PDA

View Full Version : VOTING - American Idol vs Presidential Election



Troy
05-27-2004, 10:06 AM
Not to take away from any of the contestants in American Idol, but I think it's relatively disgusting that there were some 65 million, that's 65,000,000, votes cast Tuesday night. That's nearly the number of votes cast for a Presential Election !!!
Yes, I realize there were numerous multiple voters in the American Idol total, but it's still think it's disgusting that Americans don't bother to vote in local, state and/or national elections.
Earn your right to complain --- VOTE !!!

Troy...~~~ Off my soapbox now

PQQLK9
05-27-2004, 10:20 AM
Tap...Tap...Tap

9 Ball Girl
05-27-2004, 11:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> Yes, I realize there were numerous multiple voters in the American Idol total, [/b]

Troy...~~~ Off my soapbox now <hr /></blockquote>You also don't have to be registered to call in. Oh, and you can vote even if you're underage.

pooltchr
05-27-2004, 02:09 PM
And you can vote whether or not you have any knowledge about that for which you are voting......oh.......I guess that wouldn't be any different, would it? /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Mr Ingrate
05-27-2004, 04:27 PM
Troy,

I've often thought that one should be allowed to cast a vote AGAINST a polititian rather than for. It enables one to send a message to an individual or a party to get them to smarten up. A vote for the other party makes them think they have support, so a negative vote is a superior option.

In a two party system a positive vote for the opposition has essentially the same result as a negative vote for the party with whom you wish to voice your displeasure; however, if there are more than two parties (Canada for instance), a negative vote allows one to voice their displeasure without having it diluted. For example, 3 people are fed up with the liberals even though they are usually liberal supporters. If one votes PC, another votes NDP, and a third votes Green it is only a one vote deficit to the liberal candidate. If all 3 voted AGAINST the liberal, it would be a 3 vote deficit and would also let him know he had better pick up his jock strap.

I also believe you would get more people out to vote and the results would give a better indication of the voter's mood.

Troy
05-27-2004, 06:30 PM
To further your thought Dave, in our two-party system offering a "NO" option woud definitively satisfy your suggestion. I have often not voted for a specific office thinking that just possibly someone, somewhere counts those "missing" votes. Obviously I don't have much hope of it doing any good, but I try.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mr Ingrate:</font><hr> Troy,

I've often thought that one should be allowed to cast a vote AGAINST a polititian rather than for. It enables one to send a message to an individual or a party to get them to smarten up. A vote for the other party makes them think they have support, so a negative vote is a superior option.

In a two party system a positive vote for the opposition has essentially the same result as a negative vote for the party with whom you wish to voice your displeasure; however, if there are more than two parties (Canada for instance), a negative vote allows one to voice their displeasure without having it diluted. For example, 3 people are fed up with the liberals even though they are usually liberal supporters. If one votes PC, another votes NDP, and a third votes Green it is only a one vote deficit to the liberal candidate. If all 3 voted AGAINST the liberal, it would be a 3 vote deficit and would also let him know he had better pick up his jock strap.

I also believe you would get more people out to vote and the results would give a better indication of the voter's mood. <hr /></blockquote>

moblsv
05-27-2004, 09:34 PM
"An election!? That's one of those deals where they close the bars isn't it?" -- Barney Gumbel

Ching_Ah_Chung
05-28-2004, 09:10 AM
SHE BANGS!!!~~ SHE BANGS!!!!!~~~ SHE MOVES!!!`~` SHE MOVES!!!!~~~~

Signature

hope i got the lyrics right since i dont listen to ricky martin, he sucks. i prefer "william hung"..hahahahaha...^__^

9 Ball Girl
05-28-2004, 09:27 AM
And to think--if he did a pron flick, he wouldn't need to change his name! /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Ching_Ah_Chung
05-28-2004, 09:37 AM
BANGS!!!!~~ BANGS!!!!!!~~

and you'll be the leading actress.

Signature

seriously speaking, i honestly, sincerely dont think you'll need to change your name either...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

9 Ball Girl
05-28-2004, 10:18 AM
I don't think so.

bluewolf
05-28-2004, 10:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mr Ingrate:</font><hr> Troy,

I've often thought that one should be allowed to cast a vote AGAINST a polititian rather than for. It enables one to send a message to an individual or a party to get them to smarten up. A vote for the other party makes them think they have support, so a negative vote is a superior option.
<hr /></blockquote>

Interesting idea.I guess in America, some are voting for an independent when they do not like the candidates, but then it is not quite the same thing. In the upcoming election, for instance, how many votes for kerry are really votes against Bush and how many are really for Kerry?

