New Hampshire primary results.

[SwiftSpear]

I'm fairly proud of my state for getting a decently high participation percentage, compared to the national average.

Why would you be proud of that? Voting when you don't have a good reason is really really really really bad. It's the reason America is stuck in a stone age 2 party system.

[tombom]

I'm fairly proud of my state for getting a decently high participation percentage, compared to the national average.

Why would you be proud of that? Voting when you don't have a good reason is really really really really bad. It's the reason America is stuck in a stone age 2 party system.

Why don't they have a good reason to?

[Relative]

I'm fairly proud of my state for getting a decently high participation percentage, compared to the national average.

Why would you be proud of that? Voting when you don't have a good reason is really really really really bad. It's the reason America is stuck in a stone age 2 party system.

Why don't they have a good reason to?

I think he's saying that despite the high turnout it still doesn't change the fact that the de facto two party system is broken and corrupt, which is absolutely true.

[SwiftSpear]

There is no good reason the USA should be STUCK in a 2 party system.

Basically Americans don't generally vote for any reason, they just vote because they are told over and over and over again how awesome voting is. Voting without thinking is about as awesome as shooting yourself in the face. Like I said before, most americans vote the line they vote for no other reason than that "it's good to vote" and that it's the line they have always voted for without thinking, with a system like that it's impossible for any forward thinking political elements to acctually gain ground.

Simply put, think for 30 seconds, give me one reason why it's good to vote? You voting should be conditional on you acctually believing that the person you are voting for acctually needs to be in office for some reason, otherwise all you're doing is verifying the passionate and intelligent vote is marginalized by the status quot. Voting without knowing you are making the right decision is the worst thing you can possibly do in a democractic or republican sociaty, exactly the opposite of what media has been drilling into everone's brains for WAY too long.

I feel very uncomfortable when the voting figures are higher than 20 percent and there isn't a STRONG favorite one way or another. If people don't know who they should be voting for, they SHOULD NOT BE VOTING!

[BaNa]

I'm rooting for Obama on this one. I mean cmon, it's about time for a black president. I read that a lot of the independents in NH voted in the repub primaries because they wanted to support McCain. That may also be the reason for Obamas "loss", because he has a stong base among the independents. Anybody here seen the last season of west wing? :)

[SwiftSpear]

A women president would be cool too though... I mean aside from the fact I don't like Hilary much... as far as what it would give the statistics it's cool.

[Sleksa]

A women president would be cool too though... I mean aside from the fact I don't like Hilary much... as far as what it would give the statistics it's cool.

finland has one and i can tell you that other than statistics, it wouldnt be cool ~~

I'm rooting for Obama on this one. I mean cmon, it's about time for a black president. I read that a lot of the independents in NH voted in the repub primaries because they wanted to support McCain. That may also be the reason for Obamas "loss", because he has a stong base among the independents. Anybody here seen the last season of west wing? :)

i dont see how a president's colour can be a factor for anyone in voting.
i think that a president's political opinions would be more important when you decide who to vote for, like his stance on abortion, his financial plans and thinks like that.


meanwhile here in finland,i personally think our current president got voted just because she was a woman by the middle class women, and she hasnt been much of a president IMO. For example when the tsunami in thailand hit and finnish people were dying/dead/missing, she was on a vacation, and she didnt cancel it after hearing of the tsunami, nor do i remember her being seen on any media. Our own president had basically decided to be on a vacation when the country was in a crisis situation.

you could compare it to a situation where the president of usa would've gone golfing after having heard that soviet union was attacking usa (Red Dawn style) >_>

[nemppu]

i dont see how a president's colour can be a factor for anyone in voting.

=D so naiive <3 arent you a cutie <3 <3

[CarRepairer]

nvm

[Foxomaniac]

Sleksa pwnt them with common sense.

I mean really, does it matter? Look at the candidate's view on things - not the color of skin or gender or whatever else ~.~.

[Erom]

It's the reason America is stuck in a stone age 2 party system.

Not the primary reason. Deriving an inevitable two party system from our election system is so trivial they use it as an example problem in introductory game theory classes. We need preferential voting in this country _so bad_, so people can vote for who they really believe addresses the issues without losing their voice in the main contest between whoever the big party nominees are.

Seriously, if all those green party votes had been able to vote democrat as their "second choice", Bush wouldn't have been president. It's hard to predict, but I think we would be better off.

[Boirunner]

Barack Obama doesn't represent the African American Community - first of all he's half white, and second of all his black heritage isn't from descendants of American slaves, but directly from Kenya.

Hillary Clinton doesn't represent Women - she is only a presidential candidate because her husband is famous and influential, thus making her successful through her husband, a male. People who vote for her are actually voting for more Bill Clinton.

