I thought that all voters voted out of self-interest? That's the whole point.

I don't believe it is the point at all. I never thought that I was voting for someone based on how I would personally benefit from them getting elected. I vote for who I think will do the best for the country.

It's fairly safe to say that most people vote out of perceived self-interest. I guess most people on this forum are somewhat above average intelligence... aren't you, Koheesti?

I think a lot of people vote just because of how their newspaper influenced them!

What is Butter is Better?

A really good bakery and restaurant in Chiang Mai - tastes a lot like back home.

I thought that all voters voted out of self-interest? That's the whole point.

I don't believe it is the point at all. I never thought that I was voting for someone based on how I would personally benefit from them getting elected. I vote for who I think will do the best for the country.

It's fairly safe to say that most people vote out of perceived self-interest. I guess most people on this forum are somewhat above average intelligence... aren't you, Koheesti?

As I stated in an earlier post, my conservative friends have different motivations from liberal friends. Another conservative friend of mine once found himself on a security detail for Jesse Jackson before he officially entered the Presidential race back in the 80's. He told me that Jesse said to him, "I can do more for you than any of the other guys". That's how Lib-dems think.

If the Republicans are the party of millionaire and oilmen - why do they get over 50 million votes in the election? Dems mostly get votes from people who need them for their handouts - unions, welfare recipients, illegal immigrants (who can vote without ID), criminals, academmics (teacher unions) etc.

I think a lot of people vote just because of how their newspaper influenced them!

That is definitely a large segment Moonrakers

Newspaper/Media/TV etc.

Many folks are mentally lazy ( a nice way of putting it )

They vote based on slick ad's or even just what they have seen the most of.

Things like a good campaign mantra/chant for instance definitely helped Obama get elected.

YES WE CAN.....HOPE & CHANGE !!!! Because other than that he had no real world experience

no real track record of how he voted & what to expect. Yet he got elected.

There was also a segment that is not as prevalent today. That of party lines.

The previous generation was very staunch supporter of their party period.

Even if they intellectually knew their parties choice did not appear to be

the best candidate for the job they stuck to it as a matter of principle.

Today you do not see that same blind loyalty & I do think folks do cross party lines

more than before .

Of course there is also still a group as always that looks a bit deeper & actually looks

back into the candidates past. Looks to see if they have been consistent throughout their political career.

See if they have integrity & vote for it consistently. Not one who sells their vote in Congress or Senate no

matter what is promised them in future vote trades. Folks who look at a candidates overall stance & how they

will help not just one segment of the US but the US overall.

One who will help regain the health/freedom of the US financially/economically, One who will do as the oath of office asks,

Preserve & protect the Constitution.

I think a lot of people vote just because of how their newspaper influenced them!

That is definitely a large segment Moonrakers

Newspaper/Media/TV etc.

Many folks are mentally lazy ( a nice way of putting it )

They vote based on slick ad's or even just what they have seen the most of.

Things like a good campaign mantra/chant for instance definitely helped Obama get elected.

YES WE CAN.....HOPE & CHANGE !!!! Because other than that he had no real world experience

no real track record of how he voted & what to expect. Yet he got elected.

There was also a segment that is not as prevalent today. That of party lines.

The previous generation was very staunch supporter of their party period.

Even if they intellectually knew their parties choice did not appear to be

the best candidate for the job they stuck to it as a matter of principle.

Today you do not see that same blind loyalty & I do think folks do cross party lines

more than before .

Of course there is also still a group as always that looks a bit deeper & actually looks

back into the candidates past. Looks to see if they have been consistent throughout their political career.

See if they have integrity & vote for it consistently. Not one who sells their vote in Congress or Senate no

matter what is promised them in future vote trades. Folks who look at a candidates overall stance & how they

will help not just one segment of the US but the US overall.

One who will help regain the health/freedom of the US financially/economically, One who will do as the oath of office asks,

Preserve & protect the Constitution.

I can't talk for Americans, but I disagree with you somewhat. I think voting along party lines, "because I've always voted for Party XYZ, and my dad has always voted for XYZ" is still quite prevalent....and it is also associated with what you call mental laziness.

I can't talk for Americans, but I disagree with you somewhat. I think voting along party lines, "because I've always voted for Party XYZ, and my dad has always voted for XYZ" is still quite prevalent....and it is also associated with what you call mental laziness.

I did not mean to imply the party line voters were mentally lazy

They would actually be more of a loyalty type of group.

The mentally lazy is the ones who vote based mainly on campaign slogans/ad's

But yes I also agree the party line voters still exists quite a bit here in the US too.

It is after all how the system is setup. Many do not want to support a segment knowing the whole in teh long

run will then be given more power for many things the voter does not agree with.

Most of you, being Americans, seem fixated on how Americans vote. There are quite a few more democratic systems in the world, you know!

