Yay, another political thread!

[Sasquatch]

The United States election for President (and 33 of the 100 Senators, and all Representatives, and 13 Governors) takes place on November 6th, less than a month away. One debate between Presidential candidates has already been held, and there will be (I believe) two more, in addition to a debate between Vice Presidential candidates.

So who do you support?

(My intention here isn't to make a "your candidate is teh suxxors lololol" thread, but merely a poll on which candidates are supported and why. Inevitably, however, I suspect that some questions will be raised, and I'm sure that some inaccurate statements, accusations, and insults will be made, and shall be addressed.)

If you are unaware how you would side with each candidate on specific issues, here is a simple test that you can take. It doesn't take a long time, and you can make it as general or as specific as you'd like.

For those of us that are politically active, however ... who are you voting for, and why?

I would also appreciate input from those who are not legally allowed to vote in United States elections.

Personally, I'm pulling for Romney/Ryan. Partially because Romney has plans for creating jobs instead of raising taxes, partially because Ryan is a conservative and will bring more balance to the ticket, partially because they have both voiced support for self-reliance, fiscal responsibility, and Constitutional rights such as the right to self-protection and life ... and partially because they aren't Obama. Our economy is worse, our international standing lower, our taxes higher, and our rights more restricted than when Obama stepped into office nearly four years ago.

[Rowan]

Mitt Romney 79 percent
Gary Johnson 71 percent
barack Obama 60 percent
American Voters 53 percent


I answered the questions in the quiz in how I would feel if I was living in the USA
I honestly havn't got a great grasp on American politics other than that I know obama wants to introduce a similar system to Americans that we already have in Australia (please correct me if I'm wrong) and although I did once believe that our system works well in the sense that people who are too sick to afford care can get back to work with our tax funded healthcare, I dont think this would be a good idea for Americans because I believe the poverty rate there is far higher than Australia and giving free healthcare to non-tax payers would create discord amoung citizens and create an opening for more people to abuse the system rather than getting back into jobs (which reomney promised to try and create and obama did not)

EDIT: I usually draw penis's on the balot paper. In Australia, if you do not get your name signed off that you've voted, you recieve a $90 (or thereabouts) fine in the mail. Does the USA also recieve fines for not voting?

[Clint]

I will not be voting in the upcoming election, because I don't like either of the candidates. I watched the debate, because I was rather unsure as to who to vote for, but it didn't help much. Romney came off as a lying, two-faced hypocrite, and Obama came off as a typical politician avoiding to answer questions.

My reasons for not voting are simple. A third party can never and will never be elected, and the cons of both Obama and Romney outweigh the pros. So lets break this down.

First off, reasons why I'm not voting for Obama. In the President's own words, the Constitution is a nuisance and a rather flawed document. That shows disrespect for American culture, history, and it's people. He created the largest spending bills in US history, giving billions upon billions of dollars to banks and big business corporations that more than likely didn't need a bailout to begin with, while allowing thousands of small businesses to crumble in the process, putting even more people out of work. Not to mention that he wasted time, effort, and money on his gigantic failure, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare. He's also created the biggest budget deficit of any U.S. President. The man is a huge failure.

I will not be voting for Mitt Romney because he doesn't care about the middle and lower class. He says he does. He says he wants to lower taxes on the middle class. I heard that clear as day during the debate. But history doesn't lie. As Governor, Romney raised fees on things like gasoline, gun licenses, marriage licenses, and drivers licenses, which isn't good for people who don't make too much money, especially those who lost their jobs due to Obama's bailout of big business corporations. This decision as Governor reflects policies indicating that he doesn't give a shit about anybody who makes average to low wage.

Either way this election goes, the middle and lower class are on their own again.

As for congress, they all deserve to be fired for the shit job they're doing running my country. The problem with these politicians is that they sit on their asses as we demand results, and they say our demands can wait. They're arrogant. They think we work for them. It's the other way around. They work for us, and they're not doing their jobs.

The fact of the matter is they're profiting off of financial losses from the middle class. The average income rate for middle class families from the beginning of the recession in 2007 to now has declined about 35%. Since 2007, the rate of pay for a politician in congress increased some 40%. I honestly don't see where any of that makes sense, and how crooks who steal money deserve a vote.

[Cyanist]

Romney: 78%
Jill Stein: 68%
Virgil Goode: 65%
Obama: 61%
and 60% American Voters (is that the percentage that agrees with me or something?)

I'm tempted to go with Stein.

Wow, Clint, maybe you should be running for president?

