Wow you guys really hate my slogan, don't you?

 

It's yours?

 

Sorry, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Yeah it's mine. To be honest it made sense to me when I made it, but I can see what you all are saying about it though. I liked my other slogan better "At least we aren't the Pirates".

It's not your fault... I'm sure you wrote down plenty. It's the peoples fault for voting you all the way.

 

gee, doesnt that sound familiar.

Wow you guys really hate my slogan, don't you?

 

It's yours?

 

Sorry, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Yeah it's mine. To be honest it made sense to me when I made it, but I can see what you all are saying about it though. I liked my other slogan better "At least we aren't the Pirates".

 

 

I Still Blame Jeremy Hermida is still my favorite

Thank you for the suggestions everyone. I want the community to have a say so I won't just pick my favorite and make it the winner. What I am thinking of doing at this point is just scrapping the current polls and putting a top 5 of my 5 favorite picks from the original nominations. This will allow everyone to vote on those 5 choices eliminating one at a time as we were doing in the other polls. If the 5 slogan choices are disliked, everyone can blame me for it.

 

For the record, I liked Breaking New Ground but agree that it would work better in a different year. It would not be in my top 5.

Why dont you just pick your top 5 and let people vote? Whichever slogan gets the most votes wins rather than having different rounds. Make it like a general election. You may like several candidates, but you can only vote for one.

That's an option too. Need to put in some tie-breaker procedures if using that method.

That's an option too. Need to put in some tie-breaker procedures if using that method.

 

 

How about this. Put up the top 5 and let everyone (except you) vote for just one. In the event that there is a tie, then your vote would decide the winner.

I like that idea, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for your help with this.

I honestly like the 5 choices, no joke. Would be fine with any winning.

Hoorah I feel loved by Admin haha...

 

I definitely like the change... Reel Big Fish > Year of the Teal anyways.

I like JetsMania's suggestion.

 

It's your site so you should have some sway in this. That's probably the way to do it next year. Request a bunch of nominations and choose the ones that you potentially see fit to represent your site and then have us vote for imput.

 

I agree with all of this.

 

See, this is why I love this place. Admin cares about the members.

 

Also, glad to see Reel Big Fish in the poll.

Everyone please make sure and vote for a slogan. This is the closest poll I can remember.

Everyone please make sure and vote for a slogan. This is the closest poll I can remember.

 

 

I'm just excited to have a slogan be in the final 5. Now it is only 1 vote away from being tied for 1st place!

 

This vote might need to go to a tie-breaker to settle it

regardless of who wins now Reel Big Fish is the comeback kid story haha. Gave him a second chance and see what he could do.

Not that big of a deal, but I'm just not a fan of the new system.

 

Breaking it down from 5 to 4, 3, 2 and 1 seemed like the better way to do it. If not that, then setting up a way where we can rank them from 1-5 would be best, but I guess this method is the easiest.

Not that big of a deal, but I'm just not a fan of the new system.

 

Breaking it down from 5 to 4, 3, 2 and 1 seemed like the better way to do it. If not that, then setting up a way where we can rank them from 1-5 would be best, but I guess this method is the easiest.

 

 

I think this method is the best. Admin gets to filter out what he feels are the top 5 slogans, and then everyone gets to vote on the one they feel is the best. Then if there is a tie, Admin gets to pick the winner. Only one slogan can win, so there is no point in ranking them. People don't rank candidates on a ballot do they?

The older method didnt make sense because lets be honest... everyone voted for their own. And even if they only gave theirs 1 vote... you cant rank your votes like #1 vote, #2 vote, #3 vote, etc.. You get just a #1 vote. If that's the case a lot of the best ones got eliminated just because of that. This way... Admin chooses his 5 favorite and you are pretty much guaranteed at least 5 top 10 titles in terms of popularity.

Not that big of a deal, but I'm just not a fan of the new system.

 

Breaking it down from 5 to 4, 3, 2 and 1 seemed like the better way to do it. If not that, then setting up a way where we can rank them from 1-5 would be best, but I guess this method is the easiest.

 

 

I think this method is the best. Admin gets to filter out what he feels are the top 5 slogans, and then everyone gets to vote on the one they feel is the best. Then if there is a tie, Admin gets to pick the winner. Only one slogan can win, so there is no point in ranking them. People don't rank candidates on a ballot do they?

 

 

That's why for political elections in this country we have a two-party system. Not having a two-party system causes the messy systems like the ones they currently have in Europe.