The recent Thai election demonstrated that most Thais still vote for the party they perceive will do most for them (B.1000 down, and higher rice prices etc. ) Others vote along traditional party lines, which may well coincide with the first category.

In Britain, the 'working classes' used to vote solidly for the Labour party, but recent elections have shown a willingness to try something different (e.g. the Lib-Dems.).

Italy, France, and Germany seem to have a much more volatile electorate, resulting in lots of small parties in their 'Parliament', and consequently a potentially weak government.

My impression (never having been there) is that many Americans would like a third choice. The only candidate who has got anywhere near making an impact in recent years is Ross Perot, who had the money but was a bit of a nut!

Most of you, being Americans, seem fixated on how Americans vote. There are quite a few more democratic systems in the world, you know!

The recent Thai election demonstrated that most Thais still vote for the party they perceive will do most for them (B.1000 down, and higher rice prices etc. ) Others vote along traditional party lines, which may well coincide with the first category.

In Britain, the 'working classes' used to vote solidly for the Labour party, but recent elections have shown a willingness to try something different (e.g. the Lib-Dems.).

Italy, France, and Germany seem to have a much more volatile electorate, resulting in lots of small parties in their 'Parliament', and consequently a potentially weak government.

My impression (never having been there) is that many Americans would like a third choice. The only candidate who has got anywhere near making an impact in recent years is Ross Perot, who had the money but was a bit of a nut!

While I've got one of you parliamentary ruled folks here, maybe you can answer a question for me. What is the purpose of "party list" candidates and isn't it an anti-democratic practice installing them in governments?

My impression (never having been there) is that many Americans would like a third choice. The only candidate who has got anywhere near making an impact in recent years is Ross Perot, who had the money but was a bit of a nut!

We don't need a third choice, we need a third AND fourth choice. One left-leaning, one right-leaning. Maybe a 5th in the center. Having only a third choice just gift wraps the election to one of the other guys. Ross Perot split the Republican vote and Bill Clinton took the White House with 43% of the vote (Bush Senior had 38%). In 1996 Clinton won with maybe 46-48%. The US system doesn't have a run-off if the winner gets under 50% of the vote. In 2000. Ralph Nadar split the Democrat vote and George W. Bush won with 49% of the vote (there would have been no controversy if Nadar hadn't taken so many votes from Gore). So after the past 20 years, American voters are wary of a 3rd candidate - unless he competes against the guy they DO NOT want in the White House.

While I've got one of you parliamentary ruled folks here, maybe you can answer a question for me. What is the purpose of "party list" candidates and isn't it an anti-democratic practice installing them in governments?

The idea of party list candidates is to even out the discrepancy between actual votes cast and seats gained on the 'first past the post' system. The effect of it is to give free passage to party bigwigs.

My impression (never having been there) is that many Americans would like a third choice. The only candidate who has got anywhere near making an impact in recent years is Ross Perot, who had the money but was a bit of a nut!

We don't need a third choice, we need a third AND fourth choice. One left-leaning, one right-leaning. Maybe a 5th in the center. Having only a third choice just gift wraps the election to one of the other guys. Ross Perot split the Republican vote and Bill Clinton took the White House with 43% of the vote (Bush Senior had 38%). In 1996 Clinton won with maybe 46-48%. The US system doesn't have a run-off if the winner gets under 50% of the vote. In 2000. Ralph Nadar split the Democrat vote and George W. Bush won with 49% of the vote (there would have been no controversy if Nadar hadn't taken so many votes from Gore). So after the past 20 years, American voters are wary of a 3rd candidate - unless he competes against the guy they DO NOT want in the White House.

Fair comment, I guess. All you need is few more multi-billionaires to run!

I thought that under the American system what counted was not the actual vote cast but the number of electoral college seats won. This can result(and I believe has done so) in a President elected on a minority popular vote. For somebody who has the amount of power a President has, that's just not good enough. Of course, then you may have a mid-term swing... and the President has little power left.

In America it seems like we are almost always in campaign mode so actual governing takes a back seat. That is certainly true for the current President.

In America it seems like we are almost always in campaign mode so actual governing takes a back seat. That is certainly true for the current President.

Yes, in a Presidential system, the last year of the term, and sometimes more, always seems to be spent campaigning for re-election.

...

The mentally lazy is the ones who vote based mainly on campaign slogans/ad's

...

I was walking to the polling station, with my fixed voting intentions, formed from long political discourse and debate.

I passed a sign for a candidate from an evironmental party

"Vote Green - vote Brown"

I'm colour-blind too, so he got my vote that day

SC

Most of you, being Americans, seem fixated on how Americans vote. There are quite a few more democratic systems in the world, you know!