[Alpha]

You don't have an applicable option for me. I'm not eligible to vote, and if I was, I'd most likely not vote. If I did, it'd be for a third party candidate, probably Jill Stein (she's Green right? I have never heard or read her name in any news ever).

Why vote when there are really only two options? Two remarkably similar options. The entire spread of the political spectrum from Obama to Romney would be captured by about 45% of ours, encompassing the centre-right National Party (socially 'liberalish', fiscally 'conservativeish' = Obama, currently in power with about 45% support, which is remarkably high) and the Conservative Party (with about 3% support, which is insufficient for Parliamentary representation = Romney).

I'd not vote for either of these. If those were my only two legitimate options, I'd feel disenfranchised. My ideologies are barely expressed. Which is why I have HUGE reservations about the entire American political system. My government is comprised of a coalition of four parties (National, libertarians, indigenous, and a party I don't have an adequate label for). Not one. The opposition is another four parties, including social democrats, environmentalist social democrats, nationalists/populists, and socialists/indigenous rights. If you fit into one of these, you can be represented in Parliament. I'm immensely proud of this system, and incredibly bemused by the non-choice that is the American election process.

[Aerif]

I'm not an American and not eligible to vote in the United States - and like Alpha I would most likely choose not to vote if given only the choice between Obama and Romney. In the most recent general election in the United Kingdom I chose to vote tactically since I don't like the Conservative party at all - and voted Labour. I guess I'd do the same sort of thing if I was an American.

I took the quiz though:

Jill Stein: 82%
Barack Obama: 73%
Rocky Anderson: 71%
Gary Johnson: 60%
Mitt Romney: 57%
Virgil Goode: 39%
American voters: 54%

I don't know how I feel about this at all. Mostly because 'Justice Party' sounds like something the BNP would call themselves.

[Heartless Angel]

Romney/Ryan for me. Primarily because he's not Obama. But, I'll be unhappy either way. Don't like either of them. I've yet to see a politician anywhere that I like. Between the two I dislike Obama a great deal more, only reason I'm bothering to vote at all.

[Dranzer]

92%
Barack Obama Democrat

85%
Jill Stein Green

68%
Rocky Anderson Justice

28%
Mitt Romney Republican

First, I've been accused of being a bleeding heart liberal before. Admittedly, it really only bleeds on certain issues, there are a few that I take a more "conservative" stance on (gun-control and immigration policies if you care to know). In all honesty, I like Obama, but I didn't realize this until the campaigns were under way. So this epiphany could have two reasons for happening: one) I just never paid the man that much attention in the first place to realize that I did in fact like him, or two) Mitt Romney came into the picture and that man only looks good when compared to someone like, let's say Rush Limbaugh. Why vote for Obama? Well, I agree with him more than I do the other plausible choice. I used to have the ideal that I'd rather not vote, but not voting (IMO) is worse than voting for someone you can agree with on some or most topics. Let's face it, as it's been previously stated in this thread: the choices are limited. A third party will never be elected, so there are only two choices. If you don't vote for either, then your vote doesn't matter to the larger scheme of things. If you don't vote at all, you really don't have the right to bitch about who does get elected because your decision to not vote implies that you don't give a shit either way. For a brief overview of what I believe, I'll copy and paste this post I made a few days ago. The intention behind it wasn't political, but it fits to make my point.

In a nutshell: We, as a nation, are obligated to help those less fortunate than ourselves. We, as a nation, are obligated to give equal rights to all citizens regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. We, as a nation, are obligated to invest more in our environment than in war. We, as a nation, are obligated to treat one another with dignity and respect.

There are those who abuse such things, but there are those in desperate need of them. It is not fair to allow those who take advantage of generosity, choose to ignore opportunity to gain responsibility, and show complete disregard for anyone else around them to ruin it for those who are in need.

Less fortunate than ourselves: the poor, the starving, and the homeless Americans. Yes, I believe the wealthy should be placed in a higher tax bracket than the middle and lower classes so that funding can be given to fight "the war on poverty and hunger". To me, that's a huge issue. In January I hope to be participating in a service learning opportunity through my school to go to NYC for a week to work in various soup kitchens and food pantries in Manhattan and the surrounding boroughs. There are approximately 1.3 million New Yorkers who experience hunger on a daily basis, and that is New York alone. I don't believe Mitt Romney is the likely candidate to address such an issue appropriately when he's more concerned with "national security" and becoming "energy independent".

