Forgot your password?

In the 2012 U.S. presidential election:

Displaying poll results.
I will vote or have voted for the (R) candidate
  5568 votes / 13%
I will vote or have voted for the (D) candidate
  12925 votes / 30%
I will vote or have voted for the (L) candidate
  3276 votes / 7%
I will vote or have voted for another candidate
  1548 votes / 3%
I am a U.S. voter, but choose to abstain
  2645 votes / 6%
I am not a U.S. voter.
  12672 votes / 29%
Cowboy Neal is our man.
  3830 votes / 9%
42464 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This discussion has been archived.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.

In the 2012 U.S. presidential election:

Comments Filter:
  • squeaky wheels (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 02, 2012 @02:52PM (#41856345)

    I predict the majority of commenters hate the two main parties, but the majority of responders to this poll will pick one of the two main parties.

  • Mo (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Krau Ming (1620473) on Friday November 02, 2012 @02:54PM (#41856377)
    I will vote for whoever grows the best moustache in the first 6 days of Movember.
  • Re:Voting for Obama (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Nimey (114278) on Friday November 02, 2012 @04:10PM (#41857693) Homepage Journal

    Come back and tell me that when you've grown up and seen how things actually work, sonny. Do be sure to read up on Game Theory while you're at it, and the failure modes associated with first past the post voting.

  • Re:squeaky wheels (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pavon (30274) on Friday November 02, 2012 @05:07PM (#41858517)

    Take a look at this map []. If you live live in one of the solid colored states, the electoral votes for your state are already statistically guaranteed. Voting for the lesser of two evils in one of those states is like pissing into the ocean. It has absolutely no chance of having any effect in the outcome of the election, and at best it slightly adjusts the margins of victory sending a message. Vote for the candidate that sends the best message; the one that best reflects your political views.

  • Re:squeaky wheels (Score:4, Interesting)

    by painandgreed (692585) on Friday November 02, 2012 @05:16PM (#41858643)

    I predict the majority of commenters hate the two main parties, but the majority of responders to this poll will pick one of the two main parties.

    It's a test of the mathematically depressing fact of how first-past-the-post voting always degenerates into two-party rule due to fear.

    It has its disadvantages and advantages like every system:

    Disadvantage: Two parties get to fight it out while other viewpoints and fringe ideas never really get brought up and dealt with. The winner, usually feeling they have a mandate because they beat out the only other choice takes actions far beyond what even the people who voted them into office want. Very bipolar partisan factionalism with little cause to form any sort of working together.

    Advantages: The two main parties have to cater to the center mass of people rather than subscribe to fringe viewpoints as if they go too far, the otherside will always win. There is less factionalism, or at least less factions to deal with. Theoretically, the winner does so with a majority and therefore some sort of mandate which gains acceptance and provides for a more stable government.

  • Re:Vote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dr. Hellno (1159307) on Friday November 02, 2012 @05:48PM (#41859045)
    You don't think there's a difference between the major parties on gay marriage? Because there definitely is. As for starting a war with Iran, one party is clearly more likely to do that, although it's hard to say absolutely that either one won't. They'll probably both bring the troops home from the current theaters though.

    Balancing the budget within the next four years isn't an important real issue. It's arbitrary, and possibly counter-productive. Balancing the budget eventually is a worthy goal, but doing so in the middle of a recession is not. Auditing the fed sounds reasonable but I wouldn't call it important.

    I agree with you on the NDAA and the Patriot act, and the pointless war on drugs. But those values have to be weighed against other important, real issues, where there is a real difference: Education availability, corporate person-hood, investment in green energy, support for the worst-off, international diplomacy, trade policy, immigration policy, financial regulation, health-care cost-management, and of course, social policy. These are all important, real areas of disagreement between the two major political parties. Will you ignore them all?
  • Re:Voting for Obama (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tnk1 (899206) on Friday November 02, 2012 @05:53PM (#41859115)

    You're bound to fail. The reason government gets so big is they make promises and have to deal with problems that become much easier to deal with when they have their hands on all these nice powers we gave their predecessors.

