Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:Personally I don't think ANY candiate should serve with LESS than 51% of the votes of registered voters.
Mathematically speaking for a second:
300 million people in the US
100 Million voters
the highest vote winner gets 40% of all the votes = 40 million, which means that 60 million people do NOT want him.
SO you have 300 million people being ruled by a guy that 40 million people voted in.
Democracy?

Not really, no. Voter turnout is sad, but I don't think it should be mandatory (I don't think certain states should so willingly exclude voters either, but that's another issue). But just because a certain percentage of people voted against a candidate does not imply necessarily they did NOT want him. It only implies they wanted whomever they voted for. Their preference towards all other candidates remains unknown (and indeed, they might be almost as happy with another candidate).

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Personally I don't think ANY candiate should serve with LESS than 51% of the votes of registered voters.
Mathematically speaking for a second:
300 million people in the US
100 Million voters
the highest vote winner gets 40% of all the votes = 40 million, which means that 60 million people do NOT want him.
SO you have 300 million people being ruled by a guy that 40 million people voted in.
Democracy?

Not really, no. Voter turnout is sad, but I don't think it should be mandatory (I don't think certain states should so willingly exclude voters either, but that's another issue). But just because a certain percentage of people voted against a candidate does not imply necessarily they did NOT want him. It only implies they wanted whomever they voted for. Their preference towards all other candidates remains unknown (and indeed, they might be almost as happy with another candidate).

Get a candidate that people think is worth voting for and you will get voter turnout.
That people prefer NOT to vote is a sign of how useless the candidates are to them and how disenfranchised they are with the process.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Personally I don't think ANY candiate should serve with LESS than 51% of the votes of registered voters.
Mathematically speaking for a second:
300 million people in the US
100 Million voters
the highest vote winner gets 40% of all the votes = 40 million, which means that 60 million people do NOT want him.
SO you have 300 million people being ruled by a guy that 40 million people voted in.
Democracy?

Not really, no. Voter turnout is sad, but I don't think it should be mandatory (I don't think certain states should so willingly exclude voters either, but that's another issue). But just because a certain percentage of people voted against a candidate does not imply necessarily they did NOT want him. It only implies they wanted whomever they voted for. Their preference towards all other candidates remains unknown (and indeed, they might be almost as happy with another candidate).

Get a candidate that people think is worth voting for and you will get voter turnout.
That people prefer NOT to vote is a sign of how useless the candidates are to them and how disenfranchised they are with the process.

I definitely agree. :[

Actually, I think a lot of our problems could be solved by going with an approval voting system, where you can vote to approve of any number of candidates you want and vote to disapprove of any number of candidates you want. That would really let the people decide not only want they want, but what they DON'T want.

Jac3510 wrote:Actually, I think a lot of our problems could be solved by going with an approval voting system, where you can vote to approve of any number of candidates you want and vote to disapprove of any number of candidates you want. That would really let the people decide not only want they want, but what they DON'T want.

I think a problem with that is that people would then approve of a candidate that is acceptable but not very exciting or great in any area. It would allow for a lot of mediocre candidates unless you enforce a tiered voting system. If you can specify which candidate you would like to receive a vote, with fall-back options should that candidate not succeed, then you can ensure that your priorities are being addressed in the order you present them. Australia has a voting system similar to this and it works reasonably well. But there is still a problem with the winner-take all method. It disproportionately represents one side without giving any representation to any of the other sides. I'm not entirely sure how to address it (or even if that should necessarily be addressed), but it's not always that easy to solve these problems.

Beanybag wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Actually, I think a lot of our problems could be solved by going with an approval voting system, where you can vote to approve of any number of candidates you want and vote to disapprove of any number of candidates you want. That would really let the people decide not only want they want, but what they DON'T want.

I think a problem with that is that people would then approve of a candidate that is acceptable but not very exciting or great in any area. It would allow for a lot of mediocre candidates unless you enforce a tiered voting system. If you can specify which candidate you would like to receive a vote, with fall-back options should that candidate not succeed, then you can ensure that your priorities are being addressed in the order you present them. Australia has a voting system similar to this and it works reasonably well. But there is still a problem with the winner-take all method. It disproportionately represents one side without giving any representation to any of the other sides. I'm not entirely sure how to address it (or even if that should necessarily be addressed), but it's not always that easy to solve these problems.

