Totally off-topic poll
 

I hope the Powers Above (Moderators) will be kind and will tolerate this small poll, despite it having nothing to do with Dominions2. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I would be really interested to check a theory of mine that I've developed recently, after reading several political polls and forums on the internet.


I wonder if there are more people among the internet Users who are more inclined to support democratic candidates, than whose who more inclined to support republican candidates, percentage-wise? The Last USA population data shows that Bush and Kerry are currently in the dead heat, 49% vs 49% according to Last polls. Therefore right now it would be an ideal conditions to check this small theory of mine and to see how this data would correlate with our own forum population. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


Please only those who are USA citizens vote in this pole.

Please no offence to all other players, this restriction is purely due to specific political nature of this poll, otherwise the results will not be meaningfull. (And besides everybody knows that there is not much love lost between Bush administration and europeans http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ).

[ May 06, 2004, 22:35: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

I refuse to sell out to the moron majority by voting between two awful options, so I'm going to vote independent. That isn't an option on the poll, though.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeap. Independent candidat is irrelevant to the purpose of this poll.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It would probably have been more "correct" putting it in the shrapnel.general forum and then posting here asking people to go vote.

I dont consider myself any party. I think moving any one direction for too long is dangerous. This time I would have voted independent but Im afraid that if I did Bush might win.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agree 100% that both options are awful !

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

You're right. Both candidates are awful. Therefore, you should vote for the lesser of the two evils, so to speak.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or I can refuse to compromise my principles and vote independent. Either way, my vote makes no difference, but I keep my dignity, and when it goes to hell, I can say, "I didn't vote for him."

And if enough people cared about dignity, honor, and integrity, we might actually win for a change.

[ May 07, 2004, 02:08: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think this year is the first that I heard people say "its not that Im voting for anyone as much as Im voting against the other one"

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

I have an equal chance of voting for either, that is to say, I'm 14 and have a 0% chance of voting.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think this year is the first that I heard people say "its not that Im voting for anyone as much as Im voting against the other one" </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not news. I've had people tell me that every year, to vote for the one I hate least....but no! I have my dignity!

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

Most recent CNN exit polls show 13% for Bush vs 87% for Kerry and still counting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Interesting, looks like my theory about some connection between using of internet and voting for democrats could be true. Or maybe it is just Dom2 crowd? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyway, it may be too early to tell, we shall see when there will be at least 20-30 votes.

[ May 07, 2004, 03:14: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then you should have made the poll results viewable by non-voters as well.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

Yeah - there were voters in Florida Last time around who said "MY vote won't count for anything" as well Norfleet.

I don't vote, as I believe this to be the best way to register my disillusionment with the political parties in this country, who no longer stand for anything other than being elected.

(As evidenced by "New Labour" being composed of the same people as "Old Labour" but with an entirely different manefesto! Either they all changed beliefs overnight, or they want power more than anything they believe in. Either way I don't want to vote for any of them, and believe the Conservatives are no better.

If I was an American I'd vote to remove Bush.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't think the abuse is a result of any policy or rethoric, as far as I can tell these things almost ivariably crop up whenever people are given the amount of power over other people that prison guards do under these circumstances. The failure here is not as much the official rethoric as failing to insure that the proper checks and control mechanisms are in place to stop these sort of things, or so I believe.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If we had five less parties represented in the swedish parlament (a total of 1 instead of 6) Sweden would also be a dictatorship, if we accept your usage of the term.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

Actually, JO, that is what I believed up until the recent reports that this form of behavior was explicitly *encouraged* by the military intelligence agency and a part of the pentagon. The Tolstoy dictum ("give a man a uniform and a drum and he will turn into a monster") is certainly true, but has been exacerbated under the mistaken idea that this would lead to easier access to gleaning information from potential terrorists about future plans. Really.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If we had five less parties represented in the swedish parlament (a total of 1 instead of 6) Sweden would also be a dictatorship, if we accept your usage of the term. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, but you have 6, we only have 2. This is not a mere contingency and it is not a trivial difference.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

"Tired of choosing the lesser of two evils? Vote Cthulu!"

(Quote from a pin that was massively popular in the ... 80s when I frequented a lot of OrcCons and other gaming conventions.)

