Why waste your vote?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Quizzah

Cowboy
A/V Subscriber
Sep 2, 2006
567
307
1,613
Washington, DC
#21
So I've noticed that people were voting for John Edwards today. Funny thing is, he's not running anymore. Why are people this stupid? They just wasted thier vote. I even saw some votes for Fred Thompson. Are voters in Oklahoma that uninformed? All it takes is a few minutes to read about the candidates, especially the ones that are no longer running.
One extremely simple answer. Mail-in ballots! A lot were mailed in before he even dropped out.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
21,221
20,760
1,743
#22
Looks like Dr. Paul is going to get a few delegates out of Huckabee's WV win on a deal they struck.
I don't understand why he is making a fuss out of this.....all he is doing is making the party look bad.
 
Apr 20, 2006
3,590
190
693
32
Wherever I May Roam
#25
Ohh I didn't read it correctly...I didn't realize he actually dropped out. I thought that just meant he was accepting his role as...how do I describe this...a non-threat. The Democratic race is obviously down to Hilary and Obama. Any votes for Edwards are basically wasted votes anyway, even if he did stay in.

Best explanation I can think of for still voting him are possibly Absentee Ballots and Mail-In Ballots mailed in before he officially dropped out.
 

brianwr

Ripple
A/V Subscriber
Aug 2, 2006
7,303
3,143
1,743
Las Vegas, NV
#26
Your example includes Ron Paul, who is still running for President. Those that voted for him belived that he had a chance to win and was the right man for the job. Let's reiterate, he's still running.

This isn't about competitiveness for a winner, it's about those that choose to vote for someone who is no longer running for office. They are out. Only those that are still in the running are the ones that can get elected.

I don't get what's so tough to understand here.
That's still not the point. You don't vote for someone just because they have a chance to be elected, you vote for you think is the best person for the job.

The bolded part of your statement is false. Whomever receives the most electoral college votes, regardless of whether they actually campaigned for office is the elected president.
 
Dec 15, 2003
3,081
92
1,678
#27
So I've noticed that people were voting for John Edwards today. Funny thing is, he's not running anymore. Why are people this stupid? They just wasted thier vote. I even saw some votes for Fred Thompson. Are voters in Oklahoma that uninformed? All it takes is a few minutes to read about the candidates, especially the ones that are no longer running.
Are you seriously upset about this? God forbid that people vote for who they want to vote for. I guess you must consider your ballot to be a betting slip. "Let's see, Clinton has 3 to 1, Obama 6 to 1. I'm going with Clinton." Or, if you are a Republican; "Thompson 5,000,000 to 1 and McCain 2 to 1. I'm going with McCain."

They get your opinion and you get yours. Get over it...
That is how it should be.

I voted for a candidate that is still running for office, so my opinon will actually be heard.
Will your opinion be heard? Last I checked, the popular vote doesn't vote the President into office. Who is that done by? Other politicians.

Those politicians see what their district voted, and then THEY DECIDE on who to vote for. We have no control over who they vote for.

As far as USA being a Democracy, not so much. The United States are more of a republic. Just say the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
 
Apr 16, 2007
77
14
558
37
Land of Teapublican Idiots
#28
Anyone voting for Paul or Edwards or Gravel or Thompson is wasting a vote on a person who absolutely will not be elected. Mail-in or absentee may constitute much of where some of these also-rans will get their votes, but what is going to be more striking than anything is, democratically, who will be pledged those Edwards (or whatever blowhard you want to write in) delegates by convention time in late summer?

You guys bagging on the original poster have really misunderstood where's he's coming from, IMO. I take time to actually lurk and I end up posting over here. I feel filthy. :rolleyes:
 
Apr 5, 2007
1,129
2
666
37
Kansas City, MO
#29
Anyone voting for Paul or Edwards or Gravel or Thompson is wasting a vote on a person who absolutely will not be elected. Mail-in or absentee may constitute much of where some of these also-rans will get their votes, but what is going to be more striking than anything is, democratically, who will be pledged those Edwards (or whatever blowhard you want to write in) delegates by convention time in late summer?

You guys bagging on the original poster have really misunderstood where's he's coming from, IMO. I take time to actually lurk and I end up posting over here. I feel filthy. :rolleyes:

Well someone gets it.
 

Slugger926

Federal Marshal
Oct 19, 2004
11,704
1,676
1,743
#30
Anyone voting for Paul or Edwards or Gravel or Thompson is wasting a vote on a person who absolutely will not be elected.
I understand what you are trying to say, but there is a bigger picture here.;)

No, those votes are not wasted. :eek: Those votes will send a message to the canidates left in November that those votes still need to be earned, and the messages by Paul, Edwards, Gravel, Keyes, or Thompson are important.

The only wasted votes are those that are never cast.:mad:

I will not vote for someone just because they will win, but I will vote for someone who best fits who I want in office.:D