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.

 

get out and vote

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
this is appeal to the american public: Get out and vote! I dont care who you vote for, even if you vote for Nader I dont care. They say about what half the Americans vote? Only half??? If that! People complain about how there are so many problems in this country where half don't even vote. If we want change, than vote! Its too late to register to vote at this point, but Im appealing to everyone who is registered vote! Its mind boggling to me, other countries can't vote, we can, and its one day out of so many years where we can declare our voices especially to the presidential election. You dont like the system, change it because we all hold the power to do so, its sad that some of us dont vote even thought generations have sacrficied for us to have the right to vote. I wonder how many soliders gave up theirs lives, their dreams, just to give us rights, especially the right to vote. I would hate to see what the foundering fathers would think of us now if we didn't vote. So tomorrow when your driving to vote and you see this huge line dont turn away. Vote, you have power.




posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Ya know...I wasn't gonna vote tomorrow, but this post has really convicted me to get out there and make my voice heard. Good job thread starter!


(turns sarcasim button off)

Ok...now, is thread really necessary? Who here isn't going to vote tomorrow. This is one group of people who don't need encouragement in this area.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CMCLA2003

Get out and vote!

I dont care who you vote for, even if you vote for Nader I dont care.

They say about what half the Americans vote? Only half??? If that!


Look at it this way 98.3% of people could vote Libertarian because he's on 49 ballots.

150 million people don't vote, and Nader is just as much as a quack as Kerry is.

If you want to restore the American republic vote libertarian or constitution party.

Get out of this monopolous two party system... The only reason why they get to your heads is because they shovel millions of dollars into the media so they give them a fair and balanced time frame to work with.

The more you give, the more you get, and more people you reach the more you can infiltrate their minds.

If you want change vote third party... Their is no harm, 4+ million people will be voting third party, it's expected to grow this year.

I'd be gettin' on the ship that's more likely headed to a brighter future, then hopping on the one that will be bringing this country and our freedoms down, whether you vote d or r, your still on a sinking ship.



[edit on 1-11-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I picked this thread because its the only one I could see right off that wasnt hammering away for one candidate or the other...that and the mods might shoot me if I start another one!


The media feeds from the US (when they can get past the Annual Melbourne Cup Horse Race today.....God we are a sports nuts nation- we'd bet on a cockroach race seriously. It stops the nation - Literally) are indicating already Nader will be blamed if Bush wins...for splitting the vote.

I can see why some might be discouraged. It is ashame you dont seem to have preferential voting in the USA. Its where you rate candidates (say there are 4) 1...2...3...4 in order of preference your first pick to bottom of the ladder scumbags.

That way Americans who feel disenfranchised and like the idea of a protest vote could vote Nader or whoever is a Presidential Candidate.

When voting for MPs in our Federal elections minority party and candidates can do deals to leverage thier supporters issues in policy making.

Use Nader as an example. As the election comes up he could do a deal with Kerry to recommend to his (Nader) supporters to put Kerry no.2 on the ballot, so that when Nader loses the preferences are re-distributed to the Kerry camp to bolster thier numbers against Bush. Or do a deal with the Bush camp (aka selling your soul) to nail Kerry's coffin shut.

Its not to say the voters have to follow the recommendation, you could vote "1" for Fred Fitzbing if he was on the ballot and arrange to put Nader, Kerry, Bush in the last three spots.

Preferential votes in seats decided by a couple of hundred have been known to turn around on the basis of preferences in Australia.

Whats the point of this? Naderites or Libertarian voter blocks could sway the election, and the winner, if he got them would politically owe them, with favours on policy....For a socially concious block that can be a powerful and beneficial thing.....failure to deliver can mean a mass defection at the next election if at least significant parts of the promises are not delivered.

For instance, you might not get the military out of Iraq but you might save whats left of your healthcare and improve it.

Sorry to rant. The sad thing is, I dont think your system is set up for it.

Best of luck anyway USA.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by craigandrew


Sorry to rant. The sad thing is, I dont think your system is set up for it.

Best of luck anyway USA.


I agree with you, are system isnt set up well. The media is biased, and the two-party system sucks. We should adopt a proptional system or work on something else.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I'm not surprised ( sad, but I think it would be the LAST thing the Republican OR Democrat Parties would want) that a case for a Preferential System is not a political issue in the States. Mainstream Media WOULD bury it.

For all I know Nader or the Libertarians may even have raised the issue (someone in the USA please inform me) and just not have gotten air and print with it.

We have three year terms of office in Federal Politics here. Senators are elected for six, not three years. I hadnt noticed it before last months elections, but it appears only half the Senators stand for re-election every three years, the groups alternating between elections.

Someone once said to me " I dont care who they are, I would vote tomorrow for the Party that campaigned on giving Government a five year terms instead of three or six, and having all the politicians -MPs and Senators taking to the polls at once."

I've got to admit I agree, for better or worse, nowdays I think you have to have at least five years to see the benefits or otherwise of a Party's programs, lest an incoming party scrap them for thier own. Its happened in Australia before in 1983 and 1996 when Parties in power changed.

