Who are you voting for?

Deez nuts!

jk, I am not an american. Good luck to you guys over there.

 

Well, I'm too young to vote...but.
Probably Joe Biden if he would make it in the election. The one I'm most likely to vote? Probably Hillary Clinton, though I don't prefer her because of her stance on genetically modified foods.

 

I'll do the same thing I've done since I turned 18 in 2004, write in.

Spoiler

It pisses people off when I say that, but I highly doubt any of the candidates are going to do much. Obama's presidency has brought some positives, and it has also divided this country. Nobody is really winning, except those near or at the top. I would rather actually vote than compromise my vote, assuming it does count...

Besides, I love to be able to shut people down. When people complain they always ask, did you vote? For who? And I gladly tell them:

"Yes. Write-in. I didn't compromise."

This is usually followed up with, the lesser of two evils needs more votes to win. My response?

"Quit doing that; it hasn't worked out too well, has it?"

I voted, and it wasn't for either of the two major parties. No shame on my shoulder to dust off...

End of the day, I go in, doodle on the paper, check and fill in my boxes, and get my 'I Voted' sticker. I'm probably the only person in Kentucky who voted in the 2014 Kentucky Senate race, by writing down "Fuck Mitch McConnell". I will probably also be the only person in Kentucky, in 2016, to vote "Give Me A Real Choice" for the national candidate.

 

Well I can't vote, but if I were to, I would either vote NDP or liberal, depending on which is higher in the polls before voting opens. I'm on the "anything but Harper" party.

 

Kanye.




:laugh:

 

Presuming an early election isn't called before I turn 18 early next year, I'll vote for the Green candidate in the House of Representatives and put Labor as my second preference (thank God for preferential voting). For the Senate, I'll vote for my incumbent Labor senator and for the other ACT senate seat a Green. While I'm really annoyed with a lot of Labor's policies, my members are quite moderate compared to the right faction that's leading the federal party, so I can stomach them more. At least I can vote for the Greens and my vote will fall back to Labor if they're not popular enough.

The next Finnish and European parliamentary elections are both only in 2019, so I'm not even going to bother thinking about them yet, or if I'm even going to vote. And there's no way I'm wasting time on the Finnish presidential election, whenever that may be.

 

We have an election here in Canada in October, it's a three-way race with the conservatives, liberals and New Democrats, going from right wing to left wing, respectively.

To be honest, I don't like any of them...

 

It still shocks me that there is still no reform in the world's second largest democracy, so that votes can still be wasted.

 

What do you propose?

 

Preferential voting (which is called transferable, alternate or instant-runoff voting elsewhere, I think) or the D'Hondt method or really anything other than first-past-the-post.

Unless you mean how does one actually enact congressional reform. If that's the question you're asking then I'm obviously as hopelessly inept as the congresspeople themselves.

 

Nobody, as far as I can see. I wish that there was a none of the above vote. Luckily, I'm an independent so that I can choose which candidates should appear on the ballot during primaries.

---------- Post added 8th Sep 2015 at 06:11 AM ----------

A ton of people are starting to prefer that system since they now notice how botched our system is, especially the electoral college. Keep in mind that the founding fathers were actually distrustful of democracy, partly due to the uneducated population at the time. Also, our Constitution was favored by the rich elite and opposed by the common people.

If we were to make changes to our electoral system, we need to pass several new constitutional amendments. Obviously, it would be complicated and tedious, but we hope for it soon!

 

It isn't like that in every state, unfortunately. Kentucky is a closed primary state, which means you can only vote in the primary of the Party you're registered under. Independents, while able to vote in the general election, cannot vote in the Democrat or Republican primaries. In fact, they don't even get a primary, because an Independent has not had a strong running since, well, Ross Perot. Even worse, you have to change your Party affiliation, roughly, 6 months before the primary or else, tough luck.

I'm registered as a Democrat, simply so I can vote in primaries, and because of the two major Parties, they often times lean more in the direction I prefer. That said, I do wish Kentucky was an open primary state.

 

I'll wait and see whichever canidate annoys me least. It's bernie sanders right now, but we'll see how he does.

 

Long time until the next election here (3 years ish). If I were to vote, I guess I would vote:
Out of the the 8 parties only: The Left Party, because they wish to maintain some welfare, as opposed to the neo-liberal reckless idiocy of the others. Although, the Left Party are pretty useless. In a municipal thing near me they'd said they wanted to make riding the bus free because it's good for the environment and stuff. Then they voted to make it more expensive. >.>
Including extra-parliamentary parties: Then I would vote for the Communist Party of Sweden, mostly just for the lols, or for Satanic Initiative (definitely just for the lols, haha).

If I lived in the US, I would probably vote for Bernie Sanders. His class treason, repugnant though it is, is at least less than that of the rest.

That's what's really wrong about our "democracies" these days. We don't get a chance to put forward what we believe in. We just get a chance to vote for the least of X number of evils.

 

I can't vote and I don't like any of them that much, but I dislike Bernie Sanders and don't want to vote republican, so probably Clinton.

 

[My bold] - Because it specifically says that it will protect the interests of the rich minority, i.e. capitalists and heirs of capital, against the working majority.

 

Hillary Clinton

 

I'm going to be voting for the NDP, mostly cause they're the lesser of two evils, but also to try to get Harper out.

 

Well, basically landowners, merchants, bankers, and the well-educated supported it. Small farmers, small shopkeepers, and debtors opposed it. Before the Constitution was ratified, debtors could run away to a different state to escape their debts. Banning that practice in the Constitution was considered to be favoring the rich. Some of the most common sense things that were allowed by the Constitution were hated by the poor, like a national currency and ability to tax goods.

However, it's not like all of the people who opposed the Constitution (Anti-Federalists) were poor laborers. Famous (and wealthy) speakers like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were notable Anti-Federalists.