Define Cynical Fan Forums

<a href='http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2004/om20040224.html' target='_blank'>http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2004/om2004 ... br><br>Yay! Llewellyn's run for president continues!<br><br>Vote Zen! <!--emo&B)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... s/cool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cool.gif' /><!--endemo--> <br><br>Hmm...now that I think of it, don't you agree with me that if you wanted to vote for Llewellyn's Zen Party, you'd have to vote by not voting? <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->

If you do have to vote by not voting, then I've voted, and whole-heartedly. :P

but wait! then to not vote you'd have to vote and... ooh, sneaky sneaky, Llewellyn. But you still got burned by Ozy. Which is a change because usually you burn him. Accidentally, of course.

And thus zen throws the political system into pure anarchy until they come up with a way of assessing the difference between voting by not voting and not voting by being a lazy bum.<br><br>You've got to admit that doing nothing would be an improvement in terms of foreign policy and international relations with the middle east, though. Plus it would at least slow down America's accumulation of debt.<br><br>And the point of exercise bikes is finally explained. Via zen. Yay for zen and tangents solving the mysteries of life.<br><br>Nice strip <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Does anyone know how many people voted Zen (read: didn't vote) in the last US election?

Most of them.<br><br>If you meen the last election and not presedential elecion a overwleming most of them.

Well didn't the majority of the population not vote for the presidential election either? Correct me if I'm wrong.

LOL great strip!<br><br>I'm glad Llewellyn is rumming for President this campaign season... other wise I'd have to vote for Kerry, the likely Democratic nominee... cause I know this for sure... my vote sure as hell ain't going to Bush.

I'm not exaclty sure Huffa. I think not. It was close to 50%. The higest it's been in hte past 50 years or so is in the 70%'s. I'm actuly a fan of low voter turn out. The more poeple who vote who don't know wanythign the more randomness is in the system. I still don't know if I'm going to vote next election.

Well, it may be that the people who do not vote do not simply 'not care' (though many of them don't) but that instead they simply feel disillusioned that their vote will not make any difference.<br><br>Still, I don't think that there is anything bad about low turnouts either.

Actuly that's mopt realy true here. Amiricans typiclay have high efacacy (the belief that they can change thier government) but are just too lazy to vote. I have low efacacy but am more likly to vote them meny people who have theirs higer.

hm. The uk election system has essentially been a two and a half horse race for the past... No one really knows how long. I think, however, the political scene has managed to turn the next election into a two three quarter horse and two half horse race. If I believed in tactical voting, I'd have to chose between the lesser of two evils that is 'Labour' (Nicely organised but have screwed up the country over the past seven years or so), and 'Conservative' (Turned into a disorganised rabble since they lost last election and are of debatable political qualities despite that), since they're the only two that, traditionally, stand a chance in this constituancy.<br><br>Fortunately, I don't (main reason I wish the UK would hurry up and modernise it's election proceedure into something far less flawed. Several alternative election techniques exist, most of which are somewhat more complex. I kinda like the 'list all parties in order of preference' one, though, although that gets really screwy on the method they score it). So, I'm more inclined to chose between the Lib Dems and the Green, although the 19-billion to one shot (If I recall the bookie odds correctly, for reference, last I heard the offered odds for Elvis Presley crashing a UFO into the Loch Ness Monster was 18-billion to one <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) of the Monster Raving Loony Party has it's appeals. Trouble is, they don't have enough members to get enough seats to actually win. That, and they've never actually won a seat.<br><br>...Yes, the UK actually has a Green party that's not a one policy party (quite funny last election, actually. The Green party had a better coverage of the topics than the Concervatives <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->), and a way of protesting against all of the serious candidates without looking like an apathetic moron who doesn't care enough to vote, while having about the same impact.<br><br>...Now to work on a way of voting without voting that isn't the same thing as abstaining from voting...

<!--QuoteBegin-norsenerd+Feb 24 2004, 12:14 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (norsenerd @ Feb 24 2004, 12:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> I'm not exaclty sure Huffa. I think not. It was close to 50%. The higest it's been in hte past 50 years or so is in the 70%'s. I'm actuly a fan of low voter turn out. The more poeple who vote who don't know wanythign the more randomness is in the system. I still don't know if I'm going to vote next election. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> <a href='http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2000/om20001107.html' target='_blank'>"We're hoping for a voter turnout of about 12."</a><br><br>hehe

Timulty's presance in that one sells it.

Sorry to be the history nerd, but my US history class is studying the era around the turn of the century, and one of the most influential presidents of the era was William McKinley. Thing about McKinley was that his wife was an invalid and couldn't leave their home, so McKinley basically ran his campaign from his front porch. He never went out on the campaign trail once for the election of 1896 nor the election of 1900, yet he was elected to the presidency <i>twice</i>. So the US has not once but twice elected a president who never truly campaigned (although his campaign manager did work hard to get McKilney's name out there). So it's possible for Llewelyn to win and never leave his house. It's happened before. Just an interesting tidbit of history.