Any solution is always going to come with their own sets of problems. I, for one, would prefer mediocre candidates that have at least a broad consensus of acceptability that the hyper polarization we have now.

OK, I've strongly stated my opinion. Clearly, realistically, fantasies aside, we all know that only Obama or Romney can win. I've not heard anyone here make a case that it doesn't really matter which of these two wins. Or that their aren't any real differences between them that will likely matter - a LOT.

For the record, I am not a fan of Romney, nor did I support him in the primaries.

it ridicules someone's principled stance in attempt to get them to violate their consciences

Er, no, it's an appeal for people to use discernment involving known facts of huge, key differences between candidates. You know that there are only two candidates that have any possibility of winning. To not vote you are helping one or the other, you just don't know WHICH one that might be. That is absolute fact! I would be more convinced of a non-voting stance if one could make the case that, amongst the candidates that have even a remote possibility of being elected, that there are no real or important differences. There are enormous differences between Obama and Romney. I don't want to hear about idealism, I want to hear someone address why their differences don't or won't MATTER, or why which one is elected truly doesn't matter. But no here appears to be doing that.

Not to mention I could say that MY principled stance (that non voting is wrong, unless the two REAL choices don't have enough differences to quibble over) is being ridiculed. Or that saying I'm somehow delusional to support a candidate that I don't find more in line with my values. Or that I don't have the right to try to sway someone's opinion (talk about a liberal point of view!). While I respect EACH person's view, I don't have to agree with it. To say I'm trying to convince ANYONE to VIOLATE THEIR CONSCIENCE is to not know my heart and mind. But in an honest debate, one has every right to try to convince someone of a different way of looking at an issue. So anyone accusing me of that is being more than a little disingenuous. Say you disagree with me? Fine. But don't accuse me of trying to ridicule or make someone violate their conscience, as these are the farthest things from my mind.

Like I said, philip, we just disagree on this. I don't see a hairs difference between Mitt and Obama on the long term impact they will have on this country. What I do see is both of them destroying it. I'm not contributing that.

Jac said: "I don't see a hairs difference between Mitt and Obama on the long term impact they will have on this country. What I do see is both of them destroying it."

Well, Jac, while I disagree with that, non voting ONLY makes sense when one has concluded that.

But the REAL problem with politics is not politicians or our choices, it's with VOTERS! Our choices tend to reflect our collective values, or at least the majority or trending values of the mass electorate. If the vast majority of voters had good values and key understandings of how important variables work within the mechanics of the various key systems which impact us all, if they stayed informed on issues and voted accordingly, THEN we would start to see better and better candidates and elected officials. Of course, there are systems within our society that must be reformed to help optimize better candidates and office holders. But it begins with the voters and those involved within the parties.

Entrenched power brokers are not easy to overcome. And the way our political parties currently operate, by the time one can get backing, name recognition, an organization, etc., they are already in the back pockets of the power brokers. And so our potential choices have already been vetted and/or weeded out, depending upon the dictates of those of influence and power within the parties. It is extremely improbable that an unknown, idealistic, forthright Joe Blow with good intentions and good ideas will ever get on a ballot, as without the power brokers getting behind him - unless he is independently rich or otherwise already influential - he has next to no chance. It's an ugly, soul-killing business.

Of course, at the end of the day, politics is not the answer at all! Jesus is! If everyone loved Jesus, our politics would fall right into place. It's why Jesus never talked of political reform but of HEART reform. Spiritual reform is the key to our problems, and it must start within each of us. Even so, we must make the best of the reality in which find ourselves, and it does no good pining for the ideal one that doesn't exist.

He's ahead in the poles so I would say yes.

Politics is one of the many things the Christian has been freed from.
James 1:27.
the system is corrupt and it shows since although there are several candidates for president, only two are heard from. There is no real arena for ideas. The debates are a joke.

Regarding the values of the voters. How many Americans would truly say that either Romney or Obama represent their values?

So, Jlay, are YOU voting? And for whom?

Is it only between the two now... These systems only available? Logically and systematically strategy wise, what can we do? What gov policies or protection does ignorant America have? Why have we never impeeched a President we truly didn't like? Why do I feel the fight or no fight in us now days, settling, is just rolling over to die...

The last two presidential elections I have voted for the Constitution party candidate. Also, in our last three Senatorial.

At this point undecided.

Well, God already knows precisely who HE will "elect." Do Calvinists vote? If so, WHY?