iSideWith.com

[MegaProphet]

so are people actually going to vote for who they're most compatible with, or are you guys going to be douchebags and vote for Obama just because you don't want Romney to win?

I'm now going to explore Jill Stein (who I don't recall having ever heard of before). If she and/or Gary Johnson are actually on the ballot, I will almost certainly vote for one of them (I need to research her more to determine if this poll was really accurate or not). If not, then I will probably vote for Obama, unless Ron Paul is on the ballot (which I don't expect).

Jill Stein is only on the ballot in 38 states so she doesn't have much of a chance mathematically. Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states and the best chance of the third party candidates, but it'll be difficult for him to win if when the media continues to pretend that he doesn't exist.

So I probably won't vote for Jill Stein as it'd be a vote wasted, and though I'm most compatible with Stein I side most with Obama on economics which is a huge issue for me this election. I'm going to continue to look in to the candidates so my vote may change by election, but for now my vote is with Obama

[thegreekdog]

so are people actually going to vote for who they're most compatible with, or are you guys going to be douchebags and vote for Obama just because you don't want Romney to win?

I'm now going to explore Jill Stein (who I don't recall having ever heard of before). If she and/or Gary Johnson are actually on the ballot, I will almost certainly vote for one of them (I need to research her more to determine if this poll was really accurate or not). If not, then I will probably vote for Obama, unless Ron Paul is on the ballot (which I don't expect).

Jill Stein is only on the ballot in 38 states so she doesn't have much of a chance mathematically. Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states and the best chance of the third party candidates, but it'll be difficult for him to win if the media continues to pretend that he doesn't exist

"If the media continues to pretend that he doesn't exist?" I'm fairly sure the media will continue to pretend that he doesn't exist (as well as any other third party candidate). So I think "when" is the appropriate word there.

[MegaProphet]

Better?

[thegreekdog]

Better?

Yes. Here are 5 saxbucks.

[rdsrds2120]

I wonder who would become president if everyone in America took this test then voted accordingly...

-rd

[Mr_Adams]

So, I see a few libertarians, a few democrats, but nobody has listed a "republican" leaning result? Also, nobody has my low score of 2% agreement with Obama beat yet

I must admit, I was curious as to which single item you agreed with him about. <smile>

The one about illegals being able to get work visas. Obama says "yes" I said "Only if they pay taxes"

[Woodruff]

So, I see a few libertarians, a few democrats, but nobody has listed a "republican" leaning result? Also, nobody has my low score of 2% agreement with Obama beat yet

I must admit, I was curious as to which single item you agreed with him about. <smile>

The one about illegals being able to get work visas. Obama says "yes" I said "Only if they pay taxes"

I can see that. Did anyone else notice the discrepancies I mentioned about how some very divergent answers are noted as "very similar"?

[Mr_Adams]

So, I see a few libertarians, a few democrats, but nobody has listed a "republican" leaning result? Also, nobody has my low score of 2% agreement with Obama beat yet

I must admit, I was curious as to which single item you agreed with him about. <smile>

The one about illegals being able to get work visas. Obama says "yes" I said "Only if they pay taxes"

I can see that. Did anyone else notice the discrepancies I mentioned about how some very divergent answers are noted as "very similar"?

Listed as "disagree":

Is Global Warming a threat to the environment?

Ron Paul: Regardless, we should not devote government resources to prevent it

You: No, global warming and cooling are natural cycles beyond our control

Should the United States increase our space exploration efforts and budget?

Barack Obama: No

You: Leave funding and research to the private sector


Not quite sure how this is disagreement. it would bring about the same result, yes?

[Woodruff]

So, I see a few libertarians, a few democrats, but nobody has listed a "republican" leaning result? Also, nobody has my low score of 2% agreement with Obama beat yet

I must admit, I was curious as to which single item you agreed with him about. <smile>

The one about illegals being able to get work visas. Obama says "yes" I said "Only if they pay taxes"

I can see that. Did anyone else notice the discrepancies I mentioned about how some very divergent answers are noted as "very similar"?

Listed as "disagree":

Is Global Warming a threat to the environment?

