UNofficial Political Poll...

[Arnelos]

This very unoffical and informal poll is intended to gauge whether voters more typically vote (or intend to vote) with the Hawk Party, the DIA, or neither (and to what degree they tend or intend to do so).

Thank you.

QUESTION:

Which party do you tend (or intend) to more generally vote with/for in Apolytonian elections?

OPTIONS:

1. I almost always or always vote Hawk
2. I generally vote Hawk, but sometimes not
3. I lean Hawk, but my voting varies a lot
4. I vote for no party more often than any other
5. I generally avoid voting with/for parties
6. I lean DIA, but my voting varies a lot
7. I generally vote DIA, but sometimes not
8. I almost always or always vote DIA
9. I generally do not vote in elections (abstain)

[MrWhereItsAt]

I vote for the candidate I think is best or who I want to win. Always have and always will. I am proud to say I can't tell the difference between any parties named DIA, Hawks, UFC, NWO or HLA, or even which of these still exist, if they ever did.

Thus I am a number 4. It is as if I am blind to party affiliations.

[UnOrthOdOx]

nWo


All the Way!!!!!


Um. I vote who is best for the job.

[Arnelos]

I haven't voted in this poll yet, figure as the poster of the poll I shouldn't vote first

As for how I think/thought it would come out, I honestly figure (ESPECIALLY given the setting) that #4 will poll very highly, perhaps with the occassional vote for #5 as well.

[Inverse Icarus]

I generally vote Hawk, but sometimes not.

because sometimes a hawk isn't running

[Arnelos]

Well, that's my fault while trying to make the statements shorter rather than more fully descriptive . I meant that you always vote Hawk when Hawk is an option, but whatever .

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Arnelos
Well, that's my fault while trying to make the statements shorter rather than more fully descriptive . I meant that you always vote Hawk when Hawk is an option, but whatever .

i know what you meant, i was going for a humourous note

[Meshelic]

Upon further review, I noticed that this poll goes either way fairly evenly. ..

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Meshelic
Upon further review, I noticed that this poll goes either way fairly evenly. ..

Yeah, so far it's Hawk 7 (counting leans), Independent 8, DIA 7 (counting leans). Pretty darn even... I'm pretty sure that means our ACTIVE crowd is pretty evenly distributed...

I'm betting the reason why the DIA tally was so high in Duddha's poll was (1) he let everyone pick more than one option and the independents probably picked DIA more often than Hawk and (2) it seems there are a lot of DIA/builders who aren't very active... We might call them the "silent builder majority" - assuming they bother to show up at the polls

[Arnelos]

*BUMP*

Meshelic requested to have a poll something like this at the top

[Harovan]

I avoid voting for parties whatsoever. If there's an independent candidate, he has my vote in most of the cases. If not, I often abstain.

[Sean]

I avoid voting for parties whatsoever. If there's an independent candidate, he has my vote in most of the cases.


This is illogical. Either you never support parties, or sometimes you do.

[Meshelic]

Thanks Arnelos I had overlooked that previous poll, embarrasingly enough I had posted in it. Doh!

It seems that basically everyone who is an ACTIVE member here just votes independently for whoever is best candidate. I don't really like one-sided elections, so I'm glad that can be avoided here.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Meshelic
Thanks Arnelos I had overlooked that previous poll, embarrasingly enough I had posted in it. Doh!

It seems that basically everyone who is an ACTIVE member here just votes independently for whoever is best candidate. I don't really like one-sided elections, so I'm glad that can be avoided here.

I think a lot of the "parties" business is pure role-play when it comes to the elections largely because the real playstyle/strategy differences between people (especially the builder-warrior split) are handled primarily by the polls, which means the actual ministers are more implementing than creating policy - and we generally trust the most competent people, regardless of "party", to do that. So having UberKruX and now Aggie as SMC makes perfect sense, regardless of whether we're at peace or war, because they're competent. Likewise with a number of other people and their positions, which is why they can afford to run as independents and still get overwhelming support from all sides. That's just my observation, though .

[Meshelic]

Well of course but it's fun to tie it in anyways

[kring]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I vote for the candidate I think is best or who I want to win. Always have and always will. I am proud to say I can't tell the difference between any parties named DIA, Hawks, UFC, NWO or HLA, or even which of these still exist, if they ever did.

Thus I am a number 4. It is as if I am blind to party affiliations.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. It is better to vote for the person instead of the party; that is a lot of what is wrong IRL because people vote party instead of person.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by kring

that is a lot of what is wrong IRL because people vote party instead of person.

I disagree, since the main reason why it's dumb when people vote party is when either:

a) the person running from their party is a complete incompetent fool and only party voters are bothering to vote for the idiot

b) the differences between the parties are meaningless to the issues that matter in a particular election, but the voter is too lazy to inform themselves about the issues that do matter for that election and ends up just voting for the candidate(s) of their party

...

HOWEVER, parties are very useful for people of like mind and principle to organize together in order to make running elections easier and more organized. It is also useful to the voter who does not necessarily know all of the candidates terribly well, but can use the party label as a guide in cases where the party label is meaningful.

Despite the fact that the American party system has only 2 electorally effective parties and most European states have half a dozen to dozens of electorally effective parties is really no more than two variations on the same system. All the American parties are (in reality) is confederations of factions, factions that would have their own parties in most European countries. I like the European system better because each individual faction gets its own party with a label the voters can use to easily differntiate them from other factions... the key problem with the American system is that all factions are grouped into two super-parties with the same label... so the labels quickly become meaningless... which is why far more of us in the U.S. and other two-party systems are tempted to hate parties and vote person before party.

Personally, I vote person before party myself. I'm a Republican who has voted for more Democrats than Republicans in several elections for the simple reason that some of the people in charge of my party are complete and utter idiots . I mean... we're talking about a party that's put up Oliver North (a man who purposely violated the U.S. Constitution while working for President Reagan and lied to Congress in order to cover it up...) for Senate and a guy who was against public education for Lieutenant Governor in my state... I just recently voted for the Democratic candidate for Governnor in my state because the Republican candidate had the gall (gotta admit his courage, though...) to oppose even the holding of a referendum on taxes. So there are times I just wonder if the party leadership went brain-dead . But, generally, the party label can be pretty useful.

EDIT: Arnelos wonders whether Reddawg, who also lives in Virginia (though he goes to school at UVA, not necessarily a Virginia native like myself), will want to comment on my statements about Virginia politics