Laura

Troy
05-28-2004, 11:03 AM
Who would ever be able to know the difference ???
However, a vote for a third candidate (ie, Nader) is just as bad since the result is a minority "winner" like the last election and others.
Personally, I like a "No on all the Bastards" choice !!!

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr>.....In the upcoming election, for instance, how many votes for kerry are really votes against Bush and how many are really for Kerry?

Laura <hr /></blockquote>

Troy
05-28-2004, 11:05 AM
You walkin' on thin ice boy !!!

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ching_Ah_Chung:</font><hr> BANGS!!!!~~ BANGS!!!!!!~~

and you'll be the leading actress.

Signature

seriously speaking, i honestly, sincerely dont think you'll need to change your name either...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA <hr /></blockquote>

Ching_Ah_Chung
05-28-2004, 04:30 PM
BANGS!!!!!!!!~~~~~~

ah come on troy,

sharks fan i guess thats why you use ice as an analogy eh?

Signature

ya ain't even got no balls to tear up a real mail.. and this guy is threatening... oh [censored]! powder i'm afraid! ^__^

Ching_Ah_Chung
05-28-2004, 04:33 PM
[censored]! ....hahahahahahaha....

Signature

bangs bangs for william~

Ross
05-28-2004, 04:41 PM
The US should use a "single-tranferable vote" system for any election with more than two candidates. In this voting system you rank your choices for office in order of preference. Then all first place votes are counted and whoever comes in third or lower is eliminated from the race. Then the ballots are recounted. Those that list one of the eliminated candidates as their first place vote are then re-allocated to whichever remaining candidate was ranked higher on the ballot.

We used this to elect student government officers when I was an undergraduate. It allows voters to vote for a third party candidate without risking "throwing away their vote." Or put another way, it eliminates the problem that happens when two or more similar candidates "split the vote." A vote for Nader would be a vote for Nader, not a vote for Bush. And on American Idol, a lot of viewers think that LaToya London and Jennifer Hudson were eliminated earlier than they deserved because of the splitting-the-vote issue. Wouldn't have happened under a single-transferable vote system...

Troy
05-28-2004, 05:37 PM
Florida 2000 proved there are already enough problems with counting votes once, much less counting votes multiple times.

And I don't think for a minute that "voting" on American Idol was legitimate or even resembled legitimacy. It may have even been "fixed" for all I know.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> The US should use a "single-tranferable vote" system for any election with more than two candidates. In this voting system you rank your choices for office in order of preference. Then all first place votes are counted and whoever comes in third or lower is eliminated from the race. Then the ballots are recounted. Those that list one of the eliminated candidates as their first place vote are then re-allocated to whichever remaining candidate was ranked higher on the ballot.

We used this to elect student government officers when I was an undergraduate. It allows voters to vote for a third party candidate without risking "throwing away their vote." Or put another way, it eliminates the problem that happens when two or more similar candidates "split the vote." A vote for Nader would be a vote for Nader, not a vote for Bush. And on American Idol, a lot of viewers think that LaToya London and Jennifer Hudson were eliminated earlier than they deserved because of the splitting-the-vote issue. Wouldn't have happened under a single-transferable vote system... <hr /></blockquote>

Troy
05-28-2004, 05:43 PM
Can't stand pro hockey. Can't stand the sharks. Could not care less !!!

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ching_Ah_Chung:</font><hr>sharks fan i guess thats why you use ice as an analogy eh?

Signature

ya ain't even got no balls to tear up a real mail.. and this guy is threatening... oh [censored]! powder i'm afraid! ^__^ <hr /></blockquote>

Mr Ingrate
05-29-2004, 10:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> Can't stand pro hockey. Can't stand the sharks. Could not care less !!!
<hr /></blockquote>

Troy,

You need to be in a Stanley Cup hockey draft. Next year may be in doubt, but this year is going fine.

Modesty forbids me from saying who is leading our draft, The Annual Puckoff, but you can check it out at:

http://members.shaw.ca/hockeytools/puckoff

The software and stats are available at:

http://members.shaw.ca/hockeytools/