[justme]

Let me try again,

To everyone who is on a tear about “voting against the incumbents”, please stop for a moment and think about what that really means:

1. you will be voting for the Republicans to take over congress.

2. you will be voting against Obama for president if you vote “independent”

Just do the math. Since the Democrats have a majority among the incumbents, you are in effect voting Republican. Is that really what you want to do?

One thing is to vote against the incumbents in a PRIMARY (nominational) election, but it is something different to vote against the incumbents in the GENERAL (real) election.

[justme]

Listen,

this whole “let us vote out the incumbents” campaign is just a ruse to install a republican majority in Congress.

Don’t fall for it.

Remember it is the republican “free market” philosophy that got us into all this trouble to begin with.

[justme]

Listen,

this whole “let us vote out the incumbents” campaign is just a ruse to install a republican majority in Congress.

Don’t fall for it.

Remember it is the republican “free market” philosophy that got us into all this trouble to begin with.

[justme]

Listen,

this whole “let us vote out the incumbents” campaign is just a ruse to install a republican majority in Congress.

Don’t fall for it.

Remember it is the republican “free market” philosophy that got us into all this trouble to begin with.

[justme]

Listen,

this whole “let us vote out the incumbents” campaign is just a ruse to install a republican majority in Congress.

Don’t fall for it.

Remember it is the republican “free market” philosophy that got us into all this trouble to begin with.

[justme]

Listen,

this whole “let us vote out the incumbents” campaign is just a ruse to install a republican majority in Congress.

Don’t fall for it.

Remember it is the republican “free market” philosophy that got us into all this trouble to begin with.

[justme]

Funny stuff, equalizer.

I’d go with Version B. In Version C,you were kidding about the ratings agencies being worth anything, right ? 😉

[justme]

Funny stuff, equalizer.

I’d go with Version B. In Version C,you were kidding about the ratings agencies being worth anything, right ? 😉

[justme]

Funny stuff, equalizer.

I’d go with Version B. In Version C,you were kidding about the ratings agencies being worth anything, right ? 😉

[justme]

Funny stuff, equalizer.

I’d go with Version B. In Version C,you were kidding about the ratings agencies being worth anything, right ? 😉

[justme]

Funny stuff, equalizer.

I’d go with Version B. In Version C,you were kidding about the ratings agencies being worth anything, right ? 😉

[justme]

On another note: Someone higher up was advocating voting for 3d parties. I suppose most people understand that voting for a 3d party is a wasted vote, and in effect is a vote AGAINST the party that is closest to your ideals.

If you want a 3d party you have to work to change our election system. The reason we only have 2 parties in power is that we have single-person election districts and a winner-takes-all outcome. Duverger’s Law (see Wikipedia) all but ensures that single-person-districts will exclude anything more than 2 parties from power. So if you want change, work to change the election system to have large districts (20 representatives per district) and proportional representation. Then we will get somewhere. It is the only way, and I wholeheartedly support it. No more partisan gridlock and bipolar disorder!!

[justme]

On another note: Someone higher up was advocating voting for 3d parties. I suppose most people understand that voting for a 3d party is a wasted vote, and in effect is a vote AGAINST the party that is closest to your ideals.

If you want a 3d party you have to work to change our election system. The reason we only have 2 parties in power is that we have single-person election districts and a winner-takes-all outcome. Duverger’s Law (see Wikipedia) all but ensures that single-person-districts will exclude anything more than 2 parties from power. So if you want change, work to change the election system to have large districts (20 representatives per district) and proportional representation. Then we will get somewhere. It is the only way, and I wholeheartedly support it. No more partisan gridlock and bipolar disorder!!

[justme]

On another note: Someone higher up was advocating voting for 3d parties. I suppose most people understand that voting for a 3d party is a wasted vote, and in effect is a vote AGAINST the party that is closest to your ideals.

If you want a 3d party you have to work to change our election system. The reason we only have 2 parties in power is that we have single-person election districts and a winner-takes-all outcome. Duverger’s Law (see Wikipedia) all but ensures that single-person-districts will exclude anything more than 2 parties from power. So if you want change, work to change the election system to have large districts (20 representatives per district) and proportional representation. Then we will get somewhere. It is the only way, and I wholeheartedly support it. No more partisan gridlock and bipolar disorder!!

[justme]

On another note: Someone higher up was advocating voting for 3d parties. I suppose most people understand that voting for a 3d party is a wasted vote, and in effect is a vote AGAINST the party that is closest to your ideals.

If you want a 3d party you have to work to change our election system. The reason we only have 2 parties in power is that we have single-person election districts and a winner-takes-all outcome. Duverger’s Law (see Wikipedia) all but ensures that single-person-districts will exclude anything more than 2 parties from power. So if you want change, work to change the election system to have large districts (20 representatives per district) and proportional representation. Then we will get somewhere. It is the only way, and I wholeheartedly support it. No more partisan gridlock and bipolar disorder!!

[Author]

Posts