Forgot your password?

Favorite U.S. Political Party

Displaying poll results.
  2138 votes / 9%
  4899 votes / 21%
  4841 votes / 20%
  2771 votes / 11%
Americans Elect
137 votes / 0%
  775 votes / 3%
  1624 votes / 7%
I like any kind of party
  5937 votes / 25%
23122 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Favorite U.S. Political Party

Comments Filter:
  • Oh come on (Score:3, Insightful)

    by artor3 (1344997) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:08PM (#41796941)

    Are the editors even trying to hide their flamebait/clickbait tendencies anymore?

    • Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170) on Monday October 29, 2012 @02:24PM (#41808227) Homepage Journal

      Are the editors even trying to hide their flamebait/clickbait tendencies anymore?

      Grow up.

      These are just fun, meaningless polls. Nobody really expects anything meaninful from the results because people who respond do so for any of the following reasons:

      • They're actually honest.
      • They're dishonest and want to skew the poll
      • They're 'avin' a larf and side with Cowboy Neal every time
      • They pick the least likely just to boost it a bit
      • They have bad eyesight and thought they were bidding on ebay
      • They want you to think you know what they want but really they want something else and are hoping you'll fall for their bait
      • They have 100 fake logins and are trolling
      • They have 100 fake logins and are voting by some reasoned distribution so the poll will look like it's more meaningful than it is.
      • Variations on any conbination of the above.
      • Cowboy Neal has it all rigged anyway.
  • Birthday! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:08PM (#41796945) Journal
    Actually, when my school held mock elections, the Birthday Party won. At the time, I thought it was a problem with the fact that the elections were disconnected from any effect on the electorate of their vote. Some years later, I see that they were distressingly close to the real thing...
  • They all suck (Score:4, Informative)

    by banbeans (122547) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:13PM (#41796979)

    They all suck donkey balls.

  • Depends (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:23PM (#41797033)

    Favorite party as in I agree more or less with their philosophy...
    Favorite party as in I love to grab a big bucket of popcorn and watch them do/say something incredibly stupid...

    • Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fbjon (692006) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @02:50PM (#41798157) Homepage Journal

      Are they necessarily different? Consider, hypothetically:

      "Republican in principle but holy fuck what happened with them!?"

      • Re:Depends (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fustakrakich (1673220) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @05:01PM (#41799025) Journal

        They were pawned by the dixiecrats that jumped ship after the passage of the civil rights act in '64, which would not have passed were it not for many republicans in congress that voted for it. LBJ said, "There goes the South for a generation." when he signed it. Those same dixiecrats are what gave us the "Southern Strategy" during Nixon's campaign. All this is popular folklore. What really happened is that big business took more direct control of both sides to ensure that one or the other always remained in power for their benefit.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 28, 2012 @05:23PM (#41799159)

        Are they necessarily different? Consider, hypothetically:

        "Republican in principle but holy fuck what happened with them!?"

        Social Conservative Christians - that's what happened. And we can blame Ron Regan for that cluster fuck.

        If you look at a Republican before the party was taken over by the Christian Taliban, Barry Goldwater for instance, you will see what is considered a Libertarian today.

        Of course that's not the whole story and a book can be written about what went wrong and the multitude of things that happened other than Christian nuts who want to increase the size of Government, throw the Constitution in the trash, and have government regulate people's personal lives - all because of values written in a book of iron age myth.

        And then there is the fact that the American people completely forgot what happened between 2002 - 2008: the Republicans controlled BOTH the Executive branch and the Legislative branch of our government and went apeshit with the spending AND had the brass to lie and say it was ALL because of the wars. Only then to blame it ALL on the Obama administration.

        But wait there's more ... Paul Ryan when he was a Congressman, made a really ballsy move and said that we need to do something about Medicare - like cut $700 billion+.

        Now as a VP candidate, he has gone 180 degrees and the republicans have completely forgotten what he wanted to do in Congress or they are so horribly uninformed, that they don't know.

        TO get the Rep vote, just say, "No gay marriage. No abortion. Cut taxes and spending." Because contrary to what they hear from their leaders on Talk Radio and Fox News, they think most of the Federal budget is going for paying welfare mothers and their pink Cadillacs; even though the largest expenses in the Fed budget is Medicare and Interest on the debt that they got rolling.

        But wait there's even more! You see the Reps are allegedly against wealth transfer - from "rich" to "poor", but they are ALL for wealth transfer from young to old (Medicare and SS) and from poor to rich (capital gains are taxed less, home mortgage deductions [rich have more than one house and therefore get more Government subsides], and all the other loopholes that are only available to the 1%)

        The Republicans are laughed at for good reason, I'm afraid. They used to be a decent counter to the Democrat's Depression Era thinking, but now they're just too loony.

        Obama on the 6th, baby!

        • Social Conservative Christians

          Yes, but named just like East Germany was the "German Democratic Republic" back in the day when it only nailed one out of three.
          Social? Consider any social issue such as poor, homeless and anywhere that good Christian charity can help, and instead of doing what Jesus suggested they blame the victims and fill the jails with petty offenders. They are about creating social problems instead of solving them.
          Conservative? No it's about reactionary rollback and almost Taliban style

        • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Monday October 29, 2012 @10:57AM (#41804355) Journal

          If you look at the deficit crisis, it has fuckall to do with religeion and everything to do with class. Republicans will not do shit that will upset a single person earning over 250k.

