yeh,I to think this would solve a lot of what members are saying on here about the lesser of two evils,also it's very strange that the U.S doesn't have a Labour party as most of the rest of the western world.
Uhm..? Corporations have votes now?
I vote - usually to keep out the BNP - Neonazi party. I am a feminist so believe me, I vote! I would like to be able to vote for the person I want to win rather than to keep out the BNP.
Me too: I always vote and keeping the BNP down is a primary aim (together with UKIP who are the BNP in different clothes). I'm a feminist too by most definitions... but don't think it changes my voting habits!
I differ from many others here though: I have lots of time for plenty of politicians who I think are conscientious and do a pretty good job. Of course we have stacks of scum bags too (who were all there during the expenses scandal - with some really depressing surprises).
But I like the system (what else would work better?) and I like the fact that when we have a scandal with our politicians, they are pretty embarressed about it. That's exactly how it should be - and I will keep voting.
But for those who say that they are all corrupt: well - maybe where you are but definitely not in the UK: that would be an unjust slur. And ours are definitely not all the same either. I love the consipracy theories that pop out everytime this subject gets raised though...
It actually doesn't matter. I've refused to vote since i turned 18 because, well, they're all the same. They're all corrupt and none of them actually decide anything. Obama, Bush.. it's all the same. Why vote for people when they're all just going to get paid off to do what the people running the "Federal" Reserve want them to do anyway? Until Ron Paul came along, i had no reason to vote. If he wins the GOP nomination i'll vote. But if not.. not voting again. I don't agree with EVERYTHING Ron Paul says, but at least i know he won't be paid off to just do what "they" want him to do.
While I vote time to time this is something that rather bothers me a great deal and is simply astounding how nothing is being done about it:
It's obvious to me the only real candidate that the Republicans even have a chance of winning in 2012 is Ron Paul. But as we all know the media only likes "status quo" runners. Also, Ron Paul is not 100% sure about evolution either. Again, sad.
"It's obvious to me the only real candidate that the Republicans even have a chance of winning in 2012 is Ron Paul."
That's not at all obvious to me at all. He might have a small, loud and fanatic following, but outside of that he's got very little support. Even Christine O'Donnell has a better shot than Paul, and she's certifiably crazy, which is why she's got a better shot...
I agree. Ron Paul is less attractive to the public the more they hear his views. Also, he has that superior tone like he's come down from the sky to tell us why we're stupid not to think like him. At this moment, barring a dark horse (NJ gov. Chris Christie, for example), it's looking like either Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, or Sarah Palin. The others are just too obscure at this time (John Huntsman) or too obviously stupid/crazy (Michelle Bachmann) to get the nod. There's still time for things to change, but I think that's the lay of the GOP land as of today. The candidate who can win is the one who gets black and brown Americans and female voters largely aligned. White males, while more conservative than other segments of the population, do not constitute anything like a majority anymore. Obama, should he decide to run for a 2nd term, or else whoever the Dems put up will be the next President.
I really wish the Dems could run Hillary Clinton as POTUS with Obama as VP. In retrospect, that 3 am phone call ad might have been a nasty bit of reality...
So you haven't studied economics, much like Ron Paul hasn't..? And yes, we did have a financial/economical journalism specialization at my college, so I do know a few journalists. Socialists and Marxists are not exactly know for their liberalism, but if you mean liberal as left of center then many (though far from all) journalists might interpret the world that way. It doesn't immediately mean they cannot report unbiased news, there is actually something like professional standards even among journalists.
As for the 'liberal media bias', it's quite easy to avoid by - taking a crazy idea out of thin air - not following liberally biased media. And it's not just "liberals" which find Ron Paul looney, even The National Interest and The New Republic aren't exactly supportive, neither being known for their pronounced liberal bent. The latter article even being written by libertarian...
I vote. I have since I was 18. I vote at every election not just presidential... which is something most people don't do. I only know 6 atheists and they all vote. This means nothing, because I know sample size is everything. Do you have actual data or sources that confirm this idea? In my experience, the "it doesn't matter" answer is the main reason most state why they don’t vote… not just atheists.