Matt Wuerker by Matt Wuerker

Matt Wuerker

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    The creators of South Park had the right idea when they basically referred to choosing between to major party candidates as making a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. For anyone with an independent mind, picking between the two parties will always be little more than picking the lessor of two evils, and those of us who vote third party will be vilified for letting the other guy win.

  2. crabbyrino

    crabbyrino GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    What is it about a female becoming president? Secretary Clinton has the bona fides to be president. Hope she runs and wins.

  3. Rx71Wm29

    Rx71Wm29 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    I always wonder what Bill would look like in drag, now I know.

  4. Newenglandah

    Newenglandah said, almost 2 years ago

    What is needed is an “instant runoff” voting system, where voters can designate their second choice and even third choice.
    .
    Suppose, for example, a certain race has three candidates, a conservative Republican, a moderate Democrat, and a Socialist. Let’s say that the Republican gets 45% of the vote, the Democrat 43%, and the Socialist 12%. Under our present system the Republican would win. Under an instant runoff system the Socialist would be eliminated and those who voted Socialist would have their second choice votes tallied. Presumably, most of the Socialist voters would have designated the Democrat as their second choice, so that the Democrat would win with roughly 55% of the votes.
    .
    Lest someone accuse me of favoring a system that would favor the left, I will point out that the system works both ways. Suppose, for example, a certain race has three candidates, a moderate Republican, a liberal Democrat, and a Tea Party candidate. Let’s say that the Democrat gets 45% of the vote, the Republican 43%, and the Tea Party candidate 12%. Under our present system the Democrat would win. Under an instant runoff system the Tea Party candidate would be eliminated and those who voted Tea Party would have their second choice votes tallied. Presumably, most of the Tea Party voters would have designated the Republican as their second choice, so that the Republican would be the winner with 55% of the votes.

  5. Caligulla

    Caligulla said, almost 2 years ago

    “But until there is a snowball’s chance in the hot place of a third party candidate winning, I’ll stick with trying to chose the one who will stick it to me the least.”
    .
    .
    Which is why a third party candidate doesn’t stand a snowballs chance in Texas of being elected.

  6. Steam  Vapor

    Steam Vapor said, almost 2 years ago

    What we need is the ‘Australian System’
    Ban all political advertising until 3 months before the election. Election day is a holiday so everyone can get to the polls. Voting is mandatory for all registered voters. We get 100% voter turnout therefore everyone is represented.

  7. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, almost 2 years ago

    @Steam Vapor

    It’d never be supported. Our populace will spend $1.99 per call to vote for the next American Idol, but trying to get them into the polls to vote for our leaders is just too much to ask.

  8. Krazgamer

    Krazgamer GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Steam Vapor: I agree!

  9. mbraun

    mbraun said, almost 2 years ago

    How do you enforce the “law” to vote? It would take too much manpower.

  10. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    @Jase99

    Both are supported by the mostly faceless Plutocrats who run it all.

  11. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    Hillary is a hard line Democrat meaning like a the old time Republicans of 2000’s and is a warmonger.

  12. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    @Newenglandah

    As long as the present system runs on money and only the two mummified parties get instant access to the national stage we will never get our choice.

  13. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, almost 2 years ago

    Pretty certain there are other female presidents in other countries. So being the first female president in the world is rather self absorbed.

  14. MangeyMoose

    MangeyMoose said, almost 2 years ago

    @TheTrustedMechanic

    In your reply to Jase99, you are, of course, absolutely correct.

    But in another comment, you praise Bill Clinton, because “…he did preside over one of the greatest periods of economic prosperity in our nation’s history….”. While this statement is largely true, there was poison in our economic system, at that time.

    As if we didn’t already have too much de-regulation in the banking/money markets, he, and the SEC, stood by while CitiGroup and Travelers merged, IN DIRECT VIOLATION of the Glass-Steagall Law, and then, at Alan Greenspan’s request, repealed it. More mega-mergers followed!
    Yes, of course, the economy was humming. But the poison took time to do its work.

    Instead of reigning in Wall Street, Bill watched them race off from the sidelines. That, and his zeal in getting NAFTA passed through his reluctant democrats, has cost most Americans dearly. (Greatly benefited a few!)

    This is my biggest worry with Hillary. She is too cozy with Wall Street, (as is congress), and has said nothing about bringing some regulation back to the Wild West/Wall Street/Goldman Sachs show.

    Lastly, I totally concur with STEAM VAPOR’s idea! (never happen, though)

  15. Mr. Ngn33r

    Mr. Ngn33r GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    TM, Ruff…a problem I can see with the “mandatory”, based on either reward or penalty, is the lack of progressivity – it would cost the low (or no) income voter disproportionately, and we would be “charging” citizens for what has been considered a “Right”. Also, the incentive for fraud – effectively, that old “vote early & often” or vote selling would be officially incentivized. Any legal penalty for not voting (for whatever reason) would add ANOTHER new class of “criminal” to our already somewhat draconian & overburdened justice system. Would non-casters-of-ballots have their voting rights taken away ? And how would the verification apply to absentee/early ballots ? Just some spur-of-the-moment thoughts…there may be other problems.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).