  • by (245670) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:23PM (#41797035)

    Would have been way funnier with a "Lemon" option.

  • Pirate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tylikcat (1578365) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:28PM (#41797063)

    I mean really, this is Slashdot - how can we ignore the pirates?

  • Dems vs Reps (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:37PM (#41797127)

    Dem: Do what you want in the bedroom, but we call the shots on your money.
    Rep: Do what you want with your money, but we call the shots in your bedroom.

  • by assertation (1255714) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @12:41PM (#41797163)

    For a Libertarian country to work the majority of the population has to be well educated, have resources, be well informed, be strong thinkers and have a sense of civic duty stemming for a sense of enlightened self interest.

    That is the exact opposite of what we got in the U.S.

    Libertarians don't talk about how they are going to get Americans ready to be libertarians.

    The libertarians I have met have been Republicanish business types who want the government to leave them alone to abuse the environment and other poeple...........or.....they have been pot heads who want the government to leave them alone to do their drugs.

    When I asked how would things like fire departments and libraries run in a liberatiran country they could never tell me and they would accuse me of being inflammatory. Well, even the worst democrats and republicans have a story to tell about how they are going to do things ( well, maybe not Mitt Romney, he doesn't think people need to know how he is going to pull off a mathematically impossible budget of tax cuts for the rich and military spending increases ).

    Libertarians live in the world of ideas, without being burdeoned by how to make things work when the rubber hits the roads.

    That is why Ron Paul has his popularity. Nobody knows more than he does that he isn't ever going to be POTUS, so he can uncomprising in his ideals, rather than someone who might actually have to do something.

    • by NicBenjamin (2124018) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @03:26PM (#41798387)

      Of course "have resources" is a relative phrase, which means that income inequality is incompatible with sustaining a libertarian government, yet libertarianism explicitly promotes that inequality. That's why Libertarianism is totally untried as a form of government. They sometimes claim the US pre-Civil War, but the US pre-Civil War was a slave-holding country. The government was technically Libertaran in the sense that the official Federal government was not officially oppressing anybody, but that doesn't mean South Carolina was freer in 1850 then Moscow was in 1950.

      Libertarians really do not understand that the greatest threat to freedom is not the US Army, it's your neighbors. To remain a free country the US Military has too have the power to intervene in private disputes. Which means taxes, the ability to break up huge concentrations of wealth (otherwise Bill Gates could hire his own army and beat the Feds), a welfare state that ensures everyone has the ability to ask the courts for help, etc.

      • I think the biggest think the libertarians overlook when it comes to the U.S. pre-Civil War is that was a time when a man could just travel westward and live off the land. You could buy land off the government for like a penny an acre. Even adjusting for inflation, that's nothing, especially considering that aside from desert areas the land had enough resources to sustain the owner and provide enterprising opportunities.

        Freedom is such an abstract concept - I don't believe any person has every been 'free,'

        • Even if one is free from the government's influence they're still not free from the influence of others.

          Libertarianism is all about the respecting the rights of others, and having your respected also. It does not pretend anyone lives alone, it's for addressing what happen when people live together.

          all schools, K-12 and all, should be privately run for profit and parents should pay for their children's education.

          But come on, the reality is there will always be some kind of subsidy for the poorest - even i

      • by ShakaUVM (157947)

        > income inequality is incompatible with sustaining a libertarian government, yet libertarianism explicitly promotes that inequality.

        Anyone who uses the words "income inequality" seriously, without irony, automatically gets labelled a moron in my brain. Income inequality is so fucking stupid to talk about, that it's insane that people still use the term uncritically. The USSR had great income equality - everyone was equally poor, as they say.

        >but that doesn't mean South Carolina was freer in 1850 then

    • by markdavis (642305) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @03:44PM (#41798523)

      Like most people, you seem to think that the only Libertarians are *RADICAL* Libertarians.

      Few people who would call themselves "Libertarian" are anywhere near that extreme and do believe there is a place and need for public services and protecting the environment.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Then what use if the word "libertarian" if it's so flexible it can mean just about...anyone?

        • by dbIII (701233)
          IMHO you've nailed it. A bunch of people of all kinds of views (outright royalists to anarchists) wrapped up in flags to hide that some of them are the sort of people Washington fought against and some of them would be at home in the Russian Black Army during the revolution there, while others are at a more sane part of the spectrum.
          Of course some people will quibble at the royalist bit, but that's really what setting up a feudal style system where the rich can do whatever they want is (Koch style libertar
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      >When I asked how would things like fire departments and libraries run in a liberatiran country they could never tell me and they would accuse me of being inflammatory.

