Who to vote for
- Thread starter hotdog003
- Start date
- Status
akirahedgehog
Veteran
You forgot nader and others.
SadisticMystic
Member
Arrow said:
except if that's so, a vote for Bush counts double.
Also first vote by a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Arrow
Old-school composer
SadisticMystic said:
Hardly. Using math onhy statement, I said voting for other than Kerry = voting for Bush. Therefore, voting for Nader = voting for Bush. Voting for Mickey Mouse = voting for Bush.
Voting for Bush = voting for Bush. Nowhere in there did I say voting for anyone = 2x voting for Bush. :P
Chompy
Member
Well my dad told me that there is a kids magizine that always ask the kids who they think should be president. It's been around since my dad was in school. To date the winning vote in the magizine has always been the person who became president. So guess who got the winning vote this time... it was Bush. So that's not good news for you anti Bush people. We'll see what happens.
Yes, Chompy, they "ask the kids". Except the kids are only going to choose whomever their parents say is the better candidate. What kid is going to have the presence of mind to actually think about their vote and consider the consequences of electing whatever leader? That's why they aren't allowed to vote.
To clarify what Arrow said, voting for a third party candidate does not count against Bush because there's no chance any of them would win to begin with. In essence, you may as well be voting for Bush since you're helping his cause by not helping Kerry. They're both bad for the US as far as I'm concerned, but voting for a third party for that reason is like sitting at home on your lazy ass instead of going out to vote. It's a waste of time.
And finally, that's an interesting link there, a441. Definitely something to think about, even if it ends up being a gigantic load of bull.
To clarify what Arrow said, voting for a third party candidate does not count against Bush because there's no chance any of them would win to begin with. In essence, you may as well be voting for Bush since you're helping his cause by not helping Kerry. They're both bad for the US as far as I'm concerned, but voting for a third party for that reason is like sitting at home on your lazy ass instead of going out to vote. It's a waste of time.
And finally, that's an interesting link there, a441. Definitely something to think about, even if it ends up being a gigantic load of bull.
SadisticMystic
Member
Oh look, a nifty illustration.
Suppose that as a starting point, before your vote, both Kerry and Bush have 50,000 votes.
If you vote for Kerry, he takes a 50001-50000 lead, +1.
If you vote for Nader, Badnarik, or other minor candidates, it stays 50000-50000-(some insignificant number). The candidates' net margin over each other is ±0, so compared to a vote for Kerry, this result is +1 favorable to Bush.
If you vote for Bush, he's the one that goes up 50001-50000, for margin of +1 Bush or -1 Kerry. This result is +2 favorable to Bush when compared to a Kerry vote, since he now has a margin of +1 instead of -1.
So using the logic that considers a vote for Nader to be equivalent to a vote for Bush, a vote for Bush is equivalent to 2 votes for Bush.
Q.E.D.
Suppose that as a starting point, before your vote, both Kerry and Bush have 50,000 votes.
If you vote for Kerry, he takes a 50001-50000 lead, +1.
If you vote for Nader, Badnarik, or other minor candidates, it stays 50000-50000-(some insignificant number). The candidates' net margin over each other is ±0, so compared to a vote for Kerry, this result is +1 favorable to Bush.
If you vote for Bush, he's the one that goes up 50001-50000, for margin of +1 Bush or -1 Kerry. This result is +2 favorable to Bush when compared to a Kerry vote, since he now has a margin of +1 instead of -1.
So using the logic that considers a vote for Nader to be equivalent to a vote for Bush, a vote for Bush is equivalent to 2 votes for Bush.
Q.E.D.
firemario1001
Member
And it all comes down to.... Ohio! Now aren't we Ohioens just special?
- Status