 

Let me give you an example. There are a total of three options on the ballot. 66% of voters like both option #1 and option #2, but they can only vote for one, so they split the votes. Option #1 and #2 both get 33% of the vote. For option #3, only 34% of voters like the option, with the rest of the voters hating it. Since they voters were split over the other two options though, option #3 wins with 34% of the vote.

 

Not to mention that with one person picking the five finalists, slogans that were doing well that could have had a shot at winning (Proving doubters wrong since 1993) are eliminated.

 

If we are going to change the system at all, we shoudln't be cutting it down to just one round.

Are you really trying to make an argument claiming 2-party systems are the best way to go?

 

Okay... so I guess it's okay that I hate both candidates. But I really dont have an option, do I?

 

Not everyone voting for candidate 1 and 2 automatically hate candidate 3. Which would be why MVP-style voting in THIS situation would probably be the best if you want public opinion. However, it's Admin's website. He doesnt have to put what you want on it. I think it's only fair that he gets to claim whatever he wants to do.

 

And again, this way the best ones dont get eliminated simply because people were either voting for the stupidest choice or voting for their own.

Are you really trying to make an argument claiming 2-party systems are the best way to go?

 

Okay... so I guess it's okay that I hate both candidates. But I really dont have an option, do I?

 

Not everyone voting for candidate 1 and 2 automatically hate candidate 3. Which would be why MVP-style voting in THIS situation would probably be the best if you want public opinion. However, it's Admin's website. He doesnt have to put what you want on it. I think it's only fair that he gets to claim whatever he wants to do.

 

And again, this way the best ones dont get eliminated simply because people were either voting for the stupidest choice or voting for their own.

 

 

 

A non-two-party system allows for a candidate to win even if the majority doesn't support him/it. That's why you can't necessarily refer to those types of systems as "democracies."

 

Obviously, I know Admin doesn't have to install the system I prefer, but thanks for pointing that out to me.

 

Whatever he wants to do he has the ability to do, I'm simply making a suggestion.

Say what you want... two party systems limit voters to black and white. Red and blue. What about the grey candidate? The purple one? The one that... if available... the majority WOULD vote for?

 

What you are saying is that justice is served when you simply limit the people of America to two candidates... yeah that is real democracy and whatnot... or perhaps you could realize that people only vote for red or blue because red and blue are the only options given to them?

 

So... I've got a question for you... what is the best car manufacturer in the world? Dodge... or Saab? Well there we go... that's justice served on a silver platter. If I ask a group of people... they've gotta vote for a majority!

Say what you want... two party systems limit voters to black and white. Red and blue. What about the grey candidate? The purple one? The one that... if available... the majority WOULD vote for?

 

What you are saying is that justice is served when you simply limit the people of America to two candidates... yeah that is real democracy and whatnot... or perhaps you could realize that people only vote for red or blue because red and blue are the only options given to them?

 

So... I've got a question for you... what is the best car manufacturer in the world? Dodge... or Saab? Well there we go... that's justice served on a silver platter. If I ask a group of people... they've gotta vote for a majority!

Say what you want... two party systems limit voters to black and white. Red and blue. What about the grey candidate? The purple one? The one that... if available... the majority WOULD vote for?

 

What you are saying is that justice is served when you simply limit the people of America to two candidates... yeah that is real democracy and whatnot... or perhaps you could realize that people only vote for red or blue because red and blue are the only options given to them?

 

So... I've got a question for you... what is the best car manufacturer in the world? Dodge... or Saab? Well there we go... that's justice served on a silver platter. If I ask a group of people... they've gotta vote for a majority!

 

 

 

No, the majority never wins, with the exception of a few rare occasions. The definition of a democracy is that whatever the MAJORITY wants, they get, and that is far from guaranteed if we don't have a two-party system.

 

I'll try to give another example. If you get a chance, take a look at what is going on in The Netherlands. Geert Wilders, a well-known fascist politician, isn't very popular in his own country, but that doesn't matter thanks to the Dutch political system. His favorable ratings were about 21% the last time I heard, and some say that could be enough for him to be the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, since last year the PM was elected with only 20% of the vote. See, in America, a politian who's ideology was based largely off of fascism would never be able to receive 50% of the vote (and neither would they be able to in the Netherlands.) Thanks to the minimal support needed to become a political power in the Dutch system though, it is very possible there.

 

Not to mention, the example you provided is horrible. If you were two say that car companies A, B and C combined to create car company D, and they would compete with car company H, which is comprised of companies E, F and G, that would be different. You don't, however, pick two items out of a list of a dozen and tell them that they are the only two options. The two major political parties that we currently have are basically several ideologies formed into two different categories. Usually, one will fall much closer to one side rather than the other, but sometimes you just have to pick the lesser of the two evils.