Comments on: Why I’m Wasting My Vote

By: schulte

schulte — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 02:28:56 +0000

I was annoyed myself that he was off the ballot (I also thought of “Live Free or Die”)…didn’t think to write him in though (mostly because I can’t spell his last name).

By: tlianza

tlianza — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:52:05 +0000

NH was one of 2 states the Libertarians didn’t get on the ballot with this year (Oklahoma being the other). It was somewhat ironic because NH was supposed to be the new home of the Libertarian Party - Libertarians were planning on moving there (some already have) and influencing the vote. There was some sort of signature fiasco this year. During the last presidential campaign, Harry Browne from the LP was on the ballot in NH (and all 50 states).

By: fil

fil — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:09:28 +0000

I’m shocked NH doesn’t at least have the Libertarian candidate on the ballot (”Live Free or Die”); you could always write-in a vote.

By: schulte

schulte — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:06:34 +0000

I would vote for a third party if NH allowed one on the ballot…bastards.

By: fil

fil — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:34:08 +0000

I don’t quite agree with what your saying, but:

“Vote count matters in that it tells other elected officials interested in re-election that their positions need to reflect the mood of the voters.”

Is actually a reason to not vote for Kerry, as my vote for a third-party candidate better reflects my mood.

By: fortes

fortes — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:05:30 +0000

Vote count matters in that it tells other elected officials interested in re-election that their positions need to reflect the mood of the voters. If Bush does not get reelected it will in part be due to the fact that he did not govern as a president who did not have the majority. So vote count “influences” the agenda whereas the administration plus the influenced votes “determine” it.

By: fil

fil — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:56:45 +0000

I disagree that the vote count influences the direction of an administration’s agenda. Bush didn’t even have a plurality, and that didn’t seem to affect his administration’s agenda (he also ran as a moderate, but whatever).

The administration plus Senatorial votes will be what matters.

By: fortes

fortes — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 02:28:14 +0000

Fine. You’re not voting for Kerry, I am changing my will to have everything go to your sister… :)
Actually, if Kerry wins, vote count matters as a large Kerry advantage influences the whole country in the direction of a democrat(ic) agenda.

By: fil

fil — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:12:54 +0000

It would be great if more states followed Colorado’s lead. How did the movement start in Colorado? Was it the Democrats hoping to get some votes? Was it the third parties? Do you think it will pass?

By: matt

matt — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:50:41 +0000

You’ve just robbed the Constitution Party of the one vote they were going to get in King County. On the scary side, I bet that lunatic gets a bunch of votes on the Eastern side of your state.

By: peted

peted — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:32:34 +0000

While supporting third party candidates in hopes that they will get the coveted 5% and some federal funding, you should try to get your state to split the electoral vote with the popular vote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6106804/

Granted it will make you state less important in relation to other states who don’t split the vote, but it will open the door to third party candidates who may actually get a few electoral votes instead of a big fat zero. Plus the third party candidates will be campaigning in your state instead of the big propaganda machines of the major parties…

By: tlianza

tlianza — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:13:43 +0000

Hooray!