Portrait of the average American voter...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark², Nov 9, 2006.

  1. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Mark², Nov 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David J. Littleboy, Nov 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

    >
    > Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
    >
    >David J. Littleboy
    >
    >Tokyo, Japan


    Oh, now now...
    The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Nov 9, 2006
    #3
  4. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

    >>
    >> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
    >>
    >> David J. Littleboy
    >>
    >> Tokyo, Japan

    >
    > Oh, now now...
    > The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...


    Mostly, I just wanted an excuse to post today's shot of this very cute
    little gorilla...

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Nov 9, 2006
    #4
  5. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

    >>
    >> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???

    >
    > Oh, now now...
    > The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...


    You should have used a picture of a sloth, since the "average voter" was too
    lazy to vote. (Turnout was over 40%, which was high for a non-presidential
    election, but even in presidential years it barely squeaks over 50%.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 9, 2006
    #5
  6. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original
    >>> Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???

    >> Oh, now now...
    >> The "Average" voter is just as much Republican as Democrat...

    >
    > You should have used a picture of a sloth, since the "average voter" was too
    > lazy to vote. (Turnout was over 40%, which was high for a non-presidential
    > election, but even in presidential years it barely squeaks over 50%.)


    When it comes to voting, even the Iraqis put us to shame and they vote
    under the threat of death.
    Michael Johnson, PE, Nov 9, 2006
    #6
  7. (David J. Littleboy) wrote:

    > Turnout was over 40%


    That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
    (by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
    don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
    significantly higher.

    There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
    are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
    be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
    they represent.

    Andrew McP
    Andrew MacPherson, Nov 9, 2006
    #7
  8. "Andrew MacPherson" <> wrote:
    > (David J. Littleboy) wrote:
    >
    >> Turnout was over 40%

    >
    > That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
    > (by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
    > don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
    > significantly higher.


    But that's only true of the House. For statewide and national races (and
    referenda), you still have to vote.

    > There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
    > are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
    > be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
    > they represent.


    Massachusetts was interesting in that one candidate used her personal wealth
    and the other capped contributions at US$500, so neither had interest group
    problems.

    David J. Littleboy
    Not completely jaded, yet, in
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 9, 2006
    #8
  9. Mark²

    Nobody Guest

    On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:12:41 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >and the other capped contributions at US$500, so neither had interest group
    >problems.


    I wouldn't give any politician a cent.
    Nobody, Nov 9, 2006
    #9
  10. Mark²

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Ron Hunter, Nov 9, 2006
    #10
  11. Mark²

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

    >
    > Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >


    No, unhappy a whole new batch got IN. Better the devil you know than
    the devil you don't.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 9, 2006
    #11
  12. Mark²

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Andrew MacPherson wrote:
    > (David J. Littleboy) wrote:
    >
    >> Turnout was over 40%

    >
    > That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
    > (by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
    > don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
    > significantly higher.
    >
    > There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
    > are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
    > be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
    > they represent.
    >
    > Andrew McP


    I often don't vote for specific offices if I know that my wife and I
    will vote for opposite candidates, we both just stay home. I suspect
    this is pretty widespread among married couples. There were about 30
    races on my ballot that were uncontested, so why mess with them? For
    the contested issues/offices my wife and I voted for the same ones more
    often than not, so both of us voted. ALL the candidates/issues I voted
    for won. Can't do better than that.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 9, 2006
    #12
  13. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:42:02 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    >> There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
    >> are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
    >> be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
    >> they represent.

    >
    > I often don't vote for specific offices if I know that my wife and I
    > will vote for opposite candidates, we both just stay home. I suspect
    > this is pretty widespread among married couples. There were about 30
    > races on my ballot that were uncontested, so why mess with them? For
    > the contested issues/offices my wife and I voted for the same ones more
    > often than not, so both of us voted. ALL the candidates/issues I voted
    > for won. Can't do better than that.


    If you don't care for the unhealthy lock the two major parties
    have on elections (they control who is allowed in presidential
    debates, among other things), it would be beneficial to vote for the
    same candidates that you would otherwise vote for, but cast your
    vote using alternate parties when the candidates appear on multiple
    lines. At least in some states, if minority parties collect more
    than some specified number of votes they'll automatically be
    included on the next election ballot. Staying home in cases where
    two votes would cancel each other out only helps the repo-men and
    the demons. :)
    ASAAR, Nov 9, 2006
    #13
  14. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:eiukl8$6lg$...
    >
    > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

    >
    > Unhappy the crooks and sleazes got kicked out???


    For a bigger bunch of sleazes.
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Nov 9, 2006
    #14
  15. Mark²

    Skip Guest

    "Andrew MacPherson" <> wrote in message
    news:memo.20061109084911.3620C@address_disguised.address_disguised...
    > (David J. Littleboy) wrote:
    >
    >> Turnout was over 40%

    >
    > That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
    > (by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
    > don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
    > significantly higher.
    >
    > There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
    > are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
    > be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
    > they represent.
    >
    > Andrew McP


    One of the primary reasons I sometimes have a problem getting motivated to
    vote is that, most times, I have a real objection to both of the major
    parties' candidates, and I hate to feel that my vote is wasted by casting it
    for one of the minor, unlikely-to-be-elected, parties, like the Peace and
    Freedom or Green.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
    Skip, Nov 9, 2006
    #15
  16. Mark²

    Jer Guest

    Skip wrote:
    > "Andrew MacPherson" <> wrote in message
    > news:memo.20061109084911.3620C@address_disguised.address_disguised...
    >> (David J. Littleboy) wrote:
    >>
    >>> Turnout was over 40%

    >> That's pretty depressing under the circumstances. However gerrymandering
    >> (by both sides) over the years probably means most voters in most places
    >> don't need to vote. I suspect the turnout in the swing States may be
    >> significantly higher.
    >>
    >> There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
    >> are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
    >> be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
    >> they represent.
    >>
    >> Andrew McP

    >
    > One of the primary reasons I sometimes have a problem getting motivated to
    > vote is that, most times, I have a real objection to both of the major
    > parties' candidates, and I hate to feel that my vote is wasted by casting it
    > for one of the minor, unlikely-to-be-elected, parties, like the Peace and
    > Freedom or Green.
    >



    No such thing as a wasted vote.

