Looking for responsible leadership in the White House? Don't vote KP or Harry!

[King]

A desperate reminder from King that:

While in the Senate, Harry proclaimed that raising taxes was helpful to the economy.  In February, Vice President Keystone Phil stated that he would not use preferential voting even if it helped a communist win the White House.

Vote King/Dibble!

[King]

Before anybody else says it:

This is a lame attack. 

[Gabu]

No, I'm not looking for responsible leadership in the White House.

[TomC]

I don't have a big problem with either statement.

[MasterJedi]

King for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Keystone Phil]

That's right, Mr. King, I would not use the system even if it meant a communist winning. I'm not backing down from something I am fighting against because it might be good in situations where myself or my cause can benefit yet tell others it's bad when it concerns their interests.

[Speed of Sound]

well said, Phil.

[Akno21]

That's right, Mr. King, I would not use the system even if it meant a communist winning. I'm not backing down from something I am fighting against because it might be good in situations where myself or my cause can benefit yet tell others it's bad when it concerns their interests.

Tell that to your fellow citizens on the soup line under a Migrendel Presidency

[Keystone Phil]

Tell that to your fellow citizens on the soup line under a Migrendel Presidency

Believe me, I would dread that situation but I'm not a hypocrite. I'm not going to blast preferential voting when it helps my opponents yet encourage it when it helps me. That's not what I'm about. That's another reason why I hope to earn the votes of the people in this election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That's right, Mr. King, I would not use the system even if it meant a communist winning. I'm not backing down from something I am fighting against because it might be good in situations where myself or my cause can benefit yet tell others it's bad when it concerns their interests.

OK, well the most the Nazis ever got in the Weimar Republic was 37%. Let's say you lived there and it had a slightly different political systems. These candidates are running for President:

Hitler
Conservative
Centrist
Liberal
Communist

Hitler only has 37%, but that's a plurality. However, under this system there is preferential voting. You wouldn't use it and would prefer to see Hitler win?

[Keystone Phil]

Hitler only has 37%, but that's a plurality. However, under this system there is preferential voting. You wouldn't use it and would prefer to see Hitler win?

Knowing the extreme outcome of Hitler's election, no, I would have used preferential voting. There, you got it out of me. However, the situation is not that extreme in this case and just because it is with the Hitler example does not mean it's a good system that should be used when I benefit in other situations.

[Akno21]

Tell that to your fellow citizens on the soup line under a Migrendel Presidency

Believe me, I would dread that situation but I'm not a hypocrite. I'm not going to blast preferential voting when it helps my opponents yet encourage it when it helps me. That's not what I'm about. That's another reason why I hope to earn the votes of the people in this election.

I respect your decision to vote the way you do, and note the smiley at the end of my comment above.

I have never trashed IRV even when it hurt my preferred candidate, and intend on keeping it that way.

[Keystone Phil]

I have never trashed IRV even when it hurt my preferred candidate, and intend on keeping it that way.

And that's fine but people have to understand where I'm coming from when I say I wouldn't use it (except in the extreme example BRTD presented) even if it meant my opponent would benefit. That's leadership. That's showing the people what's right. I'm not going to stand up and say "Well it's ok because I don't want so and so to win."