3 ms·

I disagree that both main candidates were not good. The winning presidential candidate does roughly represent the majority preference of the people. You make i

I disagree that both main candidates were not good. The winning presidential candidate does roughly represent the majority preference of the people. You make it sound like everyone is being disenfranchised. If you support proportional representation, or ranked voting, or some other change, I'd agree to that. If you went around telling everyone that would vote for my preferred candidate to vote for candidate X that has no chance of winning, I might be annoyed if you succeeded. Unless I liked candidate X even more and knew you could succeed with everyone (or a majority anyways); but that's very unlikely.

moron4hire 13y ago
our disagreement on the suitability of the candidates is the entire point of voting. and I think it is important to note: of the people who could have voted, only 28% chose to vote and vote for Obama. and going around, telling people to not vote for your preferred candidate, that is the entire point of campaigning.
- afterburner 13y ago
  I'm not saying you shouldn't campaign. You just read way too much into my initial "Hopefully not too many people follow your example" statement. But then you made some contentious statements so I felt I had to reply. Like saying the two main candidates were not good, stated as fact. Something clearly many people disagree with you on.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    having to preface every sentence with "in my opinion" is a waste of text. I am speaking it, of course it is my opinion. It is only fact insofar as it can be recognized as so. I did not explicitly state "it's a fact". Don't be pedantic.
    - afterburner 13y ago
      It's not that simple, since you followed with: "If more people refused to vote for a bad candidate, then the margin to win would be much smaller. Egads, if people voted for who they actually wanted, rather than vote against who they want the least, then maybe we'd get someone who actually, you know, represents the people!" So you're using "the main candidates are bad" as the basis for how the population should vote. It was more a bad assumption than an opinion.

moron4hire 13y ago

our disagreement on the suitability of the candidates is the entire point of voting. and I think it is important to note: of the people who could have voted, only 28% chose to vote and vote for Obama. and going around, telling people to not vote for your preferred candidate, that is the entire point of campaigning.

afterburner 13y ago
I'm not saying you shouldn't campaign. You just read way too much into my initial "Hopefully not too many people follow your example" statement. But then you made some contentious statements so I felt I had to reply. Like saying the two main candidates were not good, stated as fact. Something clearly many people disagree with you on.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  having to preface every sentence with "in my opinion" is a waste of text. I am speaking it, of course it is my opinion. It is only fact insofar as it can be recognized as so. I did not explicitly state "it's a fact". Don't be pedantic.
  - afterburner 13y ago
    It's not that simple, since you followed with: "If more people refused to vote for a bad candidate, then the margin to win would be much smaller. Egads, if people voted for who they actually wanted, rather than vote against who they want the least, then maybe we'd get someone who actually, you know, represents the people!" So you're using "the main candidates are bad" as the basis for how the population should vote. It was more a bad assumption than an opinion.