From: chrisk-AT-pseud.pseud
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:02:26 -0600
Subject: Re: M-INTRO: Buying your vote? a response to BUCKFUSH


I have to disagree with Readhead- I don't believe Utah is becoming more
balanced.  I believe the reason one sees more Pro-Kerry
stickers/propaganda in Utah isn't becasue Utah is becoming more liberial, it's
like any town where there is a clear political minority.  This minority feels
like their voice isn't being heard so they make their voice heard by showing
support anyway possible through stickers, flags, signs, ect, especially if you
live near the U of U campus... To find the truth about Utah I decided to look
at the polls- in 2000 Bush was a clear winner of Utah's vote: 67% for Bush to
26% for Gore.  The latest polls done by American Reasearch group show Bush
pulling 65% to Kerry's 27%, I don't see balance in these polls, just much of
the same.  (if you're interested in looking at these pulls you can find them at
http://www.tripias.com/state/state.html?state=UT.)  I'm not a Democrat or a
Republican and I haven't lived in Utah very long so I'm curious to know who
these "democrat(s)" in congress are, refered to by Redhead.  I only count 1-
Jim Matheson, is there another?




Quoting REDHEAD-AT-pseud.pseud:

> As long as everyone keeps saying "my non-Republican
> vote wont make any difference in Utah" IT WON'T! If
> you look around you, dont you see alot more Pro-Kerry
> or "Buck Fush" stickers on cars as opposed to Pro-Bush
> propaganda.  Also, I know alot of Utah Republicans who
> are voting for Kerry because they agree that Bush and
> Co. blows/sucks.  Utah is ever changing.  There is a
> growing ballance between right and left.  SLC has a
> democratic mayor, we also have democrats in congress.
> I believe that the first step to changing a polarized
> State is to change our attitudes.   Redhead
>
>
> --- buckfush-AT-pseud.pseud wrote:
>
> > Since a candidate receiving 5% of the popular vote
> > becomes eligible for
> > government funding in the following election,
> > wouldn't it make sense for
> > all of those people who are in the minority in their
> > state to trade (or
> > sell) their votes to those who live in swing-states?
> >  (It is legal to
> > sell pollution permits...why not votes, which are
> > just another form of
> > pollution permits).  My Kerry vote in Utah doesn't
> > make a hill-of-beans
> > difference to the outcome.  But an extra Kerry vote
> > in Florida just
> > might.  If I make a deal with someone in Florida
> > that says they will
> > vote for Kerry if I will vote for Nader, then it has
> > two positive
> > outcomes.  That makes it more possible for Kerry to
> > win (and Bush to
> > lose) and it secures a better chance of government
> > funding of Nader in
> > the 2008 race.  A win-win situation...unless you are
> > a republican.  They
> > will probably cry "unfair" and Scalia will
> > 'interpret' the constitution
> > again.
> > Unfortunately, it isn't true that Nader caused the
> > democrats to lose in
> > 2000.  Only looking at the total percentage of the
> > popular vote is
> > terribly misleading, due to the current make-up of
> > the electoral
> > college.  It doesn't matter if a candidate loses the
> > state by one vote
> > or by 100,000 votes...the result is the same.  So
> > what if Nader got a
> > good chunk of the 2000 votes...the relevant question
> > is, which states
> > did he get those votes in?  Votes in non-swing
> > states are fine, so if
> > all of his votes came from those states (Utah, for
> > example), then his
> > presence in the 2000 race did absolutely nothing to
> > effect the outcome.
> > However, if he was receiving a lot of votes in the
> > swing-states, then
> > the people living in those states should have known
> > better than that and
> > voted democrat.  It should have been obvious that a
> > non-republican or
> > non-democrat candidate had no chance to win.  The
> > slogan "you make your
> > voice heard by voting" is true, but not necessarily
> > for the reasons we
> > might think.  Voting Nader in Florida definitely
> > made your voice
> > heard...it said loud and clear that you wanted Bush
> > to win.  They chose
> > to vote Nader, knowing that they live in a swing
> > state.  Maybe they have
> > learned something after the 2000 debacle.
> > I see nothing wrong with selling votes.  Wouldn't
> > Marx say a vote is a
> > commodity - something produced for sale or exchange?
> >  The value of my
> > vote is exchanged for the use-value of a certain
> > candidate in the White
> > House.  By selling a vote from a non-swing state to
> > a swing-state, it is
> > only making my vote heard.  It will never be so
> > heard using the present
> > system.  If we live in the greatest democracy, why