      I'm not a libertarian, but what? Who did you even talk to? They don't always have specific answers for fire (but then again they are not proposing administrative systems top-down do they do not need a single one to settle on) but they do have answers and their answer for libraries is obvious enough from their beliefs--fund it like any ot

    • When I asked how would things like fire departments and libraries run in a liberatiran country they could never tell me

      Really? Not a single one of them was able to point out to you that early U.S. fire departments and libraries were privately organized and funded? That there are still private fire departments and libraries in existence in the U.S. right now?
      I agree, you apparently don't talk to many actual libertarians.

    • by vanyel (28049) *

      The principle of Libertarianism is nice, but the vast majority of them act more like anarchists, and an anarchy is the antithesis of freedom: it's a world where might makes right.

      I believe in what I call Socialtarianism - a libertarian who believes in social responsibility. We form societies to cooperate for the common good, in which people do their best when they have maximal freedom, but there are always those whole will freeload given the choice. It's also often more efficient to centralize a lot of se

    • A lot of people seem to confuse the platform of the Libertarian Party with the philosophy of libertarianism. As others have pointed out, the party seems to have more in common with anarchists than anything else. True liberarianism is about both individual freedom and individual responsibility. It doesn't mean eliminate government, it just means that the goal should be to have the minimum "amount" of government necessary to have a successful society. That's the ideal that Ron Paul and some others like me

  • Missing option (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kittown (1195605)
    none of the above
    • Re:Missing option (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arth1 (260657) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @03:29PM (#41798409) Homepage Journal

      And why isn't the American Communist Party there?
      Or anything else to the left of global moderate?

      Has the person setting up the poll been so thoroughly indoctrinated that he only sees shades of blue, and consider the greens the far left?

  • Bullmoose? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I am, after all, voting for Teddy Roosevelt this time around.

  • by Bonker (243350) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @02:19PM (#41797915)

    I guess my warped way of thinking just can't embrace the notion of supporting a political party. I understand the need for governance of some kind to maintain social order, I understand being conservative in your views, or liberal, but I question the whole concept of being part of a political organization when so many members of that party are so manifestly corrupt, morally subversive or just plain vile. Why would you want to be part of anything that has even a little bit of rot in it?

    from James Killough's excellent article 'Do Republicans Dream of Electric Elephants': []

  • by boudie2 (1134233) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @02:24PM (#41797949)
    Anyone who watched one of the recent debates (yawn) would know there's really only two parties. And in actuality neither one runs the country. Big Money runs the country, Wall Street, the Oil companies, the so-called Military-Industrial Complex. Therefore anyone who thinks that it makes a difference who wins the election or that there will be real changes or that they will do what they say, well they just haven't been paying attention. One guy has made himself filthy rich by sticking it to the little guy his whole life and the other has done ... well, nothing. God bless America.
    • by RazorSharp (1418697) on Monday October 29, 2012 @12:07PM (#41805537)

      This type of apathy is why Big Money runs the country. The funny thing is the people who spout this idea tend to be those who know the least when it comes to politics. It's a convenient excuse to be ignorant: "Oh, why should I learn about these politicians and their policies when they're all just the same?"

      Like it or not, but the things our congresscritters do have matter. You know one of the difference between Big Money and no money? People with big money vote. People who work for oil companies vote. People who work for the military-industrial complex vote. People who think that embryos are a precious life form the government is ethically bound to protect vote.

      Yet it's the people who are most victimized by these policies that say, "Oh, gee, these forces are so insurmountable that my vote doesn't count for shit. It's raining today and the voting booth is a whole mile away and since my vote doesn't matter anyway, I'm going to jerk off and watch reality TV instead."

      When you encourage this type of apathy you're part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem and do something constructive instead, such as encouraging people to vote.

  • This could be bad news for Democrats if the Libertarians tend to vote Republican. Of course, it's not like /. readers are a representative sample of the US voting populace, so this poll is probably worthless anyway.
  • Political parties are a crutch for people who can't think for themselves.

  • by Art Challenor (2621733) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @03:33PM (#41798439)
    There are signs that the US economy is improving. I'm starting to wonder if the $2 billion put into the economy (plus whatever has been put in by Super PACs) is having an impact. Lots of this (Super PAC especially) comes from very wealthy people, so maybe the US economy is starting to see some trickle down.
  • by VikingBerserker (546589) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @06:20PM (#41799507)
    Bull Moose Party. In today's "just grin and bear it" political culture, a revival could be massive.
  • by Apothem (1921856) on Sunday October 28, 2012 @09:32PM (#41800555)
    ...I hate all political parties.
  • Royalist (Score:5, Funny)

    by HarryatRock (1494393) <> on Monday October 29, 2012 @06:16AM (#41802411) Journal

    I voted whig, but only because royalist and unionist (in the Irish sense) were missing. When you rebellious colonists come back to accept the supremacy of the crown and parliament you will cure all the social, welfare and cultural ills that are prevalent throughout "America".
    Constitutional monarchy rules. OK

  • by BlindRobin (768267) on Tuesday October 30, 2012 @05:39AM (#41815527)

    I was looking for the American Christian Fascist Party, and I'll admit that it took me a minute to realise that you still call them Republicans.

  • by JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) on Tuesday October 30, 2012 @10:31AM (#41817745)
    I hate all of these lying idiots equally.

The Universe is populated by stable things. -- Richard Dawkins


Forgot your password?