User Tag List

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 264

Thread: Popular vote ramblings

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Southern Oregon
    Posts
    825
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    This seems to be more of the government keeping itself in the dark ages, not admitting that times have changed and some teenagers in wigs some hundreds of years ago may not have planned that well for the future. Bizarre. times are changing, have changed. most people live on the coasts and in large cities. we decided to make it this way. its simply reality. yet the weight of this is not at all reflected in the representation. its very disproportionate. California has a ridiculously low representation rate when considering population and taxation. oddly, traditionally conservative states seem to be the most resistant to fair voting representation. sarcasm. they are slow to change, and slower to yield power in what is obviously a changing America.

    how weird to put so much reverence in the amendable words of teenage boys who knew not half the things we know today. how archaic, how adorable, how human.
    Matt Zilliox

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    349
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Tall View Post
    SBTI >> Clipping. We are trying to have a conversation here.

    Hey OZ give us your take on mandatory voter laws in your country?
    Australian here.

    Mandatory voting is not a silver bullet. We have it and our political system shares plenty of the same issues as yours. It does mean our political parties don't have to put so much energy into convincing people to even go and vote, but you do end up with a lot of uninformed and apathetic people casting votes towards which they may well not have given much consideration.

    I think more important is our use of preferential voting and proportional representation (we only have the latter in the Senate, not the House).

    Preferential voting allows voters to express a first preference vote for an independent or minor party candidate while still expressing an opinion over which of the two major parties (who in the vast majority of seats are the only two parties likely to win a seat as we have single member electorates) they prefer. We don't have a first past the post system of elections for our House elections, so when there is no candidate in an electorate who manages over 50% of first preference votes the candidates with the least amount of votes are removed and the votes for them are transferred to other candidate in accordance with those preferences. The lowest polling candidates are progressively removed and preferences are distributed until one party gets over 50%.

    Basically this allows voters to vote for a third party candidate AND express a preference between Kodos and Kang. The vote is not thrown away.



    But more important is proportional representation in the Senate. Each state has 12 senators, elected proportionally. 6 come up for election each time so basically you get a senator for every 14.3% of the vote you get. The two major parties do get the lions share, but generally speaking 1 or 2 of the 6 ends up coming from a minor party. There is preferential voting here as well, which has lead to some weird situations where tiny parties created an elaborate preference swapping deal that allows them to build on a very small primary vote (even as low as 1%) and build up to a quota as the other small parties are eliminated and their preferences are distributed, though we have made some changes to that recently to stop that from happening.

    The current situation in our parliament is very tight - the governing party does not actually have a majority of votes in either the House or the Senate. In terms of the numbers:

    The House, as it is filled with members elected from single member electorates, is dominated by the two major parties. 0.5% of the seats come from other parties (Greens, some rural and single state focused parties and a couple of true independents).

    The Senate, which is elected under proportional representations, has 25% of its members from smaller parties (Greens, Libertarians, Conservatives, some racist nut jobs from Queensland and a couple of independents).

    In my opinion this is largely a good thing. It means that the governing party can not simply ram legislation through the parliament - every piece that is passed will require the support of either the major opposition party or a combination of minor party and independent members. I think this tends to make for better policy outcomes and means that the outputs of Parliament are a better reflection of the overall will of all the people in the country than simply the dictatorship of the majority (or, in the case of your system, the will of the party that got the most votes because with non-compulsory voting and your very low electoral attendance numbers the intentions of a significant proportion of the people are not reflected in the make up of your legislature at all).

    Most European countries exhibit more expanded use of proportional representation than Australia. I live in Germany and here there was a major difficulty in forming a government at all after the last election when no party got close to a majority by themselves and it proved very difficult to cobble together a coalition of parties, so the system created a bit of a political limbo here for a while where there was simply no government. Here in Germany we have the other "problem" of proportional representation in effect too: the fringes of the political spectrum, namely the racist, reactionary far-right, get in to parliament and once they do so they are better placed to spread their messages and build support.

