personally I reserve my right not to vote - People say that if you don't vote you can't complain, well I say bull as no candidate has given me reason to vote FOR them - sure there's plenty of reasons to vote AGAINST the other guy, but that is no honest reason to vote FOR 1 liar over another.

Epic! Back to the days of colonies!
Then again I dont think our lot would do a great job.

With all the money our Government has given to european banks to help sort their countries out, they could have given every British Tax payer 60,000. That would have certainly helped our economy dont you think?
But hey I'm not driven the bus, I'm just sat at the back shouting lol

"the phantom menace" That, good sir, is worthy of a .



Lol, you may be right about that, but as the legislature is supposed to be "voice" of the people, approval ratings around 10% aren't exactly good indicators of that "success".

I think I'll start campaigning for BOBA FETT 2012

Never! JANGO FETT FOREVER!!

And yet, there won't just be two names on your ballot. Sure, only two names that matter, but imo, it is better to vote your conscience even in the unlikelyhood of victory, than saying screw the system. And really, the presidential election one decision, among many that should be on you ballot.

Since the idea has been sort or referenced more than once, I respectfully submit (and suspect it may be a controversial viewpoint) that adherence to the word of the Constitution rather than its spirit is highly problematic. For example, when the Founding Fathers talked about the right to bear arms, they were talking about muskets, and were motivated by the feat that the country would be unable to defend itself against foreign invasion, not that lunatics should stockpile automatic weapons out of a paranoid fear that the revenooers might be a'comin'.

Further, the idea that the states should have equal power to the federal government is a relic of the time. It is good that the states have their say, but when one looks at the educational disparity between states (and even often within states), I think some sort of higher authority is in order. The Founding Fathers envisioned the United States of America as exactly that a series of united but distinct STATES. Today, we are a instead single sovereign entity. When the Constitution was drafted, the telephone was as-yet-unimagined, much less the Internet. The very idea that the United States would be competing in a global market against China would have been laughed off, as would have been equal rights for women and minorities.

The world is very different today than it was two centuries ago.

If US Senators were selected by the state legislatures, they would protect the interests of the state governments. Otherwise, the legislatures wouldn't return them to the US Senate. With direct election by the people, Senators don't have to worry about the power of the state governments - very few people make the balance of state government/federal government power an election issue.



Wickard v. Filburn is the most absurd example I can think of - and that's from the 1940's. If you aren't familiar with it - read about it. It sounds like it came from theonion.com.

+1776

The best advice on voting.
I agree 100%

I completely agree.

I am a hard working American who wants to see nothing more than our country succeed.
I think that it is clear we have one candidate who wants to lower the US to the world's standard and another who wants the US to be back on top where we once were.

This is an election that will determine the future for our children and grandchildren. I want to make sure I do my part.