Poll: Which way did you vote?

[Pogo]

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

Should have added " I voted for Trump because he is one awesome ************ that will make America great again."

That would be choice #3. I just didn't word it that way because I never use goddam motherfucking asshole sumbitch profanity.

 

[Pogo]

I don't need links to explain what "unintended consequences" is. Your point was the concept of "unintended consequences". I've told you three times that those do not exist. The "consequences" as in how the end result evolves, are entirely irrelevant. Whatever will be, will be. Again this point is entirely about the process. I don't know how I can use any smaller words than that.

LOL. Okay. Believe as you wish, sir.

Are you actually purporting to dictate what my own thoughts are?

Nope, but keep posting. This is just starting to get interesting.

It usually takes a while. I'm used to that.

But no the only intended consequences in making the case against the effects of the EC are to stop denying the votes of millions, to improve our abysmal participation, to make Election Day actually mean something, and to strike at the heart of the system that perpetuates the Same Old Thing.

 

[Tehon]

I didn't vote against a candidate. I voted for the candidate I wanted, though I can't participate in the poll.

If it wasn't a third party, you have both options.

If it was a third party, then you must live in a 'locked' state. Those are the only voters who realistically get that option. I've done that myself when I lived in a locked state. Didn't get the chance this year though ----- because Electoral College. They claim the state's vote is unanimous. That forces everybody in the state to pick A or B. And that's one way the EC perpetuates the Duopoly.

As noted in another thread there are a ton of posters who make all this noise about "draining the swamp" and jettisoning the Same Old Thing, and it's supremely ironic that these seem to be the same voices railing against any threat to the Electoral College acting as a state robot --- which not only is the Same Old Thing but ensures the protection and perpetuation of the Same Old Thing, forever.

It would appear those who claim to be against the Same Old Thing and those who actually are against it are two distinctly different entities.

I voted third party in Florida, never gave the electoral college a second thought. I certainly didn't feel forced to make a choice for a candidate I didn't like. I would have just stayed home if there had been no one to vote for before I would have voted for someone I didn't like. That is called principled, the electoral college is not responsible for your lack of it. Nor are they responsible for you feeling you had no one to vote for.

 

[initforme]

Third party as I am more qualified than those two bafoons. Like they care about working class people. American voter are among the dumbest in the world.

 

[Hellbilly]

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

I didn’t vote.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't vote against a candidate. I voted for the candidate I wanted, though I can't participate in the poll.

If it wasn't a third party, you have both options.

If it was a third party, then you must live in a 'locked' state. Those are the only voters who realistically get that option. I've done that myself when I lived in a locked state. Didn't get the chance this year though ----- because Electoral College. They claim the state's vote is unanimous. That forces everybody in the state to pick A or B. And that's one way the EC perpetuates the Duopoly.

As noted in another thread there are a ton of posters who make all this noise about "draining the swamp" and jettisoning the Same Old Thing, and it's supremely ironic that these seem to be the same voices railing against any threat to the Electoral College acting as a state robot --- which not only is the Same Old Thing but ensures the protection and perpetuation of the Same Old Thing, forever.

It would appear those who claim to be against the Same Old Thing and those who actually are against it are two distinctly different entities.

I voted third party in Florida, never gave the electoral college a second thought. I certainly didn't feel forced to make a choice for a candidate I didn't like. I would have just stayed home if there had been no one to vote for before I would have voted for someone I didn't like. That is called principled, the electoral college is not responsible for your lack of it. Nor are they responsible for you feeling you had no one to vote for.

Oh but they are --- not the EC itself directly, but the inane way the states choose to handle it.
My state (and yours) will tell Congress that every last voter here cast their vote for the same person, who in neither case is a third party. That's an outright fabrication. You know it, I know it.

 

[Pogo]

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

I didn’t vote.

OK. Care to expand on why not?

 

[Divine Wind]

If it wasn't a third party, you have both options.

If it was a third party, then you must live in a 'locked' state. Those are the only voters who realistically get that option. I've done that myself when I lived in a locked state. Didn't get the chance this year though ----- because Electoral College. They claim the state's vote is unanimous. That forces everybody in the state to pick A or B. And that's one way the EC perpetuates the Duopoly.

As noted in another thread there are a ton of posters who make all this noise about "draining the swamp" and jettisoning the Same Old Thing, and it's supremely ironic that these seem to be the same voices railing against any threat to the Electoral College acting as a state robot --- which not only is the Same Old Thing but ensures the protection and perpetuation of the Same Old Thing, forever.