    There isn't a perfect system, but there are certainly far better systems than the US, which from my perspective disenfranchises a significant proportion of the population, be it through:

    - voter eligibility laws
    - gerrymandering
    - the electoral college
    - the first past the post electoral system with single member electorate

    It really is bewildering how much time and money is spent on elections in the US, from the primary/caucus process for candidates to the actual elections... and in the end the results will only ever be determined by a small number of states where it is possible to create a swing, and even then you just get to choose between Kang and Kodos every time.

    Unfortunately Kodos and Kang also control the systems that would engage in any sort of reform that would change the status quo, so I guess you had just better get used to it.


  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    25,000
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Thanks Flash and Jasper you both are pretty sharp.

    Kris not disagreeing rather wagging my chin at prospect of modifying a process so deeply entrenched you might call it a calcified portion of the American Experiment. That's going nowhere.

    I'm back to getting out the vote, preventing voter suppression, gerrymandering....

    Yeah, I'd love to see "one man/woman/pronoun" one vote winner take all. I'd like to see Federally funded campaigns. I'd like to see campaigns limited to a few months.

    Lots of things I'd like. Maybe giant calf muscles and lose a few pounds too.

    *AbiCi >>>reading now, much to admire there.
    Last edited by Too Tall; 02-01-2019 at 01:52 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Middle GA
    Posts
    6,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    The winner-takes-all approach most states use w/their electoral votes isn't ideal IMO.

    Also, feels like this is relevant. From one of Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy books (I forget which one)



    Also, I happen to be listening to this at the moment and it's also relevant. Live-streamed from the Comedy Store in LA while watching the 2016 election results come in. #BillBurr2020

    Dustin Gaddis
    www.MiddleGaEpic.com
    Why do people feel the need to list all of their bikes in their signature?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Coquitlam, British Columbia
    Posts
    9,792
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Rather than make a specific point in this discussion,
    i'll just say that electoral reform is an interesting topic
    with lots of research from other systems internationally.

    While the current focus is on the Presidential component
    of the electoral process, I find the lack of representation caused by
    the "First Passed the Post" system to be equally problematic.
    I don't think a candidate should be elected to anything without
    50% of the vote. #ThanksEngland !

    -g
    EPOst hoc ergo propter hoc

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    <SNIP>

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Tall View Post

    Kris not disagreeing rather wagging my chin at prospect of modifying a process so deeply entrenched you might call it a calcified portion of the American Experiment. That's going nowhere.

    I'm back to getting out the vote, preventing voter suppression, gerrymandering....

    Yeah, I'd love to see "one man/woman/pronoun" one vote winner take all. I'd like to see Federally funded campaigns. I'd like to see campaigns limited to a few months.
    I agree and hear your point.

    But a process that is entrenched doesn't necessarily mean it's the best way to move forward in the here and now and into the future under completely different circumstances.

    We're not going to solve any of them right here, right now on V-Salon. Having intelligent discussions and listening to opposing views via civil discourse is a hell of a good start however. That's what I try and do each and every chance I get with neighbors and friends. Now more than ever we need that.

    Getting out the vote, and actively taking part in the process? That's a good start.
    Kristofer Henry : 44 BIKES : Made to Shred™
    www.44bikes.com · Flickr · Facebook · Instagram

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by thollandpe View Post
    I think ranked choice voting is a great concept for local and state elections. Among the claims:
    • gets away from having to choose the lesser of two evils
    • neutralizes the effect of spoiler candidates
    • helps blunt a fundraising advantage
    • discourages negative campaigning


    Could this also be a winner for national?
    Living with someone who is a bit of a policy expert on the subject, what I've picked up through osmosis is that Ranked Choice is an excellent way to accomplish what you've mentioned. The problem is it doesn't reduce itself to the very simple "One person, one vote, most votes wins" kind of tagline. Instead you could reasonably have a situation where the most second place votes puts someone over the line to the majority, making them the winner. But it does go a long way to eliminating the kind of zero-sum politicking that happens. It's been used in our local elections here in Alameda County and works just fine.

    Paul LePage had a hissy fit about it in Maine when ranked choice was used to certify the results of 2nd District's results when conducted by Ranked Choice. Maine Gov. Paul LePage Certifies Election Result But Still Complains It Was &#39;Stolen&#39; | HuffPost

    As long as money continues to equal speech in our political system (thanks Citizens United), comprehensive campaign reform is unlikely ot happen. Ranked Choice would at least be a partial step in the right direction.
     