The recent Thai election demonstrated that most Thais still vote for the party they perceive will do most for them (B.1000 down, and higher rice prices etc. ) Others vote along traditional party lines, which may well coincide with the first category.

In Britain, the 'working classes' used to vote solidly for the Labour party, but recent elections have shown a willingness to try something different (e.g. the Lib-Dems.).

Italy, France, and Germany seem to have a much more volatile electorate, resulting in lots of small parties in their 'Parliament', and consequently a potentially weak government.

My impression (never having been there) is that many Americans would like a third choice. The only candidate who has got anywhere near making an impact in recent years is Ross Perot, who had the money but was a bit of a nut!

While I've got one of you parliamentary ruled folks here, maybe you can answer a question for me. What is the purpose of "party list" candidates and isn't it an anti-democratic practice installing them in governments?

Not only do we have party lists we also have an unelected second chamber 26 of whose members are Bishops. How's that for undemocratic?

My impression (never having been there) is that many Americans would like a third choice.

I have often said I would like to see a 3rd choice.

None Of The Above

If enough citizens use it then so be it.

I means we reject the parties nominations & the choices given to us.

Not only do we have party lists we also have an unelected second chamber 26 of whose members are Bishops. How's that for undemocratic?

Does UK have party lists now? News to me... but then I admit I'm a bit out of touch. The Liberal Party, now the Lib-Dems, have always argued for proportional representation or the alternative vote as a means of making the electoral system fairer, but they haven't got anywhere with it so far.

The unelected second chamber is nothing more than a debating chamber these days; it can delay legislation slightly, but not for long. What it does do is to provide a body of experienced people who can sometimes act as advisors to the House of Commons. It also includes a number of judges, Endure, who are at least as 'specialised' as Bishops.

Not only do we have party lists we also have an unelected second chamber 26 of whose members are Bishops. How's that for undemocratic?

To my mind having bishops, mullahs, rabbis and similar non-political community-minded people in the system is a very good idea.

They should be looking for the good of the community as a whole, without political bias.

To my mind having bishops, mullahs, rabbis and similar non-political community-minded people in the system is a very good idea.

They should be looking for the good of the community as a whole, without political bias.

Man I am not sure about that one

If there is one thing worse than political bias it would be religious bias

To my mind having bishops, mullahs, rabbis and similar non-political community-minded people in the system is a very good idea.

They should be looking for the good of the community as a whole, without political bias.

Man I am not sure about that one

If there is one thing worse than political bias it would be religious bias

I find most clerics more tolerant than most lay-people

SC

My impression (never having been there) is that many Americans would like a third choice.

I have often said I would like to see a 3rd choice.

None Of The Above

If enough citizens use it then so be it.

I means we reject the parties nominations & the choices given to us.

Unfortunately using the idea of "none of the above" means those that choose a nominee will end up electing their man. That elected individual may be somebody that turns out to be a disastrous choice.

I have often said I would like to see a 3rd choice.

None Of The Above

If enough citizens use it then so be it.

I means we reject the parties nominations & the choices given to us.

Unfortunately using the idea of "none of the above" means those that choose a nominee will end up electing their man. That elected individual may be somebody that turns out to be a disastrous choice.

Actually my idea of None of the Above is a candidate so to speak.

Meaning if a majority choose the None Of The Above Candidate it wins.

Nominations would then be re-run till the majority votes on one they want instead of the usual

vote for the lesser of two evils vote.

It would be an alternative vote for what many times appears to be

a majority....ie:Those who later claimed they voted for X because he sucked less than Y

Meaning if a majority choose the None Of The Above Candidate it wins.

Nominations would then be re-run till the majority votes on one they want instead of the usual

vote for the lesser of two evils vote.

It would be an alternative vote for what many times appears to be

a majority....ie:Those who later claimed they voted for X because he sucked less than Y

I see what you're getting at, but would it ever work?

The major parties would keep putting up candidates that would toe the party line and you'd lose the independent candidates on the first round.

Maybe as well as a 'plus' for the candidate you want, you could vote 'minus' for candidates you would not want. Up to three negative votes if there are six candidates, and so on.

Maybe as well as a 'plus' for the candidate you want, you could vote 'minus' for candidates you would not want. Up to three negative votes if there are six candidates, and so on.

Hmmmm that one has got legs

Maybe as well as a 'plus' for the candidate you want, you could vote 'minus' for candidates you would not want. Up to three negative votes if there are six candidates, and so on.

Hmmmm that one has got legs

...and just how do you guys think the voters in Florida would be able to handle all that?

Maybe as well as a 'plus' for the candidate you want, you could vote 'minus' for candidates you would not want. Up to three negative votes if there are six candidates, and so on.

Hmmmm that one has got legs

...and just how do you guys think the voters in Florida would be able to handle all that?

Florida is not allowed in the new system

Speaking of Florida they held the CNN GOP presidential debate today