Should politicians have to earn our vote?

[ZombieHorde]

Simple question about your opinion on elections in the US.

[liberal N proud]

1. Once upon a time, it worked that way!

[CakeGrrl]

2. Did someone forget why we have elections?

[ZombieHorde]

3. I have a feeling the "No" votes will happen in the form of unrecs. nt

[Union Scribe]

22. So it would seem

based on my uneventful +1.

[ChrisBorg]

4. Why would you vote for someone who didn't?

How would you decide between candidates. They earn your vote by agreeing with some of your positions.

[ZombieHorde]

5. Some people claim liberals should not have voted for Nader in 2000,

even though he earned those votes through his positions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. And if the Dems had taken those positions, Nader would not have

gotten those votes.

[ChrisBorg]

8. Some people think the OWN other people's votes. I own my vote.

[JoePhilly]

10. To earn my vote, Nader would need to come out of his hole

more often than once every Presidential election.

He should run for something else. Use his "powerful" influence to create candidates.

[ZombieHorde]

11. You don't vote for Nader because he has not earned your vote,

just like those who did not vote for Gore because he did not earn their votes.

[JoePhilly]

15. Yea, Al was terrrible.

His time in the Senate and as VP was a time during which Al did nothing to earn votes.

If Ralph wanted to earn votes, he would have needed to do more to become known to a wider range of Americans.

Ralph uses Presidential elections as a way to increase the volume of his own voice, for brief periods.

btw ... using your own definition, Al "earned" far more votes than Nader did.

[ZombieHorde]

16. "using your own definition, Al "earned" far more votes than Nader did."

I agree, many people liked Al Gore.

[JoePhilly]

17. No, based on his positions, millions more VOTED for Gore.

You claimed earlier that a politicians positions earn them votes.

Clearly, Ralph's positions did not earn him more votes than Gore.

[ZombieHorde]

18. Um, I agreed with your claim.

Though I do wonder how many people voted for Gore because they actually dislike the Republicans.

Often times, I vote for Dems because I dislike the Reps.

[UrbScotty]

14. And George W. Bush couldn't be happier!

[ZombieHorde]

27. Basing one's vote on Bush's happiness seems strange to me, but I won't tell you how to vote.

If it works for you, then go I say go for it.

[bvar22]

25. If not Nader, it would have been someone else.

The Centrist Anti-LABOR Clinton Administration created a BIG Vacuum on The left.
Vacuum are filled.
It is Physics.
Nader wasn't a SUPERMAN who knocked the wheels off the whole Democratic party all by himself.
Mader simply filled a vacuum.
If NOT Nader, it would have been someone else,
because the Democratic party did NOT earn those votes.

The really Bad News is
that the Obama Administration has created an even BIGGER vacuum on The Left,
much BIGGER than the one created by Bill Clinton and the DLC Dems.

Vacuums are filled,
and history repeats.

[ZombieHorde]

28. I agree. I vote straight Dem, and I hate to see Reps win, but Dems have to earn those votes.

Saying Reps suck is probably not a winning strategy.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Define "Earn"

[ZombieHorde]

9. The politician makes you want to vote for her or him. nt

[saras]

12. Yes, and we need to fix the spoiler effect so that this has some teeth

The spoiler effect is an entirely artificial creation of our election system. It is unnecessary and harmful to most of us, and only benefits corporatists who want to use both parties to play good cop/bad cop.

[great white snark]

13. Yes, of course.

:patriot:

[blkmusclmachine]

19. Yes. Otherwise, some Trojan Horse candidate could become Pres. & Torpedo the Party.

[treestar]

20. Just does not work that way

Some other politician can "earn" more of other people's votes. And that politician may be a Republican.

If you just don't vote, because no candidate was good enough to "earn" your vote, what have you gotten for yourself? What about the other people that did vote?

You just don't have that luxury. Not until your vote is the only one counted.

[Union Scribe]

21. Then they win, and our party needs to evaluate why

and do a better job next time. I don't see how such a basic tenet of democracy is befuddling you so.

[treestar]

23. A basic tenet of Democracy is that your vote counts once

And the other 52 million voters' votes count once.

If you wait around looking for some politician to "earn" your vote, whatever the hell that means, you let the other voters choose who wins.

I'm going to vote for the Democrat every time, to add to their total, whether the candidate "earned" that vote or not. Or maybe I can say the candidate earned it by being a Democrat.

[swilton]

24. More than half of them run for reasons having little to do with

their placement on issues: These non issues related reasons include

nepotism and financing/patronage....not necessarily characteristics that are mutually exclusive. Obama I have to admit does have charismatic characteristics that, along with his financing enabled his rise to the highest political levels of the land....

[bvar22]

26. Reced UP to 0.

I guess some here feel that politicians and Political Parties don't have to earn votes. :shrug:
Go figure.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[bigwillq]

29. Yes

DUH

[Telly Savalas]

30. The office will get filled even if none of the candidates "earn your vote"

So it's irrational not to vote for the best candidate available that has a reasonable chance of winning.

A candidate has to "earn" the vote of lots of people, many of whom don't believe in the same things I do. If I had to wait for a candidate to "earn" my vote, I'd never show up at the ballot box.