Equal rights: healthcare, marriage equality, education. We need to stop picking and choosing which rights should go to whom just because a mormon's bible says so, or the NIV bible says so, etc. Religion doesn't belong in politics, and I really believe structured religion has been the biggest source of destruction to mankind as a whole (the holy wars, the spanish inquisition, the islamic ji-had, etc.) They accomplished nothing but the loss of innocent lives in the name of "God". Healthcare, yes, I believe every human being has the right to live a healthy life, and that includes having a physician overseeing their care from infancy to old age. Go ahead, tax me for it, and reduce the benefits of congress a tad while you're at it. They talk of entitlements, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Education, funding should be given to citizens so they can better themselves and go into a career field of their choosing to be an active member of society. Every citizen has the right to the American dream.

Invest more in environment, than in war. Self-explanitory. Green energy, clean energy. We've screwed up our planet enough, we really should start investing in the longterm now rather than short term oil choices, etc. Regardless of the situation with the middle east, we won't have a planet left, let alone a country if we really don't start to consider other options. Romney's idea of clean energy is to burn clean coal. Does anyone else notice an oxymoron there? There is no such thing as clean coal. Ever. You can reduce the amount of pollutants that are admitted into the atmosphere, but they aren't by any means clean. Acid rain, food contamination, water contamination, global warming. They are real issues. Yes, we need to always look out for the security of the nation, but my point is there won't be a nation if we continue down this path of killing countless ecosystems and needlessly depleting our natural resources.

(EDIT SIDE NOTE: The first debate was a joke on both parties. Obama had several opportunities to defend himself and didn't. He walked into the White House with two wars not paid for from the previous Republican president. He gets blamed entirely too much and people seem to forget or acknowledge the mistakes Bush made. When Clinton left office there was a surplus. If this is incorrect, correct it by all means. And Romney taking ownership of Massachusetts being the most successful state when it comes to education? It was like that before you, sir. He's a joke, IMHO.)

Dignity and Respect. The science of politics kills this ideal completely, but I still believe it. We're not going to accomplish anything if all congress does is argue back and forth, nitpicking at the stupidest shit and ignoring the bigger picture.

I said previously my views on gun-control and immigration differed from my "liberal" views. I believe that we, as citizens of the USA have the right to bear arms. Now, if you have an untreated mental illness and are declared mentally incompetent, or a convicted felon of a violent crime, then no you should not own a firearm by any means. Immigration, this sounds harsh, but if you're here illegally, go back to wherever it is that you came from. Sorry, but we, as a nation, cannot begin to help people from other countries if we don't start taking care of our own kind first. One step a time please, it'd be nice if we could, but it's not realistic. Period. Illegal immigrants should not be getting hired for jobs that an American could have. Illegal immigrants should not have access to government funding for education that an American citizen could have, etc. That isn't fair, and IMO is in violation of the rights of an American citizen. That being said, I don't believe that immigrants should be treated unjustly, and if they're starving we need to feed them. If they're sick, we need to treat them. Then, when they are well enough to go home, we need to make sure they arrive there safely. I also don't agree that a child of an illegal immigrant should automatically be granted citizenship when said illegal immigrant shouldn't be here in the first place. There are laws for a reason, apply for citizenship appropriately, or leave.

That's my two cents, if there are grammatical errors, etc. I apologize, it's wtf o'clock and I have class in 6 hours and 45 minutes, have a wonderful night everyone.

[Sasquatch]

Why vote when there are really only two options. Two remarkably similar options. The entire spread of the political spectrum from Obama to Romney would be captured by about 45% of ours, encompassing the centre-right National Party (socially liberalish, fiscally conservativeish)= Obama, currently in power with 45-ish% support, which is remarkably high) and the Conservative Party (with about 3% support, which is insufficient for Parliamentary representation (=Romney).

Just because neither party is as extreme as you'd like to see does not in the least mean that they are "remarkably similar". And where do you get that Obama is "centre-right" or in any way conservative, even "conservativeish"? The man has made plans -- some of which, followed through on -- to nationalize nearly every aspect of business ... that's nowhere near "conservativeish". Romney, while more conservative (read: less extreme liberal) than Obama, isn't even conservative.

Did anybody watch the Vice Presidential Candidates debate last night? I'd like to get a take on that. I can't remember which commentator said it, but I'd have to agree with him ... if somebody was to read the transcript, it was a tie; if they were to listen to it, Biden won; and if they were to watch it, Ryan won.