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'
    Jer, Nov 9, 2006
    #16
  17. Mark²

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:42:02 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >>> There's also a case for the argument that in US politics all candidates
    >>> are tainted by the need to raise such *huge* campaign funds. So it must
    >>> be hard to get motivated to vote for any of them and the interest groups
    >>> they represent.

    >> I often don't vote for specific offices if I know that my wife and I
    >> will vote for opposite candidates, we both just stay home. I suspect
    >> this is pretty widespread among married couples. There were about 30
    >> races on my ballot that were uncontested, so why mess with them? For
    >> the contested issues/offices my wife and I voted for the same ones more
    >> often than not, so both of us voted. ALL the candidates/issues I voted
    >> for won. Can't do better than that.

    >
    > If you don't care for the unhealthy lock the two major parties
    > have on elections (they control who is allowed in presidential
    > debates, among other things), it would be beneficial to vote for the
    > same candidates that you would otherwise vote for, but cast your
    > vote using alternate parties when the candidates appear on multiple
    > lines. At least in some states, if minority parties collect more
    > than some specified number of votes they'll automatically be
    > included on the next election ballot. Staying home in cases where
    > two votes would cancel each other out only helps the repo-men and
    > the demons. :)
    >


    First, the debates are NOT run by the parties, but by TV networks, who
    are solely responsible for choosing the parties represented.

    Second, how can offsetting votes benefit, or harm either repo-men, or
    demons (should you believe in such)?
    Ron Hunter, Nov 9, 2006
    #17
  18. Mark²

    SMS Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    > First, the debates are NOT run by the parties, but by TV networks, who
    > are solely responsible for choosing the parties represented.


    True, but often the major parties set conditions under which they will
    participate, and one of the conditions is that the minor parties are not
    allowed to participate.
    SMS, Nov 9, 2006
    #18
  19. Mark²

    SMS Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original


    I was very involved with a local ballot measure, and I have to say that
    my 20D, and Canon G2, played a big part in our overwhelming victory over
    the evil-doer developers, who outspent us about 50 to 1.

    Our mailers were awesome, with photographs and comics rather than
    excessive text, while the evil-doers must have decided to run their
    campaign without any campaign consultant as their mailers were horrible.

    Compelling photographs make the difference between someone who tosses
    the mailer in the recycle bin without a glance, versus someone that
    actually looks at it for two seconds before tossing it.
    SMS, Nov 9, 2006
    #19
  20. Mark²

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:58:57 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

    >> If you don't care for the unhealthy lock the two major parties
    >> have on elections (they control who is allowed in presidential
    >> debates, among other things), it would be beneficial to vote for the
    >> same candidates that you would otherwise vote for, but cast your
    >> vote using alternate parties when the candidates appear on multiple
    >> lines. At least in some states, if minority parties collect more
    >> than some specified number of votes they'll automatically be
    >> included on the next election ballot. Staying home in cases where
    >> two votes would cancel each other out only helps the repo-men and
    >> the demons. :)

    >
    >
    > First, the debates are NOT run by the parties, but by TV networks, who
    > are solely responsible for choosing the parties represented.


    I'm not an expert on this, but I recall reading or hearing that
    whereas at one time an independent organization (League of Women
    Voters?) managed the big televised presidential debates, at some
    point, control of debate rules, such as who is allowed to
    participate in the debate passed to a coalition of people drawn only
    from the Republican and Democratic parties. The TV networks may be
    responsible for selecting venues or moderators, but not who is
    actually allowed to participate in the debates. I'm sure that
    someone else hear knows the real debate details, but if nobody
    settles the issue, wait for the next presidential election and
    someone, somewhere will probably explain all . . .


    > Second, how can offsetting votes benefit, or harm either repo-men, or
    > demons (should you believe in such)?


    If, for instance, I wanted to vote for Elliot Spitzer for NY's
    Governor, who appeared on several lines, and I wanted to help one of
    the smaller parties, I wouldn't set the lever (NY still used big,
    clunky mechanical machines this year) for him under the Democratic
    line, but would choose one of the others that he appeared on, such
    as Green Party, Independence Party, Home Workers Party, etc. When
    Mayor Bloomberg ran, I believe that he ran on both the Republican
    and Conservative lines. It's not that votes cast via the minor
    parties would actually harm the R and D parties so much as it would
    help the minor parties, some of which might not be able to appear on
    succeeding ballots if they don't amass enough votes.
    ASAAR, Nov 9, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Helper
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    727
    Mike T.
    Aug 13, 2004
  2. JaR

    [OT] Voter IQ

    JaR, Nov 4, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    763
  3. Winston Smith

    Massive Voter Fraud -immoral with zero "values"

    Winston Smith, Nov 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    329
    Bob Harrington
    Nov 13, 2004
  4. Mike Henley

    Portrait Portrait Portrait (you gotta see this!)

    Mike Henley, Jul 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    375
    Mike Henley
    Jul 3, 2005
  5. I AM the decIder

    Un-American, "American media elitists" refuse

    I AM the decIder, May 19, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    712
    catchme
    May 25, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page