It would appear those who claim to be against the Same Old Thing and those who actually are against it are two distinctly different entities.

Your hatred of the EC is interesting. Why didn't it come up before the election results were posted?

Did you vote Hillary in a "locked in" state?

 

[Divine Wind]

I didn’t vote.

No interest in politics or who is elected to local, state and national offices?

 

[Pogo]

If it wasn't a third party, you have both options.

If it was a third party, then you must live in a 'locked' state. Those are the only voters who realistically get that option. I've done that myself when I lived in a locked state. Didn't get the chance this year though ----- because Electoral College. They claim the state's vote is unanimous. That forces everybody in the state to pick A or B. And that's one way the EC perpetuates the Duopoly.

As noted in another thread there are a ton of posters who make all this noise about "draining the swamp" and jettisoning the Same Old Thing, and it's supremely ironic that these seem to be the same voices railing against any threat to the Electoral College acting as a state robot --- which not only is the Same Old Thing but ensures the protection and perpetuation of the Same Old Thing, forever.

It would appear those who claim to be against the Same Old Thing and those who actually are against it are two distinctly different entities.

Your hatred of the EC is interesting. Why didn't it come up before the election results were posted?

It DID. I've been making these exact same points about the EC for this entire campaign season and for years before. It's nothing new. You could look them up, especially in the Third Party threads.

And again it's not exactly the EC itself----- it's the way the states abuse it.

Did you vote Hillary in a "locked in" state?

No. There's no point to casting a vote at all in a locked state, except to cast a protest vote for a third party, which is in effect a vote against the Duopoly. I've certainly done that in the past. A voter in a locked state has no other reason to vote for POTUS at all. Regardless whether that voter agrees with his/her state, disagrees with it, or doesn't cast a vote at all, that state's vote is set, rendering the individual voter meaningless. And that's how the EC keeps our overall turnout at pitifully low levels. Because for millions of voters --- what's the point?

The main negative influenzas of the EC as it's practiced are these two:

1. If you're in a "locked" state, your vote means absolutely nothing;
2. If you're in a "battleground" state, your vote does mean something but it's limited to exactly two choices. And if you happen to pick not the one that more voters in your state went with --- your vote means nothing too.

That's a lot of people shut out.

 

[Tehon]

I didn't vote against a candidate. I voted for the candidate I wanted, though I can't participate in the poll.

If it wasn't a third party, you have both options.

If it was a third party, then you must live in a 'locked' state. Those are the only voters who realistically get that option. I've done that myself when I lived in a locked state. Didn't get the chance this year though ----- because Electoral College. They claim the state's vote is unanimous. That forces everybody in the state to pick A or B. And that's one way the EC perpetuates the Duopoly.

As noted in another thread there are a ton of posters who make all this noise about "draining the swamp" and jettisoning the Same Old Thing, and it's supremely ironic that these seem to be the same voices railing against any threat to the Electoral College acting as a state robot --- which not only is the Same Old Thing but ensures the protection and perpetuation of the Same Old Thing, forever.

It would appear those who claim to be against the Same Old Thing and those who actually are against it are two distinctly different entities.

I voted third party in Florida, never gave the electoral college a second thought. I certainly didn't feel forced to make a choice for a candidate I didn't like. I would have just stayed home if there had been no one to vote for before I would have voted for someone I didn't like. That is called principled, the electoral college is not responsible for your lack of it. Nor are they responsible for you feeling you had no one to vote for.

Oh but they are --- not the EC itself directly, but the inane way the states choose to handle it.
My state (and yours) will tell Congress that every last voter here cast their vote for the same person, who in neither case is a third party. That's an outright fabrication. You know it, I know it.

Would you have voted for a third party candidate in this election had you felt it was an option?

 

[Divine Wind]

It DID. I've been making these exact same points about the EC for this entire campaign season and for years before. It's nothing new. You could look them up, especially in the Third Party threads.....

I'll take your word for it. So, besides constantly complaining about changing the Constitution, what is your plan?....or do you just like pissing in the wind?

No. There's no point to casting a vote at all in a locked state, except to cast a protest vote for a third party, which is in effect a vote against the Duopoly. I've certainly done that in the past. A voter in a locked state has no other reason to vote for POTUS at all. ....