Biden has historically been a tough debate opponent. He was obviously prepared with points, data, and rebuttals to expected counter-points. He also looked aggressive and proactive -- extremely different than Obama in his debate with Romney last week -- as opposed to Ryan, who was more passive and reactive. Unfortunately for him, Biden went too far with it. He grinned like an idiot and chuckled, even laughed, during most of the time Ryan was speaking -- this went well past reflecting confidence and instead displayed arrogance and disrespect. Not only that, but also, the vast majority of his "points" and "data" has been debunked. There comes a point that one cannot blame false information ignorance or slight manipulation of facts, but must admit that it is a flat-out lie. Simple facts are in direct contrast to many of Biden's attacks on Romney/Ryan policies (their Medicare plan, their "five trillion dollar tax cut" that doesn't exist, etc. etc.).

If I was extremely ignorant of any facts, Biden would have looked great. Disrespectful and rude, very much, but still good. It's just too bad for him that most people that give a damn about a Vice Presidential Candidate debate are typically a little more politically enlightened than the average voter.

[Rhaps]

83% Obama
75% Stein
74% Johnson
64% Romney

Obviously, I'm more liberal than anything, but I've recently learned it's more of an aggressive liberal, like FDR, rather than a bleeding heart. It's a bit difficult to explain.

Anyway, I just turned 18, so for this to be an election year is really exciting. As for the candidates, not so much. The way I see it, we're in a mess. A huge, nearly irreversible mess. There is no way for either candidate to completely reverse it during their term, be it either Romney or Obama. While Romney doesn't care about the middle or lower class, I hate to say it, I bet he'd know what to do as far as getting the economy moving in the right direction. Obama can too, but it seems like he's been more preoccupied with other pressing issues. Romney and I don't share very many views, almost none at all, and for that reason I'll be voting Obama.

An aside, I wish Hilary Clinton were running again. When Bill Clinton was in office, the U.S. was back into the green economically, even after George H. W. Bush's economic policies. I'm almost positive that if we had a Clinton back in office, we could make it back out of our debt. But sadly, Bill failed his role as Chief Citizen, and the U.S. at large won't vote for Hilary, so now we're stuck deciding between Obama or Romney. The Electoral College needs to be repealed. With it, we can only vote between two parties, and honestly, before today I had never heard of Stein, but she seems like a nice alternative to the choices I've got this November.

[Alpha]

Just because neither party is as extreme as you'd like to see does not in the least mean that they are "remarkably similar". And where do you get that Obama is "centre-right" or in any way conservative, even "conservativeish"? The man has made plans -- some of which, followed through on -- to nationalize nearly every aspect of business ... that's nowhere near "conservativeish". Romney, while more conservative (read: less extreme liberal) than Obama, isn't even conservative.

They're remarkably similar because they ARE remarkably similar. Yes, they do have points of difference, but if Obama wanted to differentiate himself from Romney, where's his policy for a guaranteed basic income as suggested by two of the parties currently in my Parliament? Where is his mention of climate change? Where is his non-interventionist foreign policy? Where is his universal healthcare (not health insurance)? Why are they both Christian? Why are they both very, very wealthy? Why are they both straight and male? Where are his policies on indigenous rights? Where is his call for much tighter tobacco, alcohol and gun regulation? Obama is 'conservativeish' because he would be if I placed him into the political spectrum with which I'm familiar. The leader of the party with which I compared Obama broadly supports gay marriage, but rather than doing anything proactive about it, has not pressed the issue at all, referring to it as unimportant. In fact in the own words of the National Party's deputy-leader, their most accurate American equivalent are the Democrats. Thus, both Obama and Romney are on the right side of the NZ political spectrum with which I am more familiar (and I'd argue the same for elsewhere). Given that most of my views are on the other side of that spectrum, the only reason I'd vote for Obama would be because he is a 'lesser evil'--not because I'd ever do the same as him were I President.

With only two candidates who have a legitimate chance, their policies are BOTH gunning for what's known as the median voter. Whoever secures the median voter wins. This system does not encourage a great deal of differentiation.

Although Sasquatch, I'll admit I don't really understand how votes for Governors and Congresspeople work. Can you or someone else please walk me through that? How many candidates are there?

From what I watched of the VP debate, I agree with Sasquatch. Ryan seemed like a great debater, but not always through merit of his substance or his ability to phrase his points, but because Biden was sitting there chuckling like a child.

[Anthiena]

I am an out and out socialist but I'll vote for Obama. There is way more that I think that Romney will do that I will hate than Obama. At least Obama won't screw us completely IMHO.

[Sasquatch]

Yes, they do have points of difference, but if Obama wanted to differentiate himself from Romney, where's his policy for a guaranteed basic income as suggested by two of the parties currently in my Parliament?