Ron Paul: Regardless, we should not devote government resources to prevent it

You: No, global warming and cooling are natural cycles beyond our control

Should the United States increase our space exploration efforts and budget?

Barack Obama: No

You: Leave funding and research to the private sector

Not quite sure how this is disagreement. it would bring about the same result, yes?

Yep...seems like their programming needs some work.

[Mr_Adams]

So, I see a few libertarians, a few democrats, but nobody has listed a "republican" leaning result? Also, nobody has my low score of 2% agreement with Obama beat yet

I must admit, I was curious as to which single item you agreed with him about. <smile>

The one about illegals being able to get work visas. Obama says "yes" I said "Only if they pay taxes"

I can see that. Did anyone else notice the discrepancies I mentioned about how some very divergent answers are noted as "very similar"?

Listed as "disagree":

Is Global Warming a threat to the environment?

Ron Paul: Regardless, we should not devote government resources to prevent it

You: No, global warming and cooling are natural cycles beyond our control

Should the United States increase our space exploration efforts and budget?

Barack Obama: No

You: Leave funding and research to the private sector

Not quite sure how this is disagreement. it would bring about the same result, yes?

Yep...seems like their programming needs some work.

I don't know that it's so much a coding error as an input error on whoever set up the questions...

[tkr4lf]

I wonder who would become president if everyone in America took this test then voted accordingly...

-rd

Well, if we take our poll results and extrapolate, then it looks as if Paul would win by a narrow margin, followed closely with Stein.

I know everybody thinks that voting for a third candidate party is wasting their vote, but if the majority of Americans happen to agree most with a third party candidate, then why not vote for that candidate? Then the vote wouldn't be wasted. I guess whoever puts in the vote at the Electoral College could just change the vote, but the candidate would win the popular election at least.

[GreecePwns]

The nationwide rankings

1. Gary Johnson by far (strong numbers in nearly all 50 states)
2. Obama
3 and 4. Paul and Stein about even
5. Romney
6. McMillan
7. Alexander
8. Goode

[Mr_Adams]

I wonder who would become president if everyone in America took this test then voted accordingly...

-rd

Well, if we take our poll results and extrapolate, then it looks as if Paul would win by a narrow margin, followed closely with Stein.

I know everybody thinks that voting for a third candidate party is wasting their vote, but if the majority of Americans happen to agree most with a third party candidate, then why not vote for that candidate? Then the vote wouldn't be wasted. I guess whoever puts in the vote at the Electoral College could just change the vote, but the candidate would win the popular election at least.

That's the problem. They call it "wasted vote syndrome".

[Maugena]

HAW.

Mitt Romney 77%
Ron Paul 76%
Gary Johnson 73%
Barack Obama 71%
"American Voters" 56%

Green 74%
Republican 71%
Democrat 65%
Libertarian 59%

Science - Jill Stein
Immigration - Ron Paul & Mitt Romney
Foreign Policy - Barack Obama
Healthcare - Gary Johnson
The Economy - Ron Paul
The Environment - Jill Stein & Barack Obama
Domestic Policy - Gary Johnson
Social - Barack Obama

??? How does that make me back Mitt Romney the most?

[Mr_Adams]

Science - Jill Stein
Immigration - Ron Paul & Mitt Romney
Foreign Policy - Barack Obama
Healthcare - Gary Johnson
The Economy - Ron Paul
The Environment - Jill Stein & Barack Obama
Domestic Policy - Gary Johnson
Social - Barack Obama

??? How does that make me back Mitt Romney the most?

lots of second place finishes for Mr. Romney?

[Gilligan]

Mitt Romney 71%
Jill Stein 68% (Who the hell is this?)
Barack Obama 67%
Gary Johnson 64%
Ron Paul 57%
Stewart Alexander 57%
Jimmy McMillan 53%
Rhode Island 53%
Virgil Goode 52%
America 51%

[Mr_Adams]

Mitt Romney 71%
Jill Stein 68% (Who the hell is this?)
Barack Obama 67%
Gary Johnson 64%
Ron Paul 57%
Stewart Alexander 57%
Jimmy McMillan 53%
Rhode Island 53%
Virgil Goode 52%
America 51%

Well, you're just Mr. Congeniality, aren't you?