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Who has 2? I know it represents alot of people but if you mean the US then there are (I think) 6 that are nationally recognized, and 4 represented in congress

--
Democrats: give us your money and your problems.
Republicans: keep your money and your problems.
Its easy to understand for us geeks.
Under the Democrats we will be the Federation.
Under the Republicans we will be the Ferrengi.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

We, meaning US citizens about whom this poll is and the group a member of which I proudly be.

2, meaning those two only who receive official national funding (1$ per tax return, remember), and meaning those two with more than even slightly nominal membership in a house of representation.
I don't know what you mean by "nationally recognized". If you mean not "officially laughed at during dinner parties in Washington" or "will not cause you to get beat up when wearing their party slogans on T-shirt in 80% of all US towns with population under 80.000", then the number may be 3 in toto. Any party can run on a ballot, even (gasp!) in the US (but perhaps we'll change that soon). In other countries whose national ballots I inspect regulary have, usually, anywhere between 20 and 40 parties represented on a ballot, of which 6-8 have more than nominal representation (not representing some splitter group with less than 0.2% representation, like the "Silly Party" or "Gray Haired Panthers" etc. (both of which, incidentally, you can see on all Berlin (Germany) ballots) for the Last 10 years)).

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm is there such option? Or you mean adding "non-USA observer" vote option?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The former. There's an 'advanced' setting that allows everyone to view the poll results. I checked it for the 'Ermorythiumephale etc.' poll.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well actually any party that fronts a candidate gets that money. And thats only about a dozen out of the many many partys. So far they rarely try to put anyone up for presidency. Mostly they are active at city, county, state levels. But it has happened fairly often (nader, perot, buchanan)

[ May 07, 2004, 17:40: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And by not participating, you do sort of forfeit the right to complain about the outcome. After all, YOU certainly didn't do anything about it.

Me, realistically, I don't see my vote as having any real effect on the outcome. I *CAN*, however, indicate my dissatisfaction with both major parties by voting for neither of them. Then I spend the rest of the next 4 years complaining about it. Then I do it again. It's a living. If enough people were to take a stand and vote for their own dignity and personal integrity, something might happen. In the meantime, I'll just sit here and await the revolution.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's great!

I also like the bumper-stickers I've seen which are in the style of red white and blue stars and stripes and say "Anybody Else 2004".

Also, yes, the two-party system is not much of a democracy, especially when the voting system only allows one mututally-exclusive positive vote per position, so even if the choices are two bad party tyrants and one OK independent person, people think they are "wasting their vote" on an independent vote. If you could vote for some, none, or all, then it would be much fairer (people could vote for the OK person AND their least hated tyrant, and the most popular candidate would actually win, instead of the most popular Big Party candidate (or the big party candidate who had supporters in the vote-counting business!)).

PvK

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm is there such option? Or you mean adding "non-USA observer" vote option?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The former. There's an 'advanced' setting that allows everyone to view the poll results. I checked it for the 'Ermorythiumephale etc.' poll. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Didn't know about that. Thanks, I'll keep it in mind for the future.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Then you should have made the poll results viewable by non-voters as well. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmm is there such option? Or you mean adding "non-USA observer" vote option?

Whatever the case I agree, it would be a good idea. However I have created this poll on the spur of the moment, haven't really put any thoughts into it, other than the fact that I wanted to quickly check that theory that I've meantioned. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Or I can refuse to compromise my principles and vote independent. Either way, my vote makes no difference, but I keep my dignity, and when it goes to hell, I can say, "I didn't vote for him."

And if enough people cared about dignity, honor, and integrity, we might actually win for a change. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh my! I actually totaly agree with Norfleet!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

Although Kerry may be a wimp, he is certainly not the embodiment of evil , as G. W. Bush has proven himself to be. Together with Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet and Rice they have now (with the recent knowledge that the atrocities commited by soldiers upon prisoners in Iraq and Cuba are by no means isolated mishaps but sympomatic results of a systematic means-justifies-the-ends utilitarianism and demonization or dehumanization of that which is deemed a foreign threat being the dead giveaway) succeeded in drastically harming America for what will certainly prove to be 50 years or more (not to mention all the other damage to civil liberties, human rights, and other once-upheld American ideals, as well as ecological and economical damage).

I think Americans must vote for Kerry, since they have created an electorial system (which might have made sense in the 18th century but is certainly senatorial and aristocratic (in the original sense of the word) in both origin and nature) to which they dogmatically adhere and which unfortunately disbars faith in "direct representation" by allowing at present only 2 nationally funded parties (a non-trivial consequence of which is the fact that should there be one less party (a total of 1 instead of 2) we would have a dictatorship).

