Who are you voting for?

Edit: I left out candidates who are on so few state ballots, that they can't win even if they win every state available to them.

I pick Obama. But it is anybody's game.

Ron Paul?

I want to thank you for making this a private poll. I think it is nosey when people post public polls of this nature.

That would be write-in.

Ron Paul doesn't seem to be running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_candidates_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

I can see them however. Mwahahaha!

But I'm too lazy to go through the admin panel.

Neither is Donald Duck, but people still write him in.

That's why "Write-in" is on the poll. :/

Ron Paul Reloveution

Obama.

im hovering between McCain and write in...:psyduck:

I just wanna say that even though all of you who can read can figure out who I voted for, I would vote for Nader if I thought he had any chance of winning.

The problem is there's some rule where stations only have to invite candidates to a debate that have at least 15% in the polls. Nader's at like 7%, despite being blacked out since February by ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.

I really wish there would be at least one debate with more than just McCain and Obama.

Bob Barr is a kick in the balls.

No offense, but its that exact kind of thinking that leaves the oh so ****ty two party system in charge.

Forget the odds. Vote for what you believe in.

Not really. Third-party candidates have little chance of spreading their message very wide without the support of television. And even if they do, it's a fight for them to even get ON the ballot in many states. The Green candidate is only on the ballot in 31 states. Some of the other candidates I left out are on the ballots in less then 10 states.

So it's more than just actually voting for him. All that will do realistically at this point is help McCain in my state.

Also, read this on Wiki



If the media would cover third-party candidates, and even invite them to just ONE debate, it would definitely put some deep cracks in the two-party stranglehold the Dems and Repubs have in this country.

Chuck Norris

Normally I would go, "LOL YEAH! ROUNDHOUSE KICK THE COUNTRY IN THE FACE TO BRING IT BACK TO PROSPERITY!"

But then I realized that outside of his cult TV following, Chuck Norris is a batsh*t crazy right winger who I would NEVER want in any form of public office.

Socialism plz, kthx.

Barack Hussein Obama

Benjamin Netanyahu

I'm just going to leave this here.

I think it's funny that Oprah thinks Barrack is going to defeat the matrix.

I can't believe there are so many Obama supports here.. I mean I thought massassi as a whole was a decently well informed community.

What would you say are your main problems with Obama?

I'm a conservative but I hate the incompetent GOP establishment. Supported Ron Paul, might vote Barr, . . .



Preaches unity between Republicans and Democrats but has never challenged his party to reach across party lines.

Preaches that we won't depend on foreign oil in ten years but won't drill at home.

I don't want to go on. . .

Technically that's possible.

/just sayin

Thats exactly what we need.

I'm all for repulsorlifts.

Even though I can't vote, I probably would be undecided at this point, because seriously, the only way that you could have any more similar candidates would be if Hilary won the Democratic nomination. Though if that had happened, I would have had to swallow my pride and support McCain, as Hilary has a few too many views that I disagree with enough (not to mention that she is right wing enough that if I was going to vote for a right wing candidate, I might as well vote for the one that is SUPPOSED to be right wing) that I just would not be able to support her.

I think that the fact that both my parents work in a government organization has made me cynical enough to vote based purely on policy and not give a damn about the party of who I vote for. (though, as Australia's system means that I am actualy voting for a specific person to get a parlimentary seat, and not just a political party may also have something to do with it)

So, I suggest that those of you who do go out and vote (to those who say that their vote means even less the more people who vote, you sound EXTREMELY SELF CENTERED, as the vote is supposed to represent the will of the people, and the more people who vote, the more accurately the results reflect the will of the people, so GET OVER YOURSELF AND VOTE) vote based on policy, and not just on which party you like better (as the way a party is run depends greatly on who is in the positions of power, which changes often, so it wont always act the same) or which candidate said the most "non-core promises" (AKA, lies to get elected) that had things to do with you.

Pointing out that the more people that vote, the less influence each individual vote has is not self centered. It's common sense. Actively campaigning for fewer people to vote so your vote counts for more is self centered.

I agree that is theoretically possible. I'm all for plug-in hybrids. However, it takes about 7-10 years to replace most of the American car fleet, and transportation is not the only consumer of petroleum products (think plastic).

That and just oil to keep things lubricated.


IE specialized factory machines.

It's self-centered to feel that the point of voting is to exert power for yourself over the political system. Voting out of a sense of civic duty (i.e. being altruistic) would mean voting because you think policy should be as accurate an approximation of the country's wishes as a whole.

Voting is all about what YOU think is best for the country, not what you think the rest of the country thinks. If you voted based on what the rest of the country says, you've missed the point of voting.

Yes, the point is that you vote for what you think. You also hope that the average of all votes is as close to the country's average as possible. (If you are truly democratic and altruistic.)

If your goal is purely to get your own views enforced, then the best thing is if your vote is the only vote.

So you can want to be a dictator, or want to be in a democracy, or (like normal people) fall somewhere in between. Of course you want your own views to win out. But at the same time, if you want the election to be a fair democratic process, you want the outcome to represent the whole country's views, not just your own. Democracy works best when its members participate. You can vote for that reason alone.

It is self-centered to not care about that reason, and therefore not vote.

there are synthetic alternatives

True, but aren't they still based slightly on petroleum product?

Then they wouldn't really be a synthetic alternative would they.

I don't know much about them, thats the reason I ask.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil

No petroleum products whatsoever, superior performance, but more expensive basically sums it up.