[Relative]

Voting reform such as you are suggesting would be ideal , but I just can't see that happening. First off, the two parties will never voluntarily give up power. It would take nothing short of a revolutionary act.

Secondly, the way the president is elected, through the electoral college, is grounded in the idea in the constitutional that states, rather than people, elect the president. Trying to reform the system towards popular vote would be seen as direct attack on state rights.

There have been attempts afaik to compromise by modifying the electoral college so the electoral votes are divided up proportionally to each candidate from each state. However, thus far its been a failure, as it would require every state to pass the reform within a small time period. An incomplete system would negatively affect the outcome of the elections: eg: If California were to divide its electoral votes proportionally and most or all of the other states did not the republicans would win by a landslide even if they lost the popular vote by a large margin. California may be a democrat state, but it has a large republican population. Suddenly the democrats would lose at least 40% of its CA electoral votes, effectively losing the election even if they won by popular vote.

[CarRepairer]

Republicans are now looking at a hot contest between the Senator of over 3 terms (that's over 20 years) who is a Vietnam POW and has challenged his own party and president repeatedly and sat on numerous government committees, versus the popular bluestate governor who implemented the first program of its kind legislating mandatory health insurance that protects both the people and the budget, has stood up to Iran by publicly snubbing its former "president" and is an international hero who saved the winter olympic games from scandal.

Democrats have a much more complicated problem however. Vote for the woman or the African American?

[BaNa]

A women president would be cool too though... I mean aside from the fact I don't like Hilary much... as far as what it would give the statistics it's cool.

I guess we have to wait till Halle Berry runs.

@ sleksa:

Democracy is about pr and image. I would be happier if people voted based on programs and past actions and so forth, but honestly, those are marginal issues in todays world. The instance you brought up, your PM not breaking her holiday for the tsunami, is a fine example of such. IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE MANAGEMENT OF YOUR COUNTRY. Had she been the PM of a country actually stricken by the tsunami, or some other disaster, sure, she could have made a difference.

The fact that a large part of the US is ready to vote for a president who is either black or a woman is a cool thing. It doesn't even matter to me where the black dude or the woman is coming from, or what they stand for. This is a radical change. It is a change in these people's values.

As for the repub candidates, I'm not too thrilled by either. McCain seemed nice for a while with his thing against torture, but he pussied that up. Anyway, I'm really hoping that the party that managed to create two dubya regimes will be stopped for a while (then again, I guess the voters are to blame).

[Forboding Angel]

edit: removed possible political tinder

But screw all that bullcrap. I can honestly say that there is isn't one that I like, except maybe Fred Thompson, and imo he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Dems are faced with woman or half black guy. 1 can't make up her mind to save her ass, the other is so liberal that even liberals blush.

Reps are faced with a guy that has one redeeming quality, (support of the fairtax) and absolutely sucks on absolutely everything else. Or a moron, who continually fights his own party and continaully presents himself to be something that he isn't (now granted, they all do that, but he's particularly bad at it).

2009 isn't looking so hot...

[Nemo]

But screw all that bullcrap. I can honestly say that there is isn't one that I like, except maybe Fred Thompson, and imo he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

What about Thompson do you like? I'm curious, since nobody has talked much about him.

As for the Dems comment, I have to correct you - Obama and Clinton are very, very similar if you look at their voting record. It's hard to say that one is way more liberal than the other when they've voted so incredibly similarly.

[SwiftSpear]

Well... I must admit I'm a little biased against Obama... I wasn't too impressed with his promise to visit the president of Canada.

[Peet]

Well... I must admit I'm a little biased against Obama... I wasn't too impressed with his promise to visit the president of Canada.

lol I missed that. Then again, many people do actually call Stephen Harper the first president of Canada

[tombom]

Republicans are now looking at a hot contest between the Senator of over 3 terms (that's over 20 years) who is a Vietnam POW and has challenged his own party and president repeatedly and sat on numerous government committees, versus the popular bluestate governor who implemented the first program of its kind legislating mandatory health insurance that protects both the people and the budget, has stood up to Iran by publicly snubbing its former "president" and is an international hero who saved the winter olympic games from scandal.

Is that McCain and Romney? (I can't actually tell)

Reps are faced with a guy that has one redeeming quality, (support of the fairtax) and absolutely sucks on absolutely everything else. Or a moron, who continually fights his own party and continaully presents himself to be something that he isn't (now granted, they all do that, but he's particularly bad at it).

Is that McCain and Huckabee? (again, I can't tell)

btw stop using liberal and socialist as strange kinds of always negative words it makes you look like an idiot