Obama supports a much higher federal "minimum wage" and is proud of the fact that more people are on government assistance -- receiving a guaranteed basic income paid for by those who actually work -- than at any point in American history. I believe it's referred to as the "Cloward-Piven Strategy".

Where is his mention of climate change?

Obama: "This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet."

Where is his non-interventionist foreign policy?

You mean his claim that, despite Americans being slaughtered abroad, we need to be careful not to hurt anybody's feelings? His apology tour? His fixed timetables (drawn up well before he entered office, mind you, with the intention of being conditional) to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, no matter what, at specific times?

Where is his universal healthcare (not health insurance)?

When private doctors leave because they won't get paid private rates, public doctors will take the business, expanding the public healthcare that already exists exponentially. "Universal healthcare" (more than the emergency and life-saving care that all Americans are already entitled to) is well on its way.

Why are they both Christian?

Debatable. While I've already had some schmuck (I think it was here on TFF) try to claim that LDS isn't Christian, Obama's faith is certainly under question. Obama has disavowed the so-called Christian pastor that he once claimed as his "spiritual mentor", has stated that he would side with Islam in a large-scale war, and has not at all acted according to his claimed faith.

Why are they both very, very wealthy?

Because a person has to be financially successful, to some extent, to be considered for higher office. Why would you want to vote for somebody to run a country that can't even balance his own checkbook?

Why are they both straight and male?

Why does it matter?

Where are his policies on indigenous rights?

Like his backing of the United Nations Indigenous Rights Declaration?

Where is his call for much tighter tobacco, alcohol and gun regulation?

Ummm ... Like his call for a ban on so-called "assault weapons", ban on tobacco that isn't regular or menthol (flavored cigarettes other than mentol), and twenty-one billion dollar tax increase on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms (41% increase in taxes in 2009 from the same things, including a 45% increase on taxes for firearms and ammunition? Or his Fast & Furious program, designed and enacted to allow fully-automatic (illegal) firearms to be transferred, unchecked, into Mexico -- where they have been used to murder hundreds of civilians, in addition to at least one American Border Patrol agent -- in order to demonize firearm distributors?

Obama is 'conservativeish' because he would be if I placed him into the political spectrum with which I'm familiar.

I can understand where you're coming from. But if you are only familiar with an extremely liberal political spectrum -- and not familiar with Obama's extremely liberal stances -- anybody who isn't as extreme would be considered more conservative. On the same note, if I was only familiar with an extreme-right political spectrum in which libertarian was "moderate", Romney would appear "liberalish". Or, actually, very liberal, since he's barely "conservativish" in our own political spectrum.

Although Sasquatch, I'll admit I don't really understand how votes for Governors and Congresspeople work. Can you or someone else please walk me through that? How many candidates are there?

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, so I'll try to explain the entire setup. I'll use Wisconsin as an example, since I live here.

Each of the 50 states in the United States has a Governor, two Senators, and a number of Representatives (also called Congressmen/Congresswoman/Congresspeople), according to their respective populations. Wisconsin has eight Representatives, if I recall correctly. The entire state votes for the two Senate seats and the Governor, but Representatives are selective per district. Each state is divided into Congressional Districts, and only residents of each District can vote for their respective Representative. Let's say I live in Wisconsin District 1, and you live in Wisconsin District 2. We could both vote for Senators and Governor, but I could only vote for the Representative for District 1, and you only for District 2. Whichever ones are elected by their respective Districts end up together in Washington. So you could have an extreme liberal from Madison, WI elected in the same election as a conservative from northern (rural) WI, because the same people aren't voting for both of them.

This also brings into play "gerrymandering", which is the redrawing of Congressional districts to benefit certain political parties. Say ... if a state with two districts is 52% Democrat and 48% Republican, a Democrat might want the districts drawn to reflect that slight majority throughout every (in this case, both) districts -- therefore, the state would elect two Democratic Representatives. A Republican, however, would want to concentrate each group into a separate district, differentiating the two. Say, a Republican draws one district to include the areas in a state with the highest population density (most likely to vote Democrat), and the other district to include the more rural areas (most likely to vote Republican). This would give a Democrat a stronger majority in one district, but it would also give Republicans a majority in the other district, opening the door for one candidate of each party, instead of two from the opposing party. Basically, it's the idea of spreading your party's support out (and concentrating or spreading the opposing party's support) to maximize your elected officials.

I'm not sure if I explained it fully. If not, send me a message and I'll try to clarify it for you.