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There has been growing coverage in the media of "disillusioned voters" largely backed up by statistics of a falling turn out at elections.

You can see the effects of me -*not doing anything about it*- on Primetime news.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If you spend the next 4 years complaining about how another party would have done it better, then you have no excuse for not voting. If you see a viable party you believe would better represent you, vote for them. If you believe your political system has no such party, because major parties seek to occupy the middle ground just to be elected...

...like I said - my choice is heard on Primetime news. Show me another, more effective way to represent my dissatisfaction with the system.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If we had five less parties represented in the swedish parlament (a total of 1 instead of 6) Sweden would also be a dictatorship, if we accept your usage of the term. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, but you have 6, we only have 2. This is not a mere contingency and it is not a trivial difference. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You know what is funny? I've been several times in Israel. They have 100% democracy in your definition (parlament/election-wise, let's not get into discussion about arabs, counter-terrosrist measures, etc.).

So they have dozens of political parties in Kneset (Israel's parlament), some of them are very tiny. But it is huge pain in the arse to make a working "goverment coaltion", and even parties with 1 or 2 seats can very often become king makers, meaning they wield largly disproportional ammount of infulence in goverment. And once you get a ruling coalition going (that requres 60+ seats out of 120), it's often very difficult to maintain it for even half of the term, since every coalition memeber demands constant "bribing" (out of budget money) to stay in colation. And if the coalition breaks, you have short time to form another or must hold new election. All that makes persuing a consistent and focused policy next to impossible for any ruling party.


Now do you think israelis like their "pure" democratic parlament system? They hate it! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I can't tell you how many times different people complained to me about inefficency of this system, and told me they wish they would have just 2 or 3 party system, like in the USA.


The bottom line is that you have to maintain a perspective when you are comparing different election/parlament system. Each one have some advantages and disadvantags. So having 2 party system have major advantages, as well as disadvantages.

P.S. Although I also wished there would be more choices for president. I mean, c'mon - are these people - Bush, Al Gore, Kerry - the best with what huge country can come up with for 8 years?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">He did. Cast a ballot, but only vote for things you actually support, or against things you don't. If you don't like any of the choices, don't vote for any of them, but do cast the ballot.

That way you actively show disapproval. Most of the people who don't vote are probably doing so because they don't care for whatever reason, and there's no way to tell the difference between an outraged person who doesn't show up as a protest, or someone who's just too lazy or clueless or apathetic.

PvK

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

Looks like your theory is right. But of course there’s places in the US where the current 21% for Bush in your poll would be a scandal, say most college campuses. I would guess that the results, for faculty and students, would be less than 10% for Bush.

I’m an independent but I’m voting for Bush unless he screws up the war by politicizing it. The closest thing the Dems have to a hardliner on the war is Hilary.

I was a yellow-dog democrat until the Bill show, and the way it’s looking I may never vote for a dem again.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well actually any party that fronts a candidate gets that money. And thats only about a dozen out of the many many partys. So far they rarely try to put anyone up for presidency. Mostly they are active at city, county, state levels. But it has happened fairly often (nader, perot, buchanan) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Er - First, tinkthank - it's not $1 per tax return. At most it's 99.99 cents, because I for one check the box that says that no, one dollar from my taxes isn't to go to help one of two whores get into office.

Second : Nader didn't get any money. For a party to get any of that money, they have to have received at least 5% of the popular vote the previous election. So - Nader, who co-opted the Greens, didn't get the money. Buchanan, who raped, er, co-opted Perot's party, may have - I don't remember if they got 5% in 96.

Also - Bush didn't, and won't, be getting any of that money. Reason being that it winds up being "matching funds" for what the candidate spends, as long as they follow certain rules about their funding, ads, etc. Boy Bush turned down the money in 2000 so he wouldn't have any limitations - his oil, lumber, and other industrial patrons have already poured enough money into his pot that he doesn't need matching funds.

I take back what I said, about Cthulhu. If you're tired of picking the lesser of two evils - vote Bush.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Y'know, I'm curious. Just what is it that Bill Clinton did that was so wrong? He screwed a woman. And he lied about it. Just like most married people would lie. He didn't ignore the constitution. He didn't get us into a screwed up war and screw it up 100 ways to Sunday.

