stood no chance of impacting the outcome of the election. There were many states like this, and discouraging people in those states from voting for third parties is, IMO, detrimental to the democratic process. Now, if you want to urge people who live in states where there IS a question as to who will win to not vote for a third party candidate, that I can understand. In fact, during this past election, there was a vote exchange website (working on the honor system of course) where people in swing states who would like to support a third party could pair up with people in safe states and exchange votes. Most third party voters recognize that in a close election, and in a swing state, it may not be the best idea to vote for a third party, but that does not apply to many, or even most, voters. Not to mention, this past election was won by 3,012,499 votes and all non-Republicrat votes combined were only 1,224,611. Then take into account that, of the 99,336 "other" votes, many of them were actually non-votes, such as my roommate's write-in vote for Marx-Engels, and on top of that there are many third party voters who would just as soon not vote at all if not given a choice to vote their conscience. Finally, not all third party voters would have voted for Kerry had they been forced to pick between him and Bush. After all that, it becomes likely that a significant amount less than the 1.2 million third party votes might have actually gone to Kerry - I would suggest that Kerry had no more than 600k votes to gain from those third party voters.

Of course, that's all with the popular vote, and as we know, it's the electoral college that counts. So, let's look at Ohio since it was one of the closest states. Bush won Ohio by 118,775 votes while a total of 26,952 votes went elsewhere. Keeping the previous things in mind, it can be reasonably argued that Kerry would have likely gained no more than 13,500 of those votes. Even looking in Iowa, where the numbers are closer: Bush won by a mere 10,059 votes and a total of 13,053 votes went elsewhere, but of those votes it is extremely unlikely Kerry would have gotten over 10,000 of them, not to mention that others would have gone to Bush to sustain the lead.

Finally, one could point out the possibility of election fraud in places like Ohio with the electric voting machines and so on. This does not make a difference either because, if the election was won through fraud, it would not matter how many or how few votes went to other candidates.

The point is, third party candidate voters have nothing to do with Bush being in office for a second term. But, you're right that we are all on the same side with regards to Bush and his administration. Democrat, disgruntled Republican, other: we would all like to see Bush and his administration held accountable for their actions.

11-28-2005, 12:16 AM	#115 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	One can only hope that the public begins to demand more accountability...I think the terrible mismanagement of Katrina relief has left a lasting impression on the public and, slowly but surely, sentiments are changing. The question, of course, is whether or not they are changing enough to create enough pressure for some serious consequences for the administration. On a side note, regarding host's comment on third party voters. I voted third party and live in a state where there was never a question as to who would be the winner. My vote for a third party candidate had no impact on the outcome of the election whatsoever and I knew going into the voting booth that voting for a third party candidate stood no chance of impacting the outcome of the election. There were many states like this, and discouraging people in those states from voting for third parties is, IMO, detrimental to the democratic process. Now, if you want to urge people who live in states where there IS a question as to who will win to not vote for a third party candidate, that I can understand. In fact, during this past election, there was a vote exchange website (working on the honor system of course) where people in swing states who would like to support a third party could pair up with people in safe states and exchange votes. Most third party voters recognize that in a close election, and in a swing state, it may not be the best idea to vote for a third party, but that does not apply to many, or even most, voters. Not to mention, this past election was won by 3,012,499 votes and all non-Republicrat votes combined were only 1,224,611. Then take into account that, of the 99,336 "other" votes, many of them were actually non-votes, such as my roommate's write-in vote for Marx-Engels, and on top of that there are many third party voters who would just as soon not vote at all if not given a choice to vote their conscience. Finally, not all third party voters would have voted for Kerry had they been forced to pick between him and Bush. After all that, it becomes likely that a significant amount less than the 1.2 million third party votes might have actually gone to Kerry - I would suggest that Kerry had no more than 600k votes to gain from those third party voters. Of course, that's all with the popular vote, and as we know, it's the electoral college that counts. So, let's look at Ohio since it was one of the closest states. Bush won Ohio by 118,775 votes while a total of 26,952 votes went elsewhere. Keeping the previous things in mind, it can be reasonably argued that Kerry would have likely gained no more than 13,500 of those votes. Even looking in Iowa, where the numbers are closer: Bush won by a mere 10,059 votes and a total of 13,053 votes went elsewhere, but of those votes it is extremely unlikely Kerry would have gotten over 10,000 of them, not to mention that others would have gone to Bush to sustain the lead. Finally, one could point out the possibility of election fraud in places like Ohio with the electric voting machines and so on. This does not make a difference either because, if the election was won through fraud, it would not matter how many or how few votes went to other candidates. The point is, third party candidate voters have nothing to do with Bush being in office for a second term. But, you're right that we are all on the same side with regards to Bush and his administration. Democrat, disgruntled Republican, other: we would all like to see Bush and his administration held accountable for their actions. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 11-29-2005 at 02:56 PM..