As far as the number of candidates ... Usually, political parties don't get involved in lower state-level politics. Governors, yes, but state legislatures and such, not much. Because of this, the very small elections might have four or five candidates -- because none have an endorsement -- but bigger elections (federal office, Governor, etc.) have a Republican and a Democratic candidate, if nothing else. Basically, only Democrats and Republicans have a chance of being elected, for the most part.

Anyway. All four debates are over, and the election is a week and a half away. Any final thoughts from anybody, as we near November 6th?

[Alpha]

My point with all those statements was not to suggest that they have literally identical positions on any of those issues. They don't. But when watching the debates, I was struck by how Obama and Romney were competing about who was going to dig THE MOST coal, or who would throw THE MOST money at the military. Even if you support both of those principles, you have to acknowledge that it's hardly a complete debate. I thought it was a sad indictment on the state of American democracy.

After watching the minor parties debate, I quite like Rocky Anderson, of the Justice Party. I've read that from beginning only last year, it's now the sixth-largest party with a candidate for President.

When I liked him on Facebook, I saw that he only had 10,000 'likes'. I decided to check my favourite New Zealand politician, Russel Norman. He has 5,000 friends, and co-leads the third-biggest party in Parliament, attracting 11% support in the 2011 election. Now I hate quoting Facebook stats and trying to divine meaning. I hate when the media does it. But I just couldn't believe how the candidate of the 6th largest party in a nation of 300 MILLION people has only 10,000 Facebook likes, as though he is relegated to politics nerds' Facebook Newsfeeds, and not an actual part of the debate, despite being the only candidate that I could vote for without holding my nose, the only candidate I'd be proud of voting for.

The absolute need for electoral reform is the only thing I get out of this election.

Also, Sas, on gerrymandering... who is responsible for drawing boundaries? Is it an independent commission like it should be?

Rocky Anderson 85%
Jill Stein 72%
Gary Johnson 68% (foreign policy and social issues)
Barack Obama 55%
Mitt Romney 6%
American voters 58%

[Sasquatch]

My point with all those statements was not to suggest that they have literally identical positions on any of those issues. They don't.

You claimed that they were "remarkably similar", then addressed stances that Obama would take if he wanted to differentiate himself from Romney ... so I pointed out that he has taken those stances, and thus is much different than Romney.

But when watching the debates, I was struck by how Obama and Romney were competing about who was going to dig THE MOST coal, or who would throw THE MOST money at the military.

... Did you watch the same debates I watched? I didn't see anything of the sort -- on the issue of coal, Obama wants to get out of it entirely while Romney wants to pursue clean coal technologies. And on military money, Obama wants to scale back nearly everything, while Romney wants to pursue what's been proven to work well and scale back on what has been proven to do nothing but waste.

Even if you support both of those principles, you have to acknowledge that it's hardly a complete debate. I thought it was a sad indictment on the state of American democracy.

I wouldn't say that every debate needs a couple of legitimate candidates amongst a few complete whack-jobs to be considered a "complete debate". That's why Ron Paul never had a chance -- he was great on some issues, but on others (see: foreign policy), he was a complete loon. Weed out the crazies, and let the legitimate candidates duke it out.

Also, Sas, on gerrymandering... who is responsible for drawing boundaries? Is it an independent commission like it should be?

Sometimes. Usually, it's either the state legislature (and thus, the majority party has more control), or by an independent commission appointed by the state legislature (and thus ... well, yeah, the majority party still has more control). However, minority parties will raise hell if there appears to be an advantage, and any redistricting has to be approved through legislative means anyway, so it would get (and, on many occasions, has gotten) filibustered instead of becoming permanent.

[Alpha]

You claimed that they were "remarkably similar", then addressed stances that Obama would take if he wanted to differentiate himself from Romney ... so I pointed out that he has taken those stances, and thus is much different than Romney.

I could list about ten different policies for any of those issues that Obama could take if he were interested in further differentiating himself from Romney.

... Did you watch the same debates I watched? I didn't see anything of the sort -- on the issue of coal, Obama wants to get out of it entirely while Romney wants to pursue clean coal technologies. And on military money, Obama wants to scale back nearly everything, while Romney wants to pursue what's been proven to work well and scale back on what has been proven to do nothing but waste.

Obama (2nd debate): "So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment." "And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy — and keep in mind when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, this plant kills, and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal. So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil; same thing with natural gas." "The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment."

