A volconvo Presidental poll

[m3talsmith]

Ok, for some time there has been some debate about voting for who you think will win versus voting for who you want. I understand the theory of the lost vote etc. There's also the theory that if enough people vote for who they want, rather than who they think will win, that the person has a good chance of winning.

I'd like to test that. The default theory is the wasted vote theory so let try this. I'd like to see who volconvo people really want to be President.
Here is a mock poll to use: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT...2004/mock04.php

This poll follows the electoral rules too so it is a better gaige of who could really win if you voted for who you want and not who you think will win.

So far Kerry is winning with a 50% in popular but 80+% in electoral, followed by Badnarik at 15% in popular and 5% in electoral, and then Bush at 25% and 2% in electoral.

P.S.
You do have to regiter but it's quick and painless.

[m3talsmith]

Update. Libertarians have won 2 states so far by large enough margins!

[bishop]

i picked kerry, because i like his views (and him as a person) the most out of all the candidates.

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by bishop, i picked kerry, because i like his views (and him as a person) the most out of all the candidates.

Perfect! This is exactly what I want: people to vote for who's views they like most. Thanks Bishop.

[bishop]

heh.. i'm just curious.. i've noticed that lots of people who are fervently 3rd party all too often think that people who vote either democrat or republican do it for all the wrong reasons. in fact, i think that's a pretty good stereotype of the "typical" third party voter.

do you think that's accurate at all?

[m3talsmith]

I think it's fairly accurate. However I know from my own history as a republican that my entire family (3 generations) and I did. I think that's fairly representative of most ex major party voters. So perhaps that's where the belief comes from.

-- edit --

In fact the only reason my family has voted Republican, ashamedly, is because they were Republican. Family loyalty to one party. Can't buck tradition, ehh, right?

Well I'm glad I have that monkey off my back.

[m3talsmith]

One interesting thing on the poll. There are a certain amount of democrats and republicans voting libertarian. Look at the bottom of the page in the US statistics

[bishop]

sounds to me like you never had that monkey on your back to begin with. bush was your first presidential vote too, right?

also, for all the information a voter can digest - a good portion of one's vote does tend to be based on emotion imo.

[bishop]

i'm not sure what that bottom bit proves though.. more democrats are voting for bush than for all the yellow candidates combined. same thing on the republican side.

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by bishop, sounds to me like you never had that monkey on your back to begin with. bush was your first presidential vote too, right? also, for all the information a voter can digest - a good portion of one's vote does tend to be based on emotion imo.

True and True. I voted once, and withheld once. I've always been the rebel of the family but I'll be damned if that's not how I was raised. My parents tried pounding it into me from a young age.

[m3talsmith]

Try clicking on the individual states. I find this whole process extremely interesting.

-- edit --

For instance, in Michigan, almost half of the Republicans have voted Democrat. That's valuable information if you ask me. And there's ton's of it everywhere.

[bishop]

very interesting..

hopefully more people will vote and make the results a little more conclusive. thus far, it looks like kerry's going to sweep all the states. i think that is stretching it a bit.


i dropped in on the kerry campaign site once (they have their own forum).. there were quite a lot of republicans there who are voting for kerry.. in fact, we seemed to almost equal the democratic side of things.

[m3talsmith]

I believe it, so strong is the anti-bush sentiment. That's why I said in an earlier thread that Bush won't need any help from Libertarians to get ejected from office this election. He doesn't even have enough support from his own party.

[bugsbunny04]

Where I live, Bush will win regardless, so I can vote my conscience. I'm voting libertarian.

[m3talsmith]

Good. Vote on the poll though please so we can see the real effects.

[Leopard]

Originally posted by m3talsmith, Ok, for some time there has been some debate about voting for who you think will win versus voting for who you want. I understand the theory of the lost vote etc. There's also the theory that if enough people vote for who they want, rather than who they think will win, that the person has a good chance of winning.

that has never been my position. I say vote the candidate which most accurately represents your views for two reasons:

(1) first and foremost, then the candidates views will be taken by others as more 'valid', at least worth a look and perhaps debateable on the national scene. For instance, if Nader pulled in 20% of the vote, Kerry 30%, and Bush 40% then the democrats who were screaming 'Nader is stealing votes' would be forced to find a candidate/platform that encompassed at least some if not a majority of Nader positions in the next election to hope to win the seat. I do not say that Nader has any chance of winning, but if enough people vote for him then the things he is running for have increased chance of becoming part of the next election cycle...

(2) just like the free market, a democratic election depends on the 'consumer' to make their own value judgements. If these judgements are distorted, then the market/election can result in less than 'optimal' results as far as its goal is concerned (producing and distributing goods and services in the case of the market, having a truely representative government in the case of elections).

interesting poll!

michael

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Leopard, that has never been my position. I say vote the candidate which most accurately represents your views for two reasons: (1) first and foremost, then the candidates views will be taken by others as more 'valid', at least worth a look and perhaps debateable on the national scene. For instance, if Nader pulled in 20% of the vote, Kerry 30%, and Bush 40% then the democrats who were screaming 'Nader is stealing votes' would be forced to find a candidate/platform that encompassed at least some if not a majority of Nader positions in the next election to hope to win the seat. I do not say that Nader has any chance of winning, but if enough people vote for him then the things he is running for have increased chance of becoming part of the next election cycle... (2) just like the free market, a democratic election depends on the 'consumer' to make their own value judgements. If these judgements are distorted, then the market/election can result in less than 'optimal' results as far as its goal is concerned (producing and distributing goods and services in the case of the market, having a truely representative government in the case of elections). interesting poll! michael

Good post and good valid points. Thanks for the post.

[Leopard]

Originally posted by m3talsmith, Good post and good valid points. Thanks for the post.

at your service, sir

[m3talsmith]

Just an update: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT...2004/mock04.php

Kerry is steadily losing, by popular and electoral votes, his lead. Bush is hanging onto second place by a hair. Badnarik is nipping at his heels. Nader is in 4th with barely a showing.

---

Also as a side note. In one thread (I believe I was talking to RickSp) I told him I thought the electoral process wasn't right, that popular vote should take precidence over electoral.

I'd like to apologize for my stubborness. I've done my research, and though I still think the electoral college has more power than it should, I know now that the alternative is worse. I now am supporting the electoral college until I find something truly wrong with it. My earlier comments can be treated as one who had more to learn speaks.

m3talsmith

[Leopard]

Originally posted by m3talsmith, Just an update: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT...2004/mock04.php Kerry is steadily losing, by popular and electoral votes, his lead. Bush is hanging onto second place by a hair. Badnarik is nipping at his heels. Nader is in 4th with barely a showing. --- Also as a side note. In one thread (I believe I was talking to RickSp) I told him I thought the electoral process wasn't right, that popular vote should take precidence over electoral. I'd like to apologize for my stubborness. I've done my research, and though I still think the electoral college has more power than it should, I know now that the alternative is worse. I now am supporting the electoral college until I find something truly wrong with it. My earlier comments can be treated as one who had more to learn speaks. m3talsmith

WOW! Congratulations sir - I applaud both your honesty and your open-mind... it is through thought processes as you have used that we will advance into the future.

michael