Right as you can see i have separated the poll for americans and for nonamericans.

So just cast your vote for you want to win and not who you think will win.


cheers
SC

No third party and abstinence options?

Is there a way to write in a candidate for those that might want to?

Can we vote more than once?
Can the dead vote?
Illegals?

Just want to make it real

Only the white ones.

Only the politburo-approved bipartisan monopoly "McBama" ticket?

(Why do I suddenly feel disenfranchised? )

You forgot to include Spongebob Squarepants!

Though seriously, I didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Not really wanting another Republican in the Whitehouse, but not convinced that a Democrat would be any better. But then McCain chose Palin as his running mate and she just seems to hold an opposite stand to me on pretty much anything I care about.

I added an additional option to your poll.

And to answer the question, I'm a US citizen, but I'm not voting. This is not a decision I've taken lightly.

Absentee ballots are counted as an afterthought.

There's all kinds of questions regarding the validity of the votes collected by those who can vote in person (diebold, etc.), putting the validity of all votes and the election itself into question (look at the shrub elections....)

That, and to be honest, none of the candidates make me happy.

Ditto.

And if I vote at all, I will vote for a candidate whose track record — and whose party's track record — at least reflects a principled and consistent upholding of the Constitution as written, which cannot be said for either half of the bipartisan monopoly. My conscience won't allow me to do otherwise: The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Tell me who and where that party is so that I can go and join them too.

The Constitution Party hears your words and informs you it needs your support.

thank you

I am personally torn between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party, only because during the last presidential election, the Texas branch of Constitution Party made a point of putting a religious spin on their platform by suggesting that Americans in general have a unique "birthright" from, and obligation to, God. Even as a Christian, I found that to be a distracting and unnecessary appendage to an otherwise solid platform, not to mention theologically questionable.

In fairness, four years have since passed, and I haven't heard anything like that this go-around.

I personally believe there should be no limits to the number of terms a President can hold office.

Two reasons, one is that you wouldn't have this 6-12 month lame duck period (which effectively shortens the second term) and secondly why shouldn't a popular leader enjoy a Castro-esque period of rule?? Hypothetically speaking, had Monicagate not happened Clinton would easily have thrashed GW Bush in 2000, and all would still be right with the world

My vote goes to Mr. Potato Head

Of course your vote can, without further notice, end up in the incinerator (as in the last presidential election).

Would that be the Rösti Party then?

The man I really like is Ron Paul. He is just the man, but unfortunately, he
is not quite charismatic enough.

I enjoyed hearing him talk about the Constitution during the debates. But I've always gotten the feeling that his foreign policy is sort of isolationist or similar to Swiss neutrality although admittedly, I don't know much about it.

That is right. He could be construed as an isolationist. Dr. Paul advocates
not getting into things that really don't concern us.

It is my personal opinion that the US engages itself too much abroad militarily
and not enough diplomatically.

There should be some kind of balance not the Bush trigger happy approach
to diplomacy.

I agree that he's the man, but I respectfully disagree that he's not charismatic enough.

His detractors like to label him as 'isolationist,' but he's really no such thing. He is in favor of free trade (not the kind that requires thousands of pages of special-interest-favoring, interventionist free trade 'agreements') and friendly relations with, and respecting the sovereignty of, all countries, but not making their business our business (aka 'not getting into things that really don't concern us'). That's just the live-and-let-live foreign policy of the founders — not isolationism.

The real isolationism is fomented by policies that presume a government's 'right' to meddle with and restrict the citizens' foreign trade (usually based on special interest pressures/favors) and/or policies that presume a government's 'right' to meddle with the affairs of the people and governments of other countries. These policies isolate us by denying us and others a right to trade freely with whomever we or they please, and by needlessly generating ill will (or downright hatred) towards us from abroad.