Romney (2nd debate): "Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities — ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix. But what we don’t need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal." "I — it’s absolutely true. Look, there’s no question but that the people recognize that we have not produced more oil — and gas on federal lands and in federal waters. And coal — coal production is not up, coal jobs are not up. I was just at a coal facility where some 1,200 people lost their jobs. The right course for America is to have a true all-of-the-above policy. I don’t think anyone really believes that you’re a person who’s going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal." "That was a statement. I don’t think — (chuckles) — the American people believe that. I will fight for oil, coal and natural gas. And the proof — the proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you’re paying at the pump. If you’re paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then the strategy is working. But you’re paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about a buck eighty-six a gallon. Now it’s four bucks a gallon. Price of electricity is up. If the president’s energy policies are working, you’re going to see the cost of energy come down. I will fight to create more energy in this country to get America energy-secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia where the people want it."

Obama (3rd debate): "Our military spending has gone up every single year that I've been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined."

Romney (1st debate): "The role of government: Look behind us. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a military second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America's military."

I wouldn't say that every debate needs a couple of legitimate candidates amongst a few complete whack-jobs to be considered a "complete debate". That's why Ron Paul never had a chance -- he was great on some issues, but on others (see: foreign policy), he was a complete loon. Weed out the crazies, and let the legitimate candidates duke it out.

It's not for you to decide who's a whack-job and who isn't. If people aren't hearing about ALL of the potential choices for President, they are not making an informed decision about who to vote for. As far as I'm concerned, a debate for a national election isn't complete or even legitimate if every party contesting it is not included.

Sometimes. Usually, it's either the state legislature (and thus, the majority party has more control), or by an independent commission appointed by the state legislature (and thus ... well, yeah, the majority party still has more control). However, minority parties will raise hell if there appears to be an advantage, and any redistricting has to be approved through legislative means anyway, so it would get (and, on many occasions, has gotten) filibustered instead of becoming permanent.

That sounds like a terrible way to arrange something so important.

[Sasquatch]

I could list about ten different policies for any of those issues that Obama could take if he were interested in further differentiating himself from Romney.

But you wouldn't have to -- you would only have to list a few, which is what I did. Just because he's not the polar opposite doesn't mean that he's not very different.

Obama (2nd debate): "So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment." "And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy — and keep in mind when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, this plant kills, and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal. So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil; same thing with natural gas." "The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here’s what I’ve done since I’ve been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it’s been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment."

Coal production and employment have gone down since Obama stepped into office, primarily due to regulations enacted by his EPA. This, despite what Obama claims, is fact ... so much so that Obama's "war on coal" is now as big of a campaign phrase as the imaginary "war on women", enough so that a cluster of bills made its way through Congress as the "Stop the War On Coal Act". Hell, Obama didn't even add clean coal to his list of energy priorities until this May, after he came close to losing a Democratic primary election to a federal inmate in West Virginia (a big coal state). Hundreds of coal plants, thousands of jobs, and dozens of millions of tons of coal production have been lost. And that completely ignores the fact that we don't need to burn coal to get energy from coal -- we can instead extract natural gas or petroleum from it. Again, despite Obama's claims, this is fact. (If you'd like to research this yourself, I would encourage it. If you would like to be provided with links to studies and such, I would be happy to accommodate.)

As for oil, Obama has stifled drilling on federal land (you know, the stuff he has control over). Oil and natural gas production actually went down (by 14 and 9 percent, respectively) in 2011, and right now is still not up to 2010 levels. And not only has Obama refused to open federal lands -- for example, 30,000 square miles of barren tundra in Alaska -- for drilling that would make our country much more energy independent, he has also nixed projects such as the Keystone Oil Pipeline, which would have created jobs, dropped oil and gas prices, and reduced foreign dependency.

On the coal plant that Romney was proud to close ... that was one of five that continually ignored many standard regulations, pumping out toxins much worse than even the average "dirty coal" plant, and studies found that it actually did result in annual deaths. That by no means meant that Romney was against coal at any point, it meant that Romney was against companies refusing to comply with safety and health regulations.

You have to look at what they do, not what they say. Obama has "invested" millions of dollars into cleaner energy, quite a bit of which went to campaign contributors that went bankrupt shortly after being pumped full of taxpayer money. He's cut opportunities for oil and gas production, and made coal regulations so strict that they are forcing job and production losses.

Obama (3rd debate): "Our military spending has gone up every single year that I've been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined."