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    25,000
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Theflash says "money equals free speech". Maybe so maybe so. Money allows widely disseminated speech might be another way to refine your statement?

    Dig this (panel speaker(s) at DAVOS) *Safe link. Seriously, it's safe. >> Twitter
    https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/stat...579584/video/1
    Last edited by Too Tall; 02-01-2019 at 08:29 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Tall View Post
    Theflash says "money equals free speech". Maybe so maybe so. Money allows widely disseminated speech might be another way to refine your statement?

    Dig this (panel speaker(s) at DAVOS) *Safe link. Seriously, it's safe. >> Twitter
    https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/stat...579584/video/1
    Actually no. Citizens United, which undid the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform explicitly equated donations to political speech, and therefore limits were a violation of the first amendment.

    It's why dark money rules politics now with these nebulous super pacs funded from unknown sources.

    Money == speech and corporations are people. Thanks Scalia!
     

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kingman, AZ
    Posts
    4,130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    I think you have to consider that presidential elections and campaigning that goes along with them is based on the Electoral College. Change to a popular vote and the campaigns will be run differently. Potential candidates won't be hanging out in Iowa and New Hampshire. I wouldn't put a lot into the Trump election either if you're considering numbers. The 30% or so that make up his base are pretty much the ones that were his base in 2016. It was the undecided and the Hillary haters that carried him. IMO, the popularity of the candidates matters more today than how their politics align with their supporters. So, if every vote mattered because of a popular vote election, it'll be a popularity contest, who is more likeable. Oprah is likeable.
    Weight Doper

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas - downtown
    Posts
    1,913
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    The system was set up with a purpose in mind. Democracy is not simply the majority rules. To avoid tyranny of the majority, the minority voice must be supported. Consider this, slavery was a popular institution in our country. Put to a popular vote it would have probably remained.
     

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    2,085
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by Daltex View Post
    The system was set up with a purpose in mind. Democracy is not simply the majority rules. To avoid tyranny of the majority, the minority voice must be supported. Consider this, slavery was a popular institution in our country. Put to a popular vote it would have probably remained.
    It wouldn't have. That's what the Compromise of 1820, 1850 and the Kansas Nebraska Act were all about. Kicking the can down the road on this idea that abolition was inevitable, but a significant minority of the country wanted slavery. Secession was their only move to try to preserve it.
     

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bermuda
    Posts
    1,388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by bigbill View Post
    I think you have to consider that presidential elections and campaigning that goes along with them is based on the Electoral College. Change to a popular vote and the campaigns will be run differently. Potential candidates won't be hanging out in Iowa and New Hampshire. I wouldn't put a lot into the Trump election either if you're considering numbers. The 30% or so that make up his base are pretty much the ones that were his base in 2016. It was the undecided and the Hillary haters that carried him. IMO, the popularity of the candidates matters more today than how their politics align with their supporters. So, if every vote mattered because of a popular vote election, it'll be a popularity contest, who is more likeable. Oprah is likeable.
    Don't the candidates spend so much time in Iowa and NH because they host the first primaries in the nomination process, and not because of those states' importance in the electoral college (or lack thereof, really)?
     

  14. #34
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    25,000
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by bdaghisallo View Post
    Don't the candidates spend so much time in Iowa and NH because they host the first primaries in the nomination process, and not because of those states' importance in the electoral college (or lack thereof, really)?
    Sure and it's complicated. Setting the agenda, sussing out the popular sentiment is at this venture critical.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kingman, AZ
    Posts
    4,130
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by bdaghisallo View Post
    Don't the candidates spend so much time in Iowa and NH because they host the first primaries in the nomination process, and not because of those states' importance in the electoral college (or lack thereof, really)?
    I think that candidates will begin their campaigns in the heavier population areas because of the popular vote. How does their message resonate with voters in NY, CA, TX, FL, etc. Reaching out to voters in Iowa and New Hampshire is more symbolic than anything else. If a candidate becomes popular in a large and densely populated area, then the campaign dollars will roll in. In the past decades we've seen decent men and women run for President who couldn't stay in the race because they didn't have the financial backing. That's why I believe popular vote will totally revamp the campaign process.
    Weight Doper

