It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I need help clarifying this thing about voting?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
So I stated that after looking at both Ron Paul and some guy named Gary Johnson that I found a few weeks ago, I realized I side more with Johnson so he's getting my vote.

A pal let me know this: "Congrats on helping ensure 4 more years of Obama, not trying to be offensive but a 3rd party vote may as well be a vote in favor of the incumbent."

What in the world does that mean? If I do NOT vote for one of the 2 that the MSN deems me imperative to vote for, HOW would voting for Tom, Dick or Harry put a vote in for Obama? I am NOT voting Obama. I am voting Gary. Gary does not equal Obama. Names are totally different, etc etc. If I wanted to vote Obama, I'd VOTE Obama. I'm voting Gary.

Gary gets the vote, not Obama. If you pick the red cookie vs the green cookie or white cookie, you dont get the white cookie. You get the red cookie. :/

Can SOMEONE help clear this up for me please?




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sarra1833
 


Since your guy has no chance of winning what they are saying is that you are wasting your vote.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Ah... thanks.

I'd rather 'waste my vote' and have my voice be true, than vote for one of the two that I do not agree with nor like.


I love this power.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
its actually simple:

If you vote for a 3rd party, that vote, although still viable, takes a vote away from a possible victor.

It is best described by the Ross Perot scenario from the 90's. Enough people from the republican party decided Perot had a better chance to win. They cast votes for Perot which took votes away from Bush and allowed Clinton to Win.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sarra1833
Ah... thanks.

I'd rather 'waste my vote' and have my voice be true, than vote for one of the two that I do not agree with nor like.


I love this power.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sarra1833
 


Regarding this... Recently an online quiz I took suggested that I had the most in common with Gary Johnson politically speaking. So I got excited for a minute. Then I did some research and that research gave me pause. There have been some significant ethics issues in the past that made me lose that excited feeling.

Google him and read a bit. My best advice.

As of this point, I'm still looking for someone I can vote for in good conscience. I've yet to find anyone. And I'm not buying into the very common "lesser of two evils" ( or eight evils even ) type of thinking.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by redbarron626
its actually simple:

If you vote for a 3rd party, that vote, although still viable, takes a vote away from a possible victor.

It is best described by the Ross Perot scenario from the 90's. Enough people from the republican party decided Perot had a better chance to win. They cast votes for Perot which took votes away from Bush and allowed Clinton to Win.



But..... that's agreeing that there are only two people allowed to win. And if people wanted Perot, they obviously voted for who they wanted to. I love that choice. THEY may say and push the two THEY (tptb) want, but we ultimately have our voices in the vote.

I'm using mine.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Oh I completely agree with using your choice. I voted for Perot that year even though i knew he would lose.

I may well vote for Johnson as well. It seems he has a lot of good ideas that match my own views.

Two thumbs up for the Power of the Vote!




posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Assuming the whole election process is not rigged and complete B.S.

People who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 elections are guilty of this same attitude.

This attitude helped George W. Bush get elected and it completely ruined this country IMO.

I think the people in power who backed Bush are responsible for 9/11 and the past 10 years of wars.

I liked Nader and what he stood for. I liked most of the Green Party's political platform.

But I wasn't stupid enough to vote for him. Because I knew that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

Unfortunately, my vote didn't matter anyway.

Even with Gore winning the popular vote. Bush still won because of the electoral college system.

When a viable third party candidate, who I agree with and actually has a possibility of winning, comes forth.

Then I will consider voting for them. But until then I will never vote for the Republican party or waste my vote on a third party candidate.

They're the ones who allowed 9/11 to happen. They're ones who bankrupted this nation with wars based on fraud.

They are the ones who are behind the current financial crisis and property loans scandals.


edit on 1-9-2012 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Yes but it's like 'if a third party candidate has a chance to win', they become the next 'two the msn/tptb wants us to vote for'. In a way, right? That's what I would think. They push the thirders down because they are totally against what the MSN's/TPTB ideal candidates ARE; which are who are NOT for OUR best interest.

I've learned the best are crushed down as they'd do more good than what the ptb want.

I think that makes full sense.




top topics



 
3

log in

join