Obama's current plan is to cut nearly half a trillion dollars from the United States defense budget over the next decade. That's in addition to the sequestration implemented earlier in his term that cuts another half-trillion -- a sequestration that he has done everything he can to ensure does not get lifted and instead begins on schedule in early 2013. He has even turned it into a political move, advising defense contractors not to obey laws that dictate they inform their employees at least 60 days in advance of nearly one million layoffs (in violation of the WARN Act of 1988), and additionally, telling the companies that the federal government (read: taxpayers) will cover their legal costs, should they disregard the law as told. (Remember, this is in addition to his transference of funds from combat training and equipment to EO and logistics associated with signing away DADT ... and also remember that many servicemembers readily remember their paychecks being cut in half for a few months straight, even while in combat zones, during 2011, because Obama held military pay hostage under the budget until Congress pushed through his bills.)

Again. What they do, not what they say.

It's not for you to decide who's a whack-job and who isn't.

I would argue that as a voter, yes, it is my job to decide who is a reasonable candidate and who isn't. The voters, after all, decide the candidates -- the whack-jobs are the ones who get the least support (see: Ron Paul).

If people aren't hearing about ALL of the potential choices for President, they are not making an informed decision about who to vote for. As far as I'm concerned, a debate for a national election isn't complete or even legitimate if every party contesting it is not included.

While there are many more choices for President than those of the two primary parties (hell, you can write in whomever you want -- every election, Homer Simpson and Mickey Mouse receive tens of thousands of votes), only the two most plausible end up with endorsements by either of the two primary parties. Basically, I wouldn't want to watch a debate between three Presidential candidates if one of them ended up using a third of the debate talking about how we should disband the military and spend all of our taxpayer money on the manufacture of candy-corn-on-the-cob. We take the two most serious candidates and pit them against each other instead of crowding the field with anybody who can speak into a microphone.

That sounds like a terrible way to arrange something so important.

I agree. But like I said, any suspicion of advantage by one party over another is promptly dealt with, so much so that districts are drawn pretty fairly.

On another note ... candy-corn-on-the-cob would be the shit.

[Unknown Entity]

From an outsiders perspective, this election is like watching America's Got Talent with both candidates playing Sid Meier's Civilisation. I've never seen a country have such a showbiz-type election, and if I was an American, it would worry me that my politicians can't even take the matter of running my country seriously. There isn't a large choice of candidates either, so I honestly think voting for anyone who's not Obama or Romney is a waste of time and vote - you're going to get landed with the big guys, no matter what. But both candidates are far from similar.

I'm more of an observant person than knowledgeable one, and Romney just comes across as really dishonest and I think he plays on the showbiz side to the election far more than Obama. I think Obama is far more sincere and cares more about doing what's right for America than Romney, who I wouldn't mind betting is only in this for profit. Romney is a businessman; it goes hand in hand.

Also, Romney is very conservative, so conservative that I think America will go backwards. I would not be surprised if he recalls the right for women to vote (also, anyone else notice how he man-handled/treated his wife at the end of the second debate? Like she was some kind of trophy?). He's very out of touch with women. Come on... "binders full of women"? I'm sure he wasn't serious (at least, I hope not), but that was a very pathetic joke. He also wants to see "Planned Parenthood" gone to reinstate the Mexico City policy, based on his own opinions for being pro-life himself. Just because he doesn't agree with something, doesn't mean he should enforce that on the almost 311,600,000 people who live in America. Instead, I think he should work on a sexual and reproductive policy that works for everyone, where everyone can get the information and support that they need.

Going on to gay rights and marriage, Obama is fully supportive and Romney is selective on what he does and doesn't support, again, based on his own opinions. Gay people can serve in the military but they can't come back and marry the guys they love? The men and women who will probably just sit at home and remain loyal to their boyfriend and girlfriend out serving their country and putting their lives on the line? Romney is a full-on Christian and Mormon, and again, he's just enforcing his own beliefs. On that note, I don't believe having a president who supports gay marriage is enforcing a belief at all - it's giving a freedom.

Healthcare seems like a big topic too. I don't see see why Obamacare can't work, but I do agree that it's not appropriate for the whole country at this moment in time. America's healthcare needs a reform, I think, but it's a topic that needs consideration and input, bob-forbid a chance. Isn't it necessary to have health insurance anyway over there? I'm aware that with Obama, not getting insurance was enforced with a hefty fine. I think only opting for insurance when needed caused more problems than none. It's a topic I'd like to be more educated on before I get ahead of myself.

I don't think either candidate is America's best shot to getting back up on its feet, but Obama is the better of two evils which is why I'm in full support of him. I seem to share that support with a lot of the world. My opinion is developed mostly on people's rights and beliefs of the president. Obama seems to want what is right for America, but I don't really know what Romney wants... but he sure does come off as a dickhead.

Also, a good site for people to check over the differences between Obama and Romney. A little vague, but it does the job.
Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney - Difference and Comparison | Diffen