Presidential Election Poll

No more excuses for the undecided, now that the last debate is over,

- Please note that the wording allows non-US citizen and non-registered individuals a "vote".
- Please only vote "other" if you have another person in mind who is actually taking part in the US presidential race
- Please only vote "abstain" if you mean it, not if you are unsure.

Your vote counts! [lol]
No seriously, we are very interested, if there is a clear political trend among ImmInst members and visitors, so please do vote!


The thread to discuss the election
-> http://www.imminst.o...&f=56&t=4128&s=

Some other polls
-> http://www.realclear...h_vs_kerry.html

Cal, had to 'open' the topic, because if it's closed, noone can vote.

Would have liked to see the two or three main independents (Badnarik, and Cobb-and/or-Nader), just to make the numbers centralized.

Personally, I want Badnarik to win, if for no other reason than that I think that a healthy dose of Libertarianism thrown into the system will help grease the wheels of progress a little bit. Although those who've discussed with me in the past can probably understand that I don't really agree with the Libertarian point of view, I certainly see aspects of it as much better than either of the two current parties, and so one might say I consider Badnarik the least of three evils. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction (an overstep, one might say).

That said, I would actually vote for Kerry, mainly because I'm a pragmatist and I don't want Bush to win. Between Bush and Kerry, I see Kerry as the lesser of two evils.

However, that said, I am signed up on VotePair.com, since I live in California. I'm basically offering to vote Independent in California in exchange for someone's offering to vote for Kerry in a swing state where a Kerry vote might actually affect the electoral college count. I've signed up to vote for either Badnarik or Cobb, so I'm just waiting to see who I actually get paired up with. I'm assuming it might take a while, since Kerry voters are a dime a dozen, and independents in swing states might be harder to come by. If I don't get paired up with someone, I'll probably vote for Badnarik simply because my vote won't affect the outcome in California, so I may as well help Badnarik's showing.

oh my Jaydfox are they really selling or bartering their votes now a days?

The Dems are desperate, their hatred is really driving them in this election.

How interesting.

Badnarik

The one thing (not only thing) the Libertarians propose that I don't agree with is getting rid of government funded research entirely. Private research is important, but supplemented with government funded research we can progress that much more in any given time period.

Another Badnarik supporter here:).

Badnarik. Though I still might vote for Kerry. I disagree with just about everything about him but he supports stem cell research and in the short to middle term I think stem cell research will do more to cure the blight of involuntary death than anything.

Colorado has something on the ballot to split our electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state. I don't know if it's constitutional or not however.

Colorado has something on the ballot to split our electoral votes based on the popular vote within the state. I don't know if it's Constitutional or not however.

I assume it's Constitutional. I haven't read the Constitution in a couple years (I know, it should be mandatory reading every election cycle; I just haven't gotten around to it this time...), so I can't say for sure.

However, as memory serves, the Constitution doesn't actually say that the electors have to vote a certain way. It's just become a tradition passed into state and perhaps federal laws that we think we vote for the candidates themselves, when really we're voting for the electors by proxy based on their promise to vote the way we voted. Since the system is already an arbitrary one based on legislative and not Constitutional mandate, I don't see why the legislature or the people themselves could not put a better system in place.

That said, even a vote-splitting electoral system is still very deficient. Better, but it still isn't truly representative. Popular vote is the way to go, and we DO need to amend the Constitution to fix that particular problem.

However, as memory serves, the Constitution doesn't actually say that the electors have to vote a certain way. It's just become a tradition passed into state and perhaps federal laws that we think we vote for the candidates themselves, when really we're voting for the electors by proxy based on their promise to vote the way we voted. Since the system is already an arbitrary one based on legislative and not Constitutional mandate, I don't see why the legislature or the people themselves could not put a better system in place.

Actually Jay that too is a State by State concern as to how the Electoral College reps have to vote. None of that is set out under the Constitution because the Constitution was expressly protecting the individual character of State Rights to determine such policy.

To add there is a VERY big Constitutional challenge likely to the Colorado Referendum if passed and that is the violation of Ex Post Facto restrictions of the Constitution because the proposed Law contains the provision that it be applied after the fact (retroactively) to this elections' result.

oh my Jaydfox are they really selling or bartering their votes now a days?

The Dems are desperate, their hatred is really driving them in this election.

How interesting.

Well, it's more a function of the idiocy inherent in the electoral college. By trading votes, we have done nothing to change the popular vote, and hence no claim of selling or bartering really applies. From the point of view of the vote that should matter, we have done nothing unethical.

That said, I do admit that we are affecting the outcome of the election. Perhaps not the outcome that matters (i.e. who wins), but we are affecting the margins by which the electoral votes are won.

But think of this more as a form of political protest, the very thing which voting in a sense becomes when one is disgruntled with the current incumbency. In fact, if we were doing something shady or downright illegal (such as "buying" or "selling" votes), we would be trying to hide. We want the fact that we're doing this to be made public, and we want the contraversy, so that people can see how stupid the electoral college is. So that maybe we might actually see a Constitutional amendment proposed in the next electional cycle to fix the damn problem in the first place.

So if it irks you that Democrats are trying to barter for votes, then write to your state legislature or U.S. Senators and ask them to propose an Amendment to fix the problem. Until it's fixed, it's fair game, as far as I'm concerned.

Hell, while we're at it, if we're going to amend the constitution, we have a chance to REALLY fix the system. By eliminating the electoral college and putting a popular one in place, Congress will have to enact a system to interpret the results of popular elections (it can't be decided on a state by state basis, because it's not the "states" that are voting via electors; it must be uniform at a national level, and hence, an act of Congress).