    You know, I knew Obama would be the same as Bush. Not because I believed Obama was just like Bush and lying to us, but instead because he was inexperienced at the Federal level and had no idea what the job he signed up for was going to be like. When you are faced with everything being an emergency, and those emergencies can determine the fates of nations and people, you don't start throwing away your options. You don't start releasing Gitmo prisoners when you actually realize that your prisoners aren't meek political prisoners. You don't stop drone strikes when your other option is an infeasible invasion of Pakistan with troops that you can't justify and you certainly can't risk losing. You can't end the wars immediately and withdraw the troops because the Shiites and Taliban will be in full power in six months if you just start unilaterally withdrawing.

    Add to that the fact that as President, you hold the reins of the bureaucracy, but that same bureaucracy happens to be a team of stagecoach horses running wild towards a cliff. It outweighs you by a ton, has its own momentum and you can only sometimes get it to ignore its dumb, animal instincts when you pull really hard and get really lucky.

    This is a job that gives people grey hair in less than four years. Your usual third party libertarian candidate will be hilariously under-qualified for the job and if they even try half the shit they promise, they will either fall off and be trampled or they will give in and act just like any other president from any other party just to keep above water.

    The only real hope for a useful third party candidate is if you can force a current party, and its experienced politicians, to split and merge with the libertarians. Then you might get some of these policies and some real power. Look at the history of parties in the US, and you can see all of the major parties grew very organically from previous big parties, only fracturing on very big items. I just don't think the Republicans are there yet, they're too disciplined. The Democrats are more likely to split because they're a lot less disciplined.

  • Re:Voting for Obama (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 02, 2012 @05:54PM (#41859117)

    This might be the best possible outcome. Day 1, he pats Ryan on the head and dispatches him to play tiddlywinks at his Mass Ave. Mansion. Then he tweaks Obamacare with a few market-based reforms, and decides that spending a few extra $trillion to fuck up Iran by bombing them with gold-plated fighter jets isn't worth it. Trouble is, he knuckled under during the primaries. So. When Darth Cheney comes calling, and explains how $100 billion Halliburton contract to democratize Iranians in the face is vital to our interests, what do you think he will do?

  • Re:Catch 22 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AJWM (19027) on Saturday November 03, 2012 @02:33AM (#41862767) Homepage

    Exactly this. Canada has -- or had, back when I was living there -- something called a 'declined vote'. You showed up at the polling place, then formally declined to vote. They had to record that, it was roughly like voting for 'none of the above'; if enough people did it, they'd have to hold that particular election over again. (Not that that ever happened in real life, alas.)

    Here, third parties have little enough chance to win or even seriously tilt the election (except when there's a major random 3rd party candidate for president). If you'd really rather vote 'none of the above', pick some 3rd party and vote for them. It sends more of a message than just not showing up.

    You may have a right to complain if you're too apathetic to show up to vote -- but I have a right to ignore you.

  • Re:squeaky wheels (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 10101001 10101001 (732688) on Saturday November 03, 2012 @11:57AM (#41864813) Journal

    Well, the problem isn't with the Electoral College system, per se. It has a lot to do with the implementation. The whole point of having a proxy voting system is to try to quantize the popular vote and intermix it with the number of states so that the federal system isn't merely ruled by the most populace states. The rub is giving each state too much control over the quantizing process. The result is states have chosen to cast all their electoral votes in one fashion instead of splitting them upon the popular vote in each state. This has been done presumably because it results in a lot less moderate of results from each state--as in a system with "strong" (ie with a 15% edge) a state with 30 votes total would split with only a 5 vote difference instead of a solid 30 vote block one way or the other--which in turn pushes more consideration towards states with more electoral votes--be it more election focus to more general political considerations from the President.

    So, while I could readily support a candidate who won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote by 500,000 votes, the system really needs to be split such that the above really means that more states (and mostly their populace) as a whole voted that way instead of it merely being a few "swing" states that are effectively able to upset the popular vote.