> > does my vote only
> > matter if I live in a certain geographical region?
> > Are we not one
> > union?  The fact is, we are not made up of 50 equal
> > states, but rather
> > there are only 12-15 states that have any say in a
> > presidential outcome.
> >  I will gladly vote for someone other than Kerry if
> > in so doing it
> > doesn't secure Bush to another 4 years.  Depending
> > on where you live, a
> > vote for anyone other than Kerry is tantamount to a
> > vote for Bush.  You
> > don't need a certain total amount of votes to win an
> > election,  you only
> > need 1 more than your opponent.  If I take that 1
> > vote from Kerry and
> > give it to anyone else, then Bush has a 1-vote lead.
> >  I am not voting
> > for either Kerry or Bush but I am open to any
> > un-decided swing-state
> > voter to vote for Kerry and in return I will vote
> > for whoever they want
> > me to vote for.  The buying and selling of
> > commodities in a beneficial
> > manner to all of society...Marx would be smiling in
> > his grave.
> >
> > >>> REDHEAD-AT-pseud.pseud 10/15/2004 6:50:23 PM >>>
> > Don't forget that Nader received a healthy chunk of
> > funding from the Republican party.  He was
> > theoretically blamed for the loss of the last
> > election
> > by the Democrats.  It seems that the majority of
> > conservatives tend to vote Republican.  On the other
> > hand, the liberals don't all tend to vote Democrat.
> > Many liberals will vote 3rd party because they want
> > to
> > "fight the norm", when in turn it just dilutes their
> > voting power.  That was my mistake during the 2000
> > election when I wasted my vote on Nader.  I would
> > like
> > nothing more than to elect a 3rd party to office.  I
> > just don't know if America/Rest of the World, can
> > endure 4 more years of the current regime while we
> > wait for it.  Just remember that their is a good
> > reason why Nader got his funding.     REDHEAD
> >
> >
> >
> > --- nhuggs-AT-pseud.pseud wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, there is actually a website that explains it.
> >
> > > Here it is:
> > >
> > > http://www.votepair.org/
> > >
> > > I don't really agree with it, but oh well.  The
> > > issue of getting a third
> > > party candidate money is an interesting one.  If a
> > > candidate receives 5% of
> > > the popular vote the party then qualifies for
> > > government funding in the
> > > following election.  It seems like most people in
> > > this election are voting
> > > for one candidate or the other only because they
> > > cannot stand the other.  I
> > > think we as Americans should have more than two
> > > choices and should therefore
> > > explore the platforms of the other parties.  We
> > all
> > > know who will win the
> > > vote from Utah, but don't forget the third party
> > > candidates.  Here are a
> > > couple of links for those who want info but don't
> > > know where to find it:
> > >
> > > http://www.elections.utah.gov/2004candidates.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.voteutah.org/
> > >
> > > Voteutah.org is a great site that gives
> > non-partisan
> > > info on where the
> > > candidates stand on the issues in the local races.
> >
> > > To me the local offices
> > > are much more important and affect our lives much
> > > more than the presidential
> > > race.  Get informed and get out and vote!!!
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:
> > owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> > >
> >
> [mailto:owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]
> >
> > > On Behalf Of
> > > JimmieJ-AT-pseud.pseud
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:24 PM
> > > To: marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> > > Subject: M-INTRO: Buying your vote?
> > >
> > > Today I heard a report on trading Nader votes for
> > > Kerry votes.  I found it
> > > disturbing and intriguing at the same time.
> > Living
> > > in Utah, we have no sway
> > >
> > > in the Electoral College, pretty much not giving
> > us
> > > any choice in our
> > > president but the report was saying there are
> > > websites that will put
> > > individuals together to vote for their candidates.
> >
> > > So if a Nader voter in
> > > the east will exchange his vote for a Kerry vote
> > > than Nader is given more
> > > government funds for his next campaign.  It is
> > > ironic though, that the
> > > person on the east could possible say he'll vote
> > for
> > > Kerry but end up voting
> > >
> > > for Nader to give him more money.  I wonder what
> > > Marx would say about this
> >
> === message truncated ==>
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
>
>
>      --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>





     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---