The obvious system is the current First-Past-the-Post system, but wait! Why not put a little thought into it put in one of the dozens of alternatives out there, most of them better in many aspects, especially in the current two-party system!

To add there is a VERY big Constitutional challenge likely to the Colorado Referendum if passed and that is the violation of Ex Post Facto restrictions of the Constitution because the proposed Law contains the provision that it be applied after the fact (retroactively) to this elections' result.

Okay, so the problem isn't the change, it's the attempt to apply it retroactively? Can the Federal Courts overrule only the retroactive portion, or is the baby thrown out with the bathwater?

Can the Federal Courts overrule only the retroactive portion, or is the baby thrown out with the bathwater?

I must leave and do other tasks now but the short answer is yes, but in a close election that process could take months and months to litigate.

The more pragmatic political reality is that even the Democrats who originally introduced the referendum are backing away from it. They were trying for a bite of a Bush pie and now realize they might be sacrificing *Winner takes all* since polls in that state appear to be now leaning to Kerry.

Also there are other challenges as this is a change to the State's Constitution and I will add that it is likely to have little effect on the smaller states but profoundly dilute the result from larger States if adopted around the country so the duopoly is backing away from the proposal like the plague.

I will add that it is likely to have little effect on the smaller states but profoundly dilute the result from larger States if adopted around the country so the duopoly is backing away from the proposal like the plague.

What, you mean like requiring candidates to campaign in large *cough* California *cough* non-swing states? Oh, the humanity!

You know, it's funny, I had a set of conflicted opinions over the last week that finally resolved themselves this morning.

As I was sitting here in Atlanta, Georgia, over 2,000 miles from my hometown in California, I was thinking about my vote. I voted in California over the weekend, absentee. I suppose I could have voted in Georgia, but both states looked pretty solid (GA less so than CA), and I really wanted prop 71 to pass. I accept Reason's reasons for opposing prop 71, but in a state that has a hundred other pork-budget problems, I figure a 300 million dollar annual handout to big business for a damn good cause is tolerable for pragmatic reasons.

Anyway, I knew that my vote for Kerry wouldn't affect the electoral outcome of the election, the only outcome that really matters when it comes to Jan 20, 2005, right? So I signed up on VotePair.com to possibly get matched with a third-party voter in a swing state. Sadly, such voters were far and few between compared to the Kerry voters in non-swing states, so I wasn't paired.

But I voted Badnarik anyway, because even though I don't completely agree with the Libertarians, I see a middle ground between them and the other two parties that is probably as good as we can get in an imperfect world (which is any world with humans in it, right?).

Anyway, I felt good and was ready to leave it at that. But then I started reading and hearing people say that even in a non-swing state, Kerry needs our vote to establish his legitimacy. After all, Bush lost the popular vote by a huge margin, and he cannot claim a reasonably indisuptable electoral win, so he had no "mandate" from the people. He acted like he did, largely on high approval ratings after 9/11, but he didn't. And that set a very bad precedent, one that will not easily be lived down by future presidents.

So here I was, feeling guilty for not supporting Kerry with my vote. I read this article at dailykos.com, and I began feeling more guilty:

There are two battles being fought Tuesday. The battle for the electoral vote -- which will decide the next president, and the battle for the popular vote -- which will confer legitimacy on the victor.

Now I know Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000. We all know that. And we all know he governed as though he had a 400-EV-mandate. But fact is, a president-elect Kerry who loses the popular vote will not get the same benefit of the doubt as Bush did. The media environment is still too hostile, and the hypocrites on the Right will wield it as a tool.

If there's one thing Kerry has done, it's deny the Right much ammunition to use against him. We need to deny the Right the chance to delegitimize a Kerry presidency because of the popular vote. Let's make this a clean victory all around.

That means voting for Kerry if you're either in the Bluest of states, or the Reddest of states. Every vote will count. None of this "swapping with Nader voters" stuff. So while my vote in California won't help elect Kerry, it can help legitimize his presidency.

The world needs to hear that the majority of Americans have rejected the Bush presidency. None of us can be complacent, no matter where we live.

(my emphasis added)

I italicized two phrases. The first made me feel bad. I didn't swap with Nader, but I voted Badnarik, a sort of "swap". But the second part I italicized brought to mind what really matters to me, what I've forgotten in this past week.

I've been so wrapped up in defeating Bush, I began to believe myself that I'm for Kerry! But I'm not... I'm anti-Bush, not Pro-Kerry, and there's a difference. I only want Kerry to win because if he doesn't, Bush wins. There is no credible scenario where they both lose the election.

However, if Bush loses the Presidency, I don't care if he wins the popular vote. As long as he doesn't get 50%, America sends the message that we have rejected him. If Bush gets 49%, Kerry 48%, and third parties get 3%, then that means 51% of Americans rejected Bush! My vote, whether for Kerry or for Badnarik, was a vote of protest against Bush. That's all it was. A vote of protest. It was not a vote for a candidate I wanted to win, it was a vote against a candidate that I wanted to lose!

Having finally remembered why I was voting in what to me is the most important election of my short lifetime (27 years), I feel much better about my vote. I didn't break principle. In fact, had I voted for Kerry, I would have broken my principles...

Well, the election is over.

In ImmInst President Bush would likely not have been re-elected.
In the USA, he was.

Many thanks for taking part.