Why are so many people saying they don't want to vote for a candidate that is an underdog because their vote is wasted?
2007-10-08 15:51:26 · 16 answers · asked by Enigma 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Fateridder...Maybe people need to quit looking at history and start Making history.
2007-10-08 16:18:12 · update #1
Because in the history of the US a underdog has never won , nowadays people know he or she won't win so why vote for an underdog ? Why not just stay home ? Besides that , people realize the candidate that will win is the one with the most news coverage and an underdog hasn't gotten any or very little so no one knows who he or she is , what there policy is and after a while they could care less - sad because Ron Paul is one I believe people all over the US would support if they would stop believing nonsense and they actually knew what the man stood for , this man can seriously win in a landslide and have a 90 percent popularity ! If only he was covered in the press ......
Edit - True they should but with the alphabet networks constantly feeding people garbage 24/7 its hard to realize they will make a difference . So people instead vote for whoever is pushed , like they are something new and different , when its really the same thing in a nice outfit that gets shuffled around every few years .
2007-10-08 16:02:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It does not matter any more, even if you vote for the "lesser of two evils" you are still voting for the globalists. The Council on Foreign Relations members will always select the top two (Rep.Dem) candidates. Vote for Independent, Libertarian, or if you must vote red or blue, vote for Ron Paul, a true old time Republican.
Power to the People!
2007-10-09 07:58:12 · answer #2 · answered by mazeman25 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Even if that person lost,just voting for the candidate is not a total waste,for by casting your vote for that person,U R making yourself heard,even just a few votes can influence the way a politician does going about things.
2007-10-08 16:35:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I voted for Clinton in 1996 and he won. Big deal. Yes better than Republican Dole.
In 1999 he bombed civilians in Yugoslavia and
signed a Free Trade agreement with China that opened the floodgates for millions of U.S. jobs to be moved there.
The Vote I'm most proud of was voting for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000. He gave me hope.
An alternative from the 2 Pro-War Pro-Corporate Parties.
2004, 2008 Kucinich.
2007-10-08 16:05:52 · answer #4 · answered by Richard V 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The right candidate who ends up losing will always get my vote.
2007-10-08 16:15:16 · answer #5 · answered by Richard S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I vote for the candidate that most closely shares my views AND is most likely to win.
Otherwise, I KNOW I am wasting and possibly allowing a candidate that I totally disagree with win.
I would hate myself for that.
2007-10-08 16:03:29 · answer #6 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I always will vote for the candidate I believe will do the best job. I have to vote my conscience...
2007-10-08 15:54:38 · answer #7 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Just voting, regardless of the result of the election, is something in which I take great pride and joy.
2007-10-08 22:22:05 · answer #8 · answered by BOOM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would be most proud of casting my vote for whom I feel will represent the American people best.
2007-10-09 00:42:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This ol' man in 1990, supported, campaigned for, contributed to, and voted for ROSS PEROIT !!!
LOOK AT WHAT WE GOT, WHAT WE HAVE, and someone says that the underdog is not worth supporting and voting for???
ALL OF YOU NEO'S:: READ IT, LOOK AT IT, DIGEST IT, AND ACCEPT THIS FACT :::::: YOU WANTED IT, YOU GOT IT !!!!!!!
2007-10-09 04:29:25 · answer #10 · answered by I'M HERE 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