2007-06-30 16:11:15 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
no i would vote for fred flintstone
2007-06-30 16:34:02 · answer #1 · answered by countrybooger 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even if there are not good candidates, i am sure one of them are going to side with the issues that i side with. I would most likely vote for that person. I feel that when i can my vote, I have the full right to gripe when things do not go my way, because i have done my part in the election process.
2007-06-30 23:20:33 · answer #2 · answered by Going Crazy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not old enough to vote, so obviously, i won't be voting. I'd just like to say though that I think people are more likely to vote against someone (voting for a Democrate because you don't like the Republican canidate etc.) than actually voting for someone they really agree with. The person may not even like the canidate that much, they just hate the other one so much more!
2007-06-30 23:26:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
that's amazing! i was just about to do some research on wether or not there is a minimum amount of votes needed to validate a presidential election? and wouldn't that be the perfect form of non-violent revolution?(other than if we all stopped paying taxes at once)...but actually my answer is no because my vote is very important to me and i'd at least have to vote for the lesser of two evils....very interested to see some of the responses to this question
2007-06-30 23:17:03 · answer #4 · answered by knarfwiz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I would write in a vote for a political activist who comes closest to expressing my views. In my case it would be someone from a consistent ethic group http://www.consistent-life.com . This time a candidate with no chance of winning seems to come close to my positions
http://www.voteforjoe.com . I may vote for him unless a viable candidate with a consistent ethic platform is available.
http://www.yaktivist.com -- A place to discuss developing nonlethal weapons and nonlethal pregnancy termination technology.
2007-06-30 23:24:49 · answer #5 · answered by Yaktivistdotcom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've thought about it, but generally vote for the viable candidate I hate the least. Just to stay in the habit, you know.
2007-06-30 23:14:39 · answer #6 · answered by Shel de Muse 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's always somebody good running -- it's just that it's usually somebody in a smaller party, not a Republican or Democrat. If I truly hated every single candidate, though, all six or eight or however many of them, I'd write somebody in.
2007-06-30 23:14:25 · answer #7 · answered by BlueAngelGal 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I am sure that I could find some issues to side with to pick even a poor candidate. Good question!!
2007-06-30 23:13:43 · answer #8 · answered by serendipity_siren 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I want a candidate to lower the price of gasoline. Also food.
This is becoming criminal.
2007-06-30 23:18:27 · answer #9 · answered by Michael M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a chance. There is a great candidate. Fred Thompson.
2007-06-30 23:45:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No even if they are all pittyful, one is less pittyful than the rest and it means my vote is more impotant than if we had many good people running.
2007-06-30 23:13:59 · answer #11 · answered by Canadian ¼ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