  • Green Party (Score:5, Interesting)

    by darpo (5213) on Saturday November 03, 2012 @11:57AM (#41864819) Homepage
    My state shows a 98.7% chance* of voting Obama, and I don't like Obama**, so I took the opportunity to vote 3rd party for the first time in my life.

    * []

    ** Failed to close Guantanamo, increased raids on MJ dispensaries, watered-down healthcare act... he makes Clinton look liberal!
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Saturday November 03, 2012 @09:38PM (#41869309)

    In this election it really doesn't matter whomever that gets elected, both are looking at a task that is a big headache - the economy.

    It matters a great deal, because the press ignores all but the most egregious errors of Democrats, while reporting on just about anything negative they can find with Republicans.

    If you care at all about the government getting away with murder (sometimes literally) then it makes no sense to vote Democrat. ANY other candidate will probably be investigated and reported on way more thoroughly.

  • Hey Abstainers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by assertation (1255714) on Sunday November 04, 2012 @12:32PM (#41872897)

    The next President may have the opportunity to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices.

    Voting has never taken me more than 30 minutes. Over four years that is 7 1/2 minutes a year for a better life and a better country.

    Please vote.

  • Re:Either? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jerslan (1088525) * on Monday November 05, 2012 @03:18PM (#41884879)
    You don't have to agree with them 100% to believe in them. I don't agree with Gary Johnson 100%, but I do believe he would do the best job (hence "I believe in him" and thus my vote is not wasted on Obama or Romney). You say you don't agree with Obama 100%, but do you believe in him? Based on your statements is sounds like you do. Good for you. You're voting for a candidate you believe in (and thus aren't wasting your vote).

    Those Libertarians that used to be Republicans did try, you might remember that Ron Paul had quite a lot of support from voters... Until the Christian Fundamentalists stacked the deck against him. Several caucuses (like St. Charles, MO) tried to over-rule the crowds in attendance and send delegates that supported the "chosen" candidate at the time (usually Santorum or Romney). Those where Paul did win, and got delegates to the National Convention, found that the Paul Delegates were getting kicked out and replaced with pro-Romney delegates to limit dissent within the party. At one point in the RNC they stopped putting the numbers up for Ron Paul. It's difficult to retake a party when your opposition has themselves so deeply entrenched that they can change the rules to be in their favor.

    Not all Libertarians are disenfranchised Republicans either. Some of them do believe that the role of Federal Government in our daily lives should be quite small. That maintaining a strong military is important, but that we shouldn't be as aggressive as we have been. That Corporations do *not* have the same rights as people. That Religion, Race, Sexual Identity, etc.. should play absolutely no role in legislation (ie: legislating who can and cannot be legally married based on the religious definition of marriage). That Marijuana should be legalized and regulated like Alcohol and Tobacco (the side effects of which are reduced prison populations, reduced power of drug cartels, more tax revenue for states... all of which would be fantastic for this country). Most of those views (despite being a truly "conservative" view-point) are the opposite of anything heard from the Republican Party during the last 50+ years.

    It's also an arguable point that if the Libertarian Party wanted to change the Republican Party from within they would first have to prove that they are more valuable to the Republican Party than the Religious Fundamentalists. If the Libertarians cannibalize enough votes from both parties this election. It makes it clear (to both parties) that they will need to make platform changes and if they don't they will continue to hemorrhage voters over the next few election cycles until the Libertarians or some other Third Party become legitimate contenders. IMHO this is the true role of Third Parties in a Two Party system. They exist to keep the "major" parties in check.

    Neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party existed when our country was founded, so at one point in time they were both "Third Parties". The Republican Party was founded in 1854 (78 years after the Declaration of Independence) as a bunch of anti-slavery activists. The Democrat Party evolved out of the Anti-Federalist party which originally favored similar views that modern Libertarians have (limited Federal Government and pro-State's Rights). If you look at the history of our country, the idea that our country was designed to be a two-party system is patently false. The current major parties may have changed the rules to be in their favor, but a "two-party" system was never the original intent (if it were the Constitution would probably say something about it).

"Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain


Forgot your password?