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Paint me back home in Wyoming
    Posts
    659
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by j44ke View Post
    Wyoming was the first state to give women the right to vote in 1890.
    Just to clarify; Wyoming was admitted to the Union in 1890 and was indeed the first state to allow women to vote. However, the Territory of Wyoming gave women the right to vote in 1869 and one of the stipulations by the WY Territorial Gov for joining the Union was that women's suffrage be allowed to remain the law in the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by theflashunc View Post
    Money == speech and corporations are people. Thanks Scalia!
    I know that many love to throw out Citzen's United as some big change by the SCOTUS.....but it wasn't. The SCOTUS has been consistent in the view that corporations are people since the first case in that regard came before them, which arguably was in 1819 with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (17 U.S. 518). In 1886 there is no question that the SCOTUS held that view; during Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394) Chief Justice Waite remarked to the lawyers trying the case that "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
    Eat one live toad first thing in the morning and nothing worse will happen to you all day.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by bdaghisallo View Post
    Don't the candidates spend so much time in Iowa and NH because they host the first primaries in the nomination process, and not because of those states' importance in the electoral college (or lack thereof, really)?
    Disclaimer: I'm not "from" NH but am a relatively recent transplant to NH having moved here in 2006 (grew up in PA, which now being removed from the state every time I come back is incredibly conservative in a lot of ways). So although I haven't lived here all that long, 12 years is enough time to get a good sense of what's going on here in NH I think.

    We do have the law on the books stating the presidential primary will be the second Tuesday in March and the secretary of state holds the option of overriding that if any state should change it to be sooner (how long that stands is anyone's guess). There was a good parody piece in the Washington Post from a Vermont resident advocating for a law in VT that no matter what day NH's primary is, theirs is the same day which technically isn't "sooner" than NH primary. I got a kick out of that one.

    What I have come to realize is that NH is increasingly becoming more and more purple and will surprise me each and every time what voters support and those views increasingly bend towards the Liberal side of the argument in many cases even though the overall sentiment is conservative, or at least that's my read when I speak with locals (more so fiscal conservatism and libertarian "stay out of my business"). Fiscally conservative, relatively liberal when it comes to the hot topic punch lines with a heavy lean towards what I'd call "common sense" solutions to issues facing the nation. Many voice concern that the process of even just discussing ideas has evaporated and wonder how we get back to that process.

    Regardless, NH offers an interesting mix of political leanings with 25%+ Democrat, 36%+ Republican and the rest registered as non-declared independents (I'm a registered independent but lean hard left for the record). It is not surprisingly all that diverse in its makeup (read that as "white"). The primary process here in NH is interesting as independents can vote for either party at the door (you tell them what party you're voting and they hand you the ballot) but you're automatically registered then with that party so on the way out, if you want to remain an independent, you gotta do some paperwork. You can register at the door (In my hometown here in Lyndeborough, someone yells out every time a first-time voter hands over their ballot and everyone in the hall gives a YAY!! followed by applause). If you want to vote for the other party of which you're not affiliated, you gotta do that a few weeks ahead of time by filling out some forms to register appropriately.

    The Wikipedia write up regarding the historical significance NH plays is a good primer and quick read.

    But switching over to a pure popular vote, of course, would mean some changes in the long run. I can't think of anything off the top of my head in our culture when you pit one against another and the one with the most of something "wins".

    Why we do this differently for our presidential contest? That's a rhetorical question. But personally, I'd go as far as saying it's quite "unamerican". And the reason I use that term is one thing I have picked up on from no matter what I read or who I speak to, there's always a sentiment towards what's fair and getting a fair shake. As soon as that fairness sentiment gets fuzzy, things break down. And that's something that is really baked into the American conscious, I think.
    Last edited by fortyfour; 02-02-2019 at 01:38 PM. Reason: clarification
    Kristofer Henry : 44 BIKES : Made to Shred™
    www.44bikes.com · Flickr · Facebook · Instagram

  18. #38
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    25,000
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Keep going, I'm learning here.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bermuda
    Posts
    1,388
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by fortyfour View Post
    Disclaimer:

    But switching over to a pure popular vote, of course, would mean some changes in the long run. I can't think of anything off the top of my head in our culture when you pit one against another and the one with the most of something "wins".