Some of those policies that began at the start were good and some were disasters. But examples of new policies or procurement that were due just prior to the changes of Government being scrapped are well remembered.

I think our politicians unwillingness to embrace that change is just conservatism on both sides.

In the case of suggesting the US going preferential I think its more a case of the Major Parties own ruthless self interest in control that prevents it being mentioned.

BTW Most Aussies thank god (or Budha or Bill Gates) we do not have the circus that is the US Presidential Election in Australia. We would shoot our politicians if they wasted that much money. I think its one of the reasons why most of us are happy with our current system.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by craigandrew
Someone once said to me " I dont care who they are, I would vote tomorrow for the Party that campaigned on giving Government a five year terms instead of three or six, and having all the politicians -MPs and Senators taking to the polls at once."


- Hmm interesting. Mind you I can't understand why in the USA the Pres. has to waste effectively 1 - 2yrs our of every 4yr term by concentrating on reelection. What a waste of time.

How come their tangible results don't (effectively) do much of the campaigning for them?


I've got to admit I agree, for better or worse, nowdays I think you have to have at least five years to see the benefits or otherwise of a Party's programs, lest an incoming party scrap them for thier own. Its happened in Australia before in 1983 and 1996 when Parties in power changed.


- This used to be the case in the UK.

Nowadays it seems we go in for much longer spells with the political parties in charge.

The British Conservative party held power for 18yrs (may 1979 - may 1997).

The current Labour (Social Democrat/Socialist) party has held power for 7yrs+ and is expected by just about every (sane) commentator to win handsomely at the next general election in spring/summer 2005, this will keep them in power (all things being equal) for at least a further 4 or 5 yrs (and even then few serious commentators see much sign of change full stop, never mind much of a change in 2009/10. I suppose events may intrude but it doesn't look at all likely at the moment).

Whether people articulate a preference for this continuety there seems little doubt it is what is happening.


BTW Most Aussies thank god (or Budha or Bill Gates) we do not have the circus that is the US Presidential Election in Australia. We would shoot our politicians if they wasted that much money. I think its one of the reasons why most of us are happy with our current system.


- I'd say similar for the UK.....but year by year elements of it keep being imported and the similarites grow.

Thatcher started it here (in the modern period) by aping Reagans televisual showmanship and 'professionalised' political presentation.

Till we regain control over the (our) media properly I suppose such fake and utterly detached 'politicing' is here to stay.



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Yeah its happening here too. Whitlam introduced it in the ALPs "Its Time" campaign of the early 1970s......His Campaign People had a rocking theme song called "Its Time" (it was almost Gospel stuff) sung by noted Australian actors, musicians, sportsmen and political figures. Against the staid old "my fellow australian" speaches of the LIberal Government (which had sat some 25 years) it did the trick. And it was playing all the time.

The razzle dazzle has continued to creep in, mixed with the old town and church hall meetings of the old days, and gatherings of Party "True Believers" but I hope Aussies take cyanide before going "US Convention Style".


I just had the simplest explaination of the US election system given to me. It sucks!

Can you beleive one of our commercial networks has been screening US election coverage from the CBS since 3am Aust EST? Its 10.30am now.

The explaination came from a Aussie Journalist who covered the US desk for eight years.

The Electoral College has 568(?) seats. The man who gets 270 of them is President. States like California get 15 (?), States like Alaska get 3. I understand that, more people more seats.

This is the part that sucks. If you get the majority of EC seats in a given state, you get ALL of them, regardless whether the rest wanted the opponent. Thats nuts! So that means Bush could get 8 seats in California, and Kerry 7 seats but by the rules Bush goes down as getting all 15 seats in California! Thats crazy. The journalist said thats what happened in Florida in 2000. A few hundred or thousand votes in one EC seat gave Bush all of Florida and the Presidency? Sorry....I know a lot of people in the US are probably going "well derrrr Craig" but can you explain it to me and confirm if this is right or not?

I also understand that all your Congressmen and half your Senators are standing...That I understand, its like our Upper and lower houses here to a certain extent.

In our system at the federal election I think we have something like a 160 odd seats in the lower house (MPs) and significantly fewer Senators in the Upper House, where half the Senators stand alternately every three years (they have six year terms).

The party with the majority in the lower house form government with the Prime Minister elected by the Party (usually the Standing leader) from amongst the standing MPs. Cabinet is formed from standing MPs and Senators of the governing party, with senior civil service secretaries/managers running the day to day affairs of the departments.

I assume the UK runs in a similar fashion, with the exception being your upper house is the House of Lords....thats almost a ceremonial toothless tiger of inherited and created peerages for the dull and stupid isn't it?

Anyways. Good Luck America. Thank god we don't have the US system. It sounds odd.


[edit on 2-11-2004 by craigandrew]

[edit on 2-11-2004 by craigandrew]



posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
150 million people don't vote, and Nader is just as much as a quack as Kerry is.

If you want to restore the American republic vote libertarian or constitution party.


You must be kidding...right? The Constitution Party? The "Constitution" Party does not stand for anything the Constitution was founded on.

PS- Exactly how is Nader a quack? I guess if you don't like a candidate that stands up for consumer rights and defend the Constitution then you wouldn't like Nader.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join