[tkr4lf]

I wonder who would become president if everyone in America took this test then voted accordingly...

-rd

Well, if we take our poll results and extrapolate, then it looks as if Paul would win by a narrow margin, followed closely with Stein.

I know everybody thinks that voting for a third candidate party is wasting their vote, but if the majority of Americans happen to agree most with a third party candidate, then why not vote for that candidate? Then the vote wouldn't be wasted. I guess whoever puts in the vote at the Electoral College could just change the vote, but the candidate would win the popular election at least.

That's the problem. They call it "wasted vote syndrome".

It's basically a logical fallacy.

It makes no sense to vote for somebody you only partially agree with when there is a candidate that you almost fully agree with. I just don't understand why somebody would vote for "the lesser of two evils" over the person that they want to win, even if that could be considered "wasting your vote." Doing so, in my opinion, is the true waste of a vote.

[Mr_Adams]

I wonder who would become president if everyone in America took this test then voted accordingly...

-rd

Well, if we take our poll results and extrapolate, then it looks as if Paul would win by a narrow margin, followed closely with Stein.

I know everybody thinks that voting for a third candidate party is wasting their vote, but if the majority of Americans happen to agree most with a third party candidate, then why not vote for that candidate? Then the vote wouldn't be wasted. I guess whoever puts in the vote at the Electoral College could just change the vote, but the candidate would win the popular election at least.

That's the problem. They call it "wasted vote syndrome".

It's basically a logical fallacy.

It makes no sense to vote for somebody you only partially agree with when there is a candidate that you almost fully agree with. I just don't understand why somebody would vote for "the lesser of two evils" over the person that they want to win, even if that could be considered "wasting your vote." Doing so, in my opinion, is the true waste of a vote.

Well said, sir.

[InkL0sed]

It's not a "logical fallacy". It's actually game theory.

[tkr4lf]

It's not a "logical fallacy". It's actually game theory.

I did qualify my statement with "basically", but perhaps that wasn't enough.

Either way, I still consider it illogical to vote for somebody that you don't agree with just so that you get the "lesser of two evils," in the false belief that only one of two candidates can win. It's entirely possible for any candidate to win, provided enough people realize that their beliefs actually match up more with a third party candidate than one of the mainstream party's candidates, and vote accordingly.

There is no reason to vote for any of the "evils" when you have "goods" in the race as well. Just my opinion. Of course, not many agree, otherwise we would very different outcomes each election.

[InkL0sed]

Uh, by "basically", you're saying that it's, at its core, illogical.

And logic isn't a matter of opinion. It's either logical or it isn't. You may not think it's the morally right thing to do, but that doesn't mean it's illogical.

[tkr4lf]

Uh, by "basically", you're saying that it's, at its core, illogical.

And logic isn't a matter of opinion. It's either logical or it isn't. You may not think it's the morally right thing to do, but that doesn't mean it's illogical.

Ok. So is it illogical or not to vote for somebody knowing that they don't most closely represent your views, with the false understanding that only one of those two can win the election?

I don't think it has anything to do with morals, I think it has to do with logic. It's not logical to assume that only one of two candidates can win, when there are 7 or 8 candidates running for the office. Any one of those candidates have a chance of being elected, provided people realize that they can vote for whoever most closely matches their own beliefs, instead of who is the lesser of the two evils.

[Baron Von PWN]

jill stein. 90%
Barrack 81%
Garry Johnson 80%
stewart alexander 70%
Jimmy Mcmillan 69%
Ron paul 61%
Virgil goode 27%
Mitt Romney 25%
American voter 59%

[jimboston]

Gary Johnson 88%
Then Ron Paul.

Of course in Massachusetts my Presidential votes doesn't matter... because we are surely going for Obama.

I have historically voted Libertarian even though he has no shot... because Mass. goes for Democrat and so my Libertarian vote is a "protest" vote.