    Why we do this differently for our presidential contest? That's a rhetorical question. But personally, I'd go as far as saying it's quite "unamerican". And the reason I use that term is one thing I have picked up on from no matter what I read or who I speak to, there's always a sentiment towards what's fair and getting a fair shake. As soon as that fairness sentiment gets fuzzy, things break down. And that's something that is really baked into the American conscious, I think.
    The US is a republic and not a democracy and the presidential election was designed to elect a president of the states - not of the citizens, if you will. It's similar to the original manner in which the US senate was populated. The state legislatures would decide who they would send to represent their state in the senate since the senators were there to advocate for the interests of the states they represented.

    If the electoral college disappeared for presidential elections, I don't think NH and Iowa would see that much of any of the presidential candidates, any way. There's simply not enough people there. The candidates would campaign in CA, FL, NY, TX, PA, IL and a couple more. There's enough folks there to enable a candidate to win a popular vote contest overall. States like WY, VT, AL & the Dakotas, to list the five lightest populated states, would seldom see a candidate since they would simply not be a deciding factor in any popular vote contest. Would the US want a system where presidential candidates, and Presidents when they take office, can virtually ignore the smaller states knowing that they would pay little politically?
     

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,560
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Popular vote ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by bdaghisallo View Post
    The US is a republic and not a democracy and the presidential election was designed to elect a president of the states - not of the citizens if you will. It's similar to the original manner in which the US Senate was populated. The state legislatures would decide who they would send to represent their state in the Senate since the senators were there to advocate for the interests of the states they represented.

    If the electoral college disappeared for presidential elections, I don't think NH and Iowa would see that much of any of the presidential candidates, anyway. There's simply not enough people there. The candidates would campaign in CA, FL, NY, TX, PA, IL and a couple more. There are enough folks there to enable a candidate to win a popular vote contest overall. States like WY, VT, AL & the Dakotas, to list the five lightest populated states, would seldom see a candidate since they would simply not be a deciding factor in any popular vote contest. Would the US want a system where presidential candidates, and Presidents when they take office, can virtually ignore the smaller states knowing that they would pay little politically?
    Correct as per we are a Republic vs a Democracy. Perhaps a bit more succinctly, we're a Constitutional Republic and the framers included concepts of both representative democracy and direct democracy. That's not to say what was settled on in the 18th century is the best way forward here in the 21st.

    I think the issue I'm sensing when it comes to the argument of switching over to a popular vote vs the electoral college is that people divide themselves up into groups. I.E. I'm from North Dakota. Or I'm from Vermont. What that misses is this: We're ALL Americans first. You physically reside in North Dakota or Vermont and you're subject to the laws of those individual states, yes, but we're all Americans. I think that gets lost. As Americans, we have far more in common than we don't. (And the current climate is maximizing the effort to find ways to divide us, i.e. East Vs West, North vs South, Red vs Blue, etc.) We all pitch in to elect our president and his/her job may be that of the executive but they represent everyone. Not just the people who voted for them.

    Personally, I think we need a process which elects our president which symbolizes and embodies that spirit that first and foremost, we're all Americans. Is that the popular vote? Maybe. Or maybe not.

    As an aside, good discussion though.
    Kristofer Henry : 44 BIKES : Made to Shred™
    www.44bikes.com · Flickr · Facebook · Instagram

Similar Threads

  1. Polling Booth > Vote
    By Too Tall in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-30-2016, 08:20 AM
  2. Most Popular Threads on VSalon
    By beeatnik in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-07-2014, 02:11 PM
  3. VOTE or I'll ban you
    By Too Tall in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 11-07-2012, 12:02 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-27-2011, 07:26 PM
  5. Vote for the Butcher! Not political. Honest.
    By Archibald in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-18-2008, 02:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •