I am very happy to not be voting in this election. I would vote for MontanaBob, but only if he dropped the squirrel platform. Squirrels in trees just serve to frustrate my big dog, and a frustrated dog is a lot harder to deal with!

Now, if you said a possum in every yard, at least the doggie would have something to do, and a happy doggie makes my life that much better.

Seriously though, if I had to vote, I would end up holding my nose and voting for the Dems, though they are far too big biz for me. I am a left of centre Canadian, so there is really nobody running that appeals to me all that much. Except for MontanaBob, of course.

As for you DakotaT, we have something in common - I am self employed and work far too hard to make a living for my family. But - I don't mind paying my taxes since they go to people around me in my community who need the help a lot more than I do.

Precisely because so many people are convincing themselves that they have no power. A single vote for Romney or Obama is just as useless as a single vote for anything else, it's not going to sway anything. As myself and others have already explained, what do you think would happen if even half the people completely fed up with both parties and candidates decided that enough was enough?

Ross Perot got 18.9% of the vote in '92. Pure coincidence that Clinton and the Democrats played towards the center, as well as the Republicans? When there's votes in the middle up for grabs, both parties have a block of voters they can grab by being less extreme and more cooperative, not more extreme and less cooperative.



As with everyone else, you're thinking short-term. So, Romney wins over Obama and you admit that Romney's not your choice so I'm guessing you're not thrilled with him. The Democrats will play ball with Romney about as much as the Republicans played ball with Obama, and the Democrats played ball with Bush. Little gets accomplished, our tax code remains a complete disaster with a tweak here or there, more small-scale military conflict, more mediocre economic recovery. People need to take a stand at some point or our candidates are just going to get worse and worse.

Can you explain why you feel your vote matters less than say, a citizen of Chicago? I'm genuinely curious, a lot of people seem to feel that if their vote doesn't go to the winning candidate it's worth less. I don't agree with that, but I've never heard someone explain why they feel that way.

It is not that her vote does not count. It is because so many people live in Cook County and the other large cities that it makes her feel like her vote doesn't count.

Here are a couple of maps that illustrate it. (I did not use the 2008 election map since many people across the state voted for Obama as they feel he was the "local Illinois guy".

For some reason this website decided to use blue for Bush and red for Kerry instead of the tradition red for Republican and blue for Democrat. 2004

When looking at it on a county by county basis you can see the vast majority of the state voted for Bush. The breakdown in each county was probably about 55-60% for Bush and the balance to Kerry. the same holds true for the other downstate counties that went to Kerry. When you get into Chicago (Cook County) it was 70% for Kerry. So one county more or less decided how the whole state was going to go. the overall state vote was 55% Kerry and 44% Bush. (Rounding and Libertarian votes make up the last 1%)



The same thing happened 4 years earlier in 2000. Gore won a few more counties but Chicago dictated how the state as a whole was going to go.



I know it happens in other states as well. Typically the votes in a few metro counties in California direct what is going to happen for the whole state. Metro NYC is stronger than Upstate New York. South Florida to some degree politically controls all the rest of the state. And so on in other states as well.

If there was to be a change in the manner of voting instead of it going completely to a popular vote. I would like to see something like Nebraska and Maine have. Break down the electoral votes based on Congressional districts. That way one candidate doesn't win the entire state. And the candidates can not focus the whole campaign in just a handful of swings states.

Classic... Mitt is feeling that Snickers moment.

Post of the Year!!!! And where is Obama from? Chicago. What has Obama done in his life? Nothing. He's been a politician. His life has revolved around sex. Screwing one voter at a time. He started with those of us downstate.

Romney is like a rebound fling. He may not be great, but he's better than the ex-wife!

But neither of these 2 will accomplish anything of substance. America needs to make cuts. If you personally fall behind in your finances, you cut things; cable, eating out, etc. Washington can't make cuts because it offends blocks of voters. When your priority is winning elections instead of leading, nothing will happen.

Medicare was designed when life expectancy was 20 years less than it is now. So why shouldn't it be adjusted for reality? Because it would cost someone votes.

How many of us have taken a pay cut in the last 5 years? So why can't all federal employees?

In a time when our country is struggling economically, why does the Government produce Obamacare? Because it will help wrap up some voters. Who cares if it it is wrong? Let the next guy deal with it.

Sorry for the rant. Long week.

I am all for sending a message to our elected officials. Just not by throwing away my presidential vote. And its not short term thinking, it is hopeful thinking. I am certain that Obama is wrong for the country. I am certain we cannot tax our way out of the deficit or debt. But the office of the president is to important to throw away or vote for somebody who doesn't stand a chance. If we let Obama stay in office, we are telling him he is doing ok. He isn't, and that alone is enough to not deserve a 2nd term.

Personally I don't think taxes should be raised or lowered at this point. Not until we as a country really go through our budget and cut spending to a bare minimum and determine where and what we are actually spending on. Many things can be moved to the private sector and off tax payer dime. TSA for example, 8 billion dollars, there is no reason private security cannot fill that role. 911 was not the fault of the people working security, it was just the policies. But they freaked and went overboard. Privatize them again, and not only do you move that 8 billion off the government budget, but you remove the future burden of those government worker retirements.

Herman Cain was on the right track when he said bills should be limited to 3 pages. While that may not be possible the concept is correct. We don't need 2000 page bills that not even one person knows everything in them. They need to be simple. Look at Obamacare. If it is a good idea to insure our young adults until they are 26, you right that as a bill, submit it, debate it, vote and implement. And move on to the next bill. The reason things take so long is because each bill has 200 different things on and each piece gets debated and edited before being voted on in one house, and then the same in the other house and then needs to be reconciled. Things would not only get done quicker and more efficiently, but there would be no question on where a politician stands on the issues. They couldn't blame somebody for being anit-military, because they voted a bill down because of the crap that was added into the bill.

We can send a message, through our state governments and Congress. Vote any incumbent out, make sure that each seat is not only contested by the opposite party, but by a 3rd party and the incumbents own party. We vote enough 3rd party politicians into congress, and they have no choice but to work together.