He didn't fire only those people who told the public the truth. Whereas Bush fired Clarke, who said that Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. He fired Gen Shalashki(spelling is wrong), who said we'd need more than the handful of troops in Iraq that Rumsfeld and co insisted. He fired Lindsey, who told the truth about the likely cost of the war - that no, Iraq _wasn't_ going to fund its own reconstruction.

Clinton didn't lock people up without due process. His administration didn't make not-so-veiled threats that "people ought to be careful what they say", ignoring the 1st amendment. He didn't overrule and disregard his own scientific panels, as Bush has.

Mind you - I'm an atheist when it comes to politics, I didn't vote for Gore, and until Baby Bush, I wasn't a fan of Clinton. But again - what did Clinton do that turned you off the Democratic party?

Myself - I think both parties are "swive-me-mate" trollops; a few possible exceptions, such as McCain, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and a few other mavericks who buck their own party when they think the people are getting shafted by something their party wants.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

*looks over both shoulders—is this OT?*

Don’t feel like rehashing all this. I thought his pool was interesting. I was a little surprised at the result.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

dp

[ May 10, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thanks. Yes, my theory seemed to be correct, we are way past the margin of statistical error here.


Now that we have gathered enough statistical data, and know the results (21% for Bush, 79% for Kerry), who will be the first brave soul to try to explain it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I remind you that at this moment the country is spilt 49% vs 49%. So why intenet in general, and our forum in particualar, is so radically different?


I have my own thoughts about it, but I would like to hear other people opinions first.

[ May 10, 2004, 23:14: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

Well, if you figure that becoming a member of the Internet community has a barrier to entry, that no matter how dumb a member of the Internet community may seem, the fact that it's a selected group with a barrier to entry(must able to operate a computer), means that the group must still be of above average intelligence(and that's just sad!).

Now, given that people on the Internet have access to more information, for better or for worse, I think it's reasonable to expect that most of us are reasonbly well-versed in Bush's atrocities. Most of us are probably sure he ain't the sharpest pencil in the drawer.

What does this mean, then? Well, it means we're less inclined to vote for him....although some of us may take the view of "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

Plus you removed all of the independent voters. It would have been MORE interesting to see what the percentage of people who would vote independent as a result of this as compared to the national average.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But the poll didn't sample the wider Internet community, it sampled Dominions players. And I think it would be too simplistic (and arrogant) to say that Dominions players are too intelligent to vote for Bush.

More likely, there is something about the persona that is attracted to Dominions that is also attracted to the more moderate politics that the Democratic party is supposed to represent.

Alternatively (speaking as an uninformed Australian onlooker here) it is possible the Dominions players are, for some reason, more likely to accept the media portrayal of Bush, and whoever's advising him, as idiots.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, the US news media has by and large portrayed him favorably; possibly because 90% of the newspapers are now owned by large conglomerate corporations whose primary interest isn't presenting a fair and unbiased representation of the news. Two of the only large independently owned papers aren't nearly as favorable towards him : The New York Times is anti-Bush, while the Washington Post is more unbiased.

Also - it isn't the internet community, or the dominions 2 community. I don't drive, so I ride the buses - an awful lot of non-internet type people are pretty unhappy with Bush. Ditto the military (I'm former military, and up until 2 months ago had been working with the military for the 14 years since I became a civilian).

Near as I can tell, the question is : Who the @#$@ are these polls talking to? Registered members of their local Chambers of Commerce? Members of the "Pioneer Club" (people who've raised 10,000 or more for Bush)? Oilmen? Who?

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is not a more effective method of showing disapproval. That either increases a smaller parties share of the vote (whose successes are often reported in terms of single issue politics, and who I don't believe are more able to run the country) or increases spoilt ballots, which do not make Primetime news, and come across as people too dumb to fill in a ballot paper properly.

It also reduces the impact of "X% of people do not vote" headlines, which are the loudest message that people find politics uninspiring.

If another issue becomes more important to me, I will vote accordingly, but I still see this as the most effective way to register what I think.

Re: Totally off-topic poll
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Also, despite the request that non-US citizens should not take part in the poll, there's no way to keep them from it, and not being able to see the results unless you do vote may be incentive to "cheat". And, around here, I'm not sure I personally know ONE person who, given the choice, would vote Bush over Kerry (though my own personal sample would probably appear VERY biased indeed).