Did you vote against the "Duopoly" in this election? Are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

 

[fncceo]

Not American, don't live there, can't vote. I think though that the "the two most despised candidates ever" were probably Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon ..... or did that sexy idiot from Alaska every run for the presidency?

This one?

 

[Divine Wind]

Would you have voted for a third party candidate in this election had you felt it was an option?

I voted a Libertarian ticket. Not that I thought Johnson would win, but 1) to vote against the other two choices offered and 2) a more realistic goal of local Libertarian successes.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't vote against a candidate. I voted for the candidate I wanted, though I can't participate in the poll.

If it wasn't a third party, you have both options.

If it was a third party, then you must live in a 'locked' state. Those are the only voters who realistically get that option. I've done that myself when I lived in a locked state. Didn't get the chance this year though ----- because Electoral College. They claim the state's vote is unanimous. That forces everybody in the state to pick A or B. And that's one way the EC perpetuates the Duopoly.

As noted in another thread there are a ton of posters who make all this noise about "draining the swamp" and jettisoning the Same Old Thing, and it's supremely ironic that these seem to be the same voices railing against any threat to the Electoral College acting as a state robot --- which not only is the Same Old Thing but ensures the protection and perpetuation of the Same Old Thing, forever.

It would appear those who claim to be against the Same Old Thing and those who actually are against it are two distinctly different entities.

I voted third party in Florida, never gave the electoral college a second thought. I certainly didn't feel forced to make a choice for a candidate I didn't like. I would have just stayed home if there had been no one to vote for before I would have voted for someone I didn't like. That is called principled, the electoral college is not responsible for your lack of it. Nor are they responsible for you feeling you had no one to vote for.

Oh but they are --- not the EC itself directly, but the inane way the states choose to handle it.
My state (and yours) will tell Congress that every last voter here cast their vote for the same person, who in neither case is a third party. That's an outright fabrication. You know it, I know it.

Would you have voted for a third party candidate in this election had you felt it was an option?

Of course, and as already repeatedly noted, I already have.

This is the whole point of this thread ----- voters forced by the Duopoly to choose between two abysmal candidates (and in so-called "battleground" states, only those two) --- which means the Duopoly can just keep trotting out ridiculously lame choices, which means nothing changes. And the Electoral College system ensures that nothing changes. It's holding us back, folks. There ain't no way around it.

 

[Tehon]

Would you have voted for a third party candidate in this election had you felt it was an option?

I voted a Libertarian ticket. Not that I thought Johnson would win, but 1) to vote against the other two choices offered and 2) a more realistic goal of local Libertarian successes.

I voted Jill Stein because I believe in her values, which are in line with Sanders' values, whom I also supported.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since these were popularly cited as "the two most despised candidates ever", whether that's true or not, did you cast a positive vote for a choice on his/her own merits, or a negative vote to try to prevent the other choice from winning?

Please add whether you were in a "battleground" state or a "locked" state.
Votes are anonymous so don't be shy.

I voted for McMillan.

 

[Pogo]

Would you have voted for a third party candidate in this election had you felt it was an option?

I voted a Libertarian ticket. Not that I thought Johnson would win, but 1) to vote against the other two choices offered and 2) a more realistic goal of local Libertarian successes.

That's good. Much better than staying home, but of course you live in a locked-red state so you had no say in how your state's Electors were going to vote since that was already known. So you cast a protest vote. I agree with that action, but sadly way too few voters will do that, so ......... nothing changes.

 

[Pogo]

Would you have voted for a third party candidate in this election had you felt it was an option?

I voted a Libertarian ticket. Not that I thought Johnson would win, but 1) to vote against the other two choices offered and 2) a more realistic goal of local Libertarian successes.

I voted Jill Stein because I believe in her values, which are in line with Sanders' values, whom I also supported.

Which kind of state are you in? (Locked or "in play")?

 

[Tehon]

Would you have voted for a third party candidate in this election had you felt it was an option?

I voted a Libertarian ticket. Not that I thought Johnson would win, but 1) to vote against the other two choices offered and 2) a more realistic goal of local Libertarian successes.

I voted Jill Stein because I believe in her values, which are in line with Sanders' values, whom I also supported.

Which kind of state are you in? (Locked or "in play")?

Florida. I guess that means "in play". Was that supposed to have caused me to vote for someone I didn't believe in or something?