Voting

Amy · Post by **Amy** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:06 am

I have a really stupid question. Why aren't the same presidential candidates on the ballots in every state? For instance, Nader was not on my ballot. Obviously, Bush and Kerry were, but I noticed that instead of Nader the options were 2 people I've never heard of. Why wasn't Nader an option? Also, on CNN, if you click on each state they show the candidates in that state. The candidates varied by state...why? This doesn't make sense to me.

NAiLs · Post by **NAiLs** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:14 pm

I am confused by this myself. I was looking at the names throughout the states and saw the same garbage. You got me though.

I honestly didn't vote. I was going to, but I accidentally slept in 'til 1-1:30 PM!

I had to work shortly there after, so that didn't work. Ah well... next time.

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:31 pm

Durring presidental Primarys each canidate has to win a certin number of votes to be included on the ballot for the next election. in the states where Nader did poorly he was not included on the ballot. You also need to factor in write in canadates, the results on CNN just show how many people voted for a particular person it does not say if they were a write in or if they were on the offical ballot.

T-Shirt · Post by **T-Shirt** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:08 pm

Amy's got a point, even though the states administer it Presidental elections are FEDERAL elections, It shouldn't be up to the state to determine who is on the ballot.
and looking at all the loophole and problems last night and the few weeks before, it's becoming obvious that we need a federal ID/election system to prevent voting in multiple states, after death, and with disqualifications due to mental health problems or criminal convictions.
Over 1100 problems (in some cases, effecting many voters) with electronic voting have been reported, thats just the people who noticed and complained.
It's strange, that as the biggest promoter of democracy in the world, (we kill people to make them be democratic (the system not the party) yet fail to meet even the most lax of the internatonal fair election standards.

Amy · Post by **Amy** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:34 pm

My question was answered, thank you. Please don't reply to this topic unless it is an UNBIASED fact like Infinite asked for. Please do cast your vote here, though! It'll be interesting to see who would have won if this forum had it their way.....

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:45 am

Infinite, your reason about Nader simply isn't true at all. It comes down to petitions, Nader needed to petition to be included on the ballot, and he was left off the ballot because the Democrats feeling was that people voting for him were taking away votes from Kerry.... I agree that Nader didn't have a chance, but i don't agree with anyone telling me who I can and can't vote for............Anyway, they challenged every signature on every petition he submitted, in every state. That is a fact.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 01923.shtm
http://votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=166
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1246482/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1203546/posts
These are just a few of several articles regarding Ralph Nader, and his 2004 Presidential election bid

I personally think the forum should not be a place for politics or religion, we've been down this road far too many times. People, if you need to talk politics or religion, there are other boards dedicated to that, if you want to talk about technology or something funny or interesting, this is the place.

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:11 am

capper5016 wrote:Infinite, your reason about Nader simply isn't true at all. It comes down to petitions, Nader needed to petition to be included on the ballot, and he was left off the ballot because the Democrats feeling was that people voting for him were taking away votes from Kerry.... I agree that Nader didn't have a chance, but i don't agree with anyone telling me who I can and can't vote for............Anyway, they challenged every signature on every petition he submitted, in every state. That is a fact.

I personally think the forum should not be a place for politics or religion, we've been down this road far too many times. People, if you need to talk politics or religion, there are other boards dedicated to that, if you want to talk about technology or something funny or interesting, this is the place.

All i can say is I agree, I agree, I agree, I agree. I am really sorry if anyone missunderstood that i was trying to keep the disscussion on topic and not trying to be a dictator about politics. Capper you are right about everything there, i had forgotten about the petitions, the Dems had no biz trying to get nader off the ballots, nader never had a chance, and the forums are not the place for political disscussions.

I will try to be more clear the next time i moderate in this fasion as its seems i have inadvertently upset a few people.

T-Shirt · Post by **T-Shirt** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:26 pm

Nader KNEW he couldn't win (that was part of his stump speech) His point in running was to show how close together the to main parties actually are , and that they control the process so completely, that truely free and open elections are not possible.

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:03 pm

carefull what you say, the idea is no political discussions.

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:02 pm

I agree that we needs to focus more on the true meaning of this site... there are plenty of boards and forums out there for political/religious arguements, like the Yahoo boards. From here on out any and ALL political topics will be locked, and in the end, deleted.
As a last word, maybe we can all get together and start our own political party....the "conservative liberal computer geek independent party", our moto could be "free computers for everyone, but the best free ones for us"

Immortal · Post by **Immortal** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:37 pm

first ammendement: all computrs are created equal.... some are more equal....those that are more powerfull......

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:01 pm

Im currently regestered as a third party but i think i would be willing to change to a conservitive/liberal geek party.

LVCapo · Post by **LVCapo** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:06 pm

I think we have something here! The second amendment could be "the right to bear processors" as part of an organized Lan Party.
Immortal, yes, not all computers are created equal, but we can have some kind of government assistance for those who can't build their own, those poor people who have no choice except Dell, Gateway, or HP, they aren't lesser people because they have lesser equipment.
Infinite, you forgot the "Independent" part. Remember, we are the "conservative liberal computer geek independent party"

infinitevalence · Post by **infinitevalence** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:23 pm

independent implys that we dont take freebies from corperations and i dont know if we can make it with out freebies

Amy · Post by **Amy** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:17 pm

Well, I think I'll take my computer in right away to stand in the welfare lines. . .

Legit Reviews

Voting

Who did you vote for?

Voting