soepkip said:This is unbelievable. Americans are so fucking stupid.
correction:
This is unbelievable. Half of voting America is so fucking stupid.
soepkip said:This is unbelievable. Americans are so fucking stupid.
soepkip said:This is unbelievable. Americans are so fucking stupid.
51% to be precise.nathkenn said:correction:
This is unbelievable. Half of voting America is so fucking stupid.
MetatronM said:Yes, Ann Coulter does resonate with a smaller group of Democrats than Michael Moore does with Republicans. If for no other reason than the fact that Moore is more bombastic, in your face, and interjecting himself into pop culture. Coulter, on the other hand, is pretty much little more than a pundit. She has a loud mouth, but she's pretty much confined to political news shows, talk shows, and newspaper column, as opposed to Michael Moore, who runs commercials, makes nationally distributed movies, and appears at the Oscars.
So yes, I would say Ann Coulter does energize a significantly smaller group of Dams than Moore does with Republicans.
We do have mandatory participation in the electoral process; people are required to turn up or provide a good excuse. But your right to refuse to vote is just as present here as it is in america; you simply drop in a blank ballot in as your vote.
cybamerc said:It's pretty embarrasing that a great nation like the USA can't hold a proper election. OSCE inspectors were even denied access to certain places. So much for the "greatest democracy on earth."
First of all, that wouldn't happen. The money would just be wasted elsewhere. It's naive to think anything else.Do The Mario said:snapty00 Would you like the money saved on trying to entice people to vote spent on hospitals and schools in your area?
Zaptruder said:There's no forced voting system in australia.
We do have mandatory participation in the electoral process; people are required to turn up or provide a good excuse. But your right to refuse to vote is just as present here as it is in america; you simply drop in a blank ballot in as your vote.
Do The Mario said:Zap did you read what the I said, I posted several times if you don’t want to vote just get your name crossed off and refuse the slips they give you or drop in a blank ballot.
Kiriku said:Voting blank isn't the same thing as not voting at all though. I voted blank in the previous election here in Sweden. My vote basically said that I wanted to vote and make a difference, and that I didn't like any of the options made available for me. Had I not voted, my opinion would never have been registered.
However, I can see, with a mandatory participation system, that a blank vote could mean "no vote" if you have no choice.
Or, you might have a bunch of people just putting whatever candidate that can get to the fastest, just so they can put something down.Kiriku said:However, I can see, with a mandatory participation system, that a blank vote could mean "no vote" if you have no choice.
First of all, that wouldn't happen. The money would just be wasted elsewhere. It's naive to think anything else.
Yeah... I'm getting seriously pissed off about this. Don't just sit there at 269 for Bush because it's "good TV"... Nevada is obviously going for Bush. If you want to move Ohio back into the "too close to call" category, go ahead, but for crying out loud, don't fudge on calling states for the sake of drama.XMonkey said:I find it funny that Fox and NBC are in quite a pickle as far as reporting states. Nevada looks clearly Bush (going by Yahoo's numbers), but NBC and Fox refuse to call it because it would claim Bush the winner, can't have that yet. And of course, they can't take Ohio back because that's 2000 all over again.
Well, nobody is counting Iowa because they have shut down for the night in Iowa. They had problems with the counting machines, their staff was tired and it was too much for the system, so they quit for the night before they finished the count.Society said:If anyone still cares, Wisconsin is now Kerry. 254-252. Noone wants to claim Iowa or NM, for Bush, as that would put Bush over 270. So it looks like Iowa and NM will be at 99% till Ohio is final.
Zaptruder said:Hmmm. in terms of real effects the blank protest vote is just a gimmick for the person to feel better. You can pretend that they'll acknowledge that you didn't like the choices in a mandatory system if that makes you feel better.
Society said:If anyone still cares, Wisconsin is now Kerry. 254-252. Noone wants to claim Iowa or NM, for Bush, as that would put Bush over 270. So it looks like Iowa and NM will be at 99% till Ohio is final.
When I say 'noone' I mean FoxNews and NBC, since they already gave Ohio to Bush.Tenguman said:Even if Bush got Iowa and NM, he still wouldn't have 270
It comes down to Ohio
IAWTPPug said:My view is not worth much...
I know what you mean. When I was going to bed all was looking good. Not so when I woke up.Koshiro said:Oh now WTF. I just woke up. WTF is America thinking?!
Fresh Prince said:It's funny seeing Aussie's taking the high ground.
We may not have the 'problem' of the 'redneck religious right' vote but what we did have was a bunch of selfish assholes who put the shape our econmony above the needs of the environment, education, the 'war on terror' (none of our soldiers got killed so it's alright) and true class progress(welfare, saying sorry etc).
The sad fact is that they think that sole factor of our economy is government policy.
cybamerc said:I know what you mean. When I was going to bed all was looking good. Not so when I woke up.
Haven't you learned that from Y2K?Kabuki Waq said:yea i guess fear mongering really works.
Democrats will be accused of massive hypocrisy, thats for sure....iapetus said:On a mildly serious note, let's assume that Kerry wins Ohio, and scrapes a victory, but loses the popular vote. What does this mean for his legitimacy as president?
Dispite being in a similar situation in 2000, Bush's approval rating were close to 88% in his first month, 77% approval among dems.iapetus said:On a mildly serious note, let's assume that Kerry wins Ohio, and scrapes a victory, but loses the popular vote. What does this mean for his legitimacy as president?
DeadStar said:Democrats will be accused of massive hypocrisy, thats for sure....
Pug said:Politicians don't make a country the people do.
Or fighting fire with fire.DeadStar said:Democrats will be accused of massive hypocrisy, thats for sure....
All very well and good however:Do The Mario said:Im not saying our government is perfect, it would be virtually impossible for me to agree with every decision our government made.
However some issues from the last election
- The government Introduced Medicare plus a 80% rebate for out of hand medical expenses
- The government has an outstanding economic record, with strong fiscal policies.
- Employment has increased by over 1 million
Hecs as been increased but is now more finically viable.
I dont agree with the Australian Governments support of the war on terror however unlike the US government our government has performed well on domestic issues.
iapetus said:On a mildly serious note, let's assume that Kerry wins Ohio, and scrapes a victory, but loses the popular vote. What does this mean for his legitimacy as president?
nathkenn said:hypocrticial, but if bush's was legit then kerry would be legit