a candidates' stance on video game legislation reflects a number of issues including...

free speech,

individual rights,

free markets,

parents rights,

monetary policy (costly and foreseeable appeals),

double standards (other media not include shows a lack of willingness to consider obvious double standards.)

ability to act on information and consider the problem vs. opportunistic pandering to public fears
****************************************************
a cannidates' stance on video game legislation can easily show what kind of president they will be and should be considered when you choose any politician.

@TBone Tony
"For other issues like Tibet Vs China and Global Warming, they are pretty much hot topics that will get thrust around more in the Mainstream Media with both sides of politics."

The problem with those popular issues is that China vs a province it will never allow to leave is not an issue since we moved all the manufacturing business to China and now dependent on it...so all posturing aside there is no chance of this being solved any time soon...
and
Global Warming has not been scientifically proven, it has just been accepted the same way that we accepted nukes in Iraq in 2003... The huge amount of scientists coming out against GW are ignored. now they are labeled neo-cons or crazies... so while this has become a major political issue it is not a proven scientific fact and should be ignored until it is proven scientifically not when some political party accepts it... but if it is true then I vote to kill all the cows since they produce the vast majority of greenhouse gases...

The main issues for me are economy, health care, smart/humane laws(some laws are simply insane, cost billions, create criminals and break the 8th amendment of the bill of rights), switching away from oil, Iraq, first amendment of the bill of rights, second amendment of the bill of rights.

In that order...

Since video games are the latest bastion of free speech, of course they're a big issue for me.

Wish I could say that games will be the core of my choices for november, but several other things are for more pressing for me then that stuff.

Still, I don't like hilary cause her stance on games, among a number of other things is well known. Barack? Well, lets just say he needs to make some better choices in what he says, what he does, and who he associates with.

As for Mccain, tough on. Don't like some of his ideas, don't like the idea of sticking around in Iraq for longer then we need to, but on the other hand, I think a conservitive approach to the economy and healthcare, instead of stealing money from the middle class to give to the poor and lazy, seems like a better plan.

Still, I'm divided. Hillary and barack are to socialist in my view, but Mccain may wind up wasting millions on a pointless war.

It really is a question of the Lesser of three evils.

Partly. It's not just video games. This is systematic of a nanny state mindset that I find abhorrent. Sadly, it's a mindset that is more and more common, but it's something I simply can not vote for.

[...] wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBonnie Ruberg’s recent Heroine Sheik post, which detailed her quandary over just how important the video game censorship issue would be when she casts her presidential vote, got us thinking, too. What, for instance, will GP do? (and I’ve got to decide quickly, because the Pennsylvania primary is just eight days away)… More importantly, what will you do? Given the situation with Iraq, with the economy, with environmental issues, with Homeland Security, with energy, the credit crisis, the housing market, etc., will your choice come down to a candidate’s stance on video game issues? How do we place video game issues in their proper context? We’d like to know what you think. Make your opinion known by voting in today’s GamePolitics poll, located in the upper right sidebar, and feel free to offer additional thoughts by commenting to this post. [...]

For me, Videogames are a important issue personally because no one ever consideres it important.

For other issues like Tibet Vs China and Global Warming, they are pretty much hot topics that will get thrust around more in the Mainstream Media with both sides of politics.

So I try to hear about the smaller, but still important issues that involve within the country.

Even if Hilary were elected, its not like she could just snap her fingers and make legislation constitutional. That said, I still won't be voting for her.

Err, that should be "priorities in the *right* place"

I love my games. I am a gore hound also so I also love violent games and movies and such. If Hilary wins she will try to eliminate them ALL "for the children". If she does manage to do something to violent video games I'm importing from Europe.

if you don't understand that a pro-censorship position on one type of media is just a politician wishing there were a way to censor everything, you have no place calling people "total fucking idiots."

Yes I agree with Vake Xeacons, myself, like many others im sure, havent been able to keep up with every canidates views on every matter out there, Ive heard and caught a few things here and there about them but not the whole picture. I think that would make a great post. Because like Are'el said, even though it may seem trivial, it really is a good way to see hte canidates views on very important social issues.

For me the economy is #1, but video games are one of the few things we still make in this country, so they kinda fall onto the same plate. All the candidates suck, but Hillary is still the worst, so she can piss off. Speech censoring bitch...

Well, I've already cast my vote for Obama and am a die-hard supporter. And while hist stance on video games weighed-in on my decision, it wasn't the biggest, nor the only factor.

Like many, I regard the video game stance as a barometer vis a vis other issues. I've said before that Hillary displays an attitude that she wants to be everyone's mom, and I don't like that. Others have seen this too. Someone on another thread pointed out that her stance on the issue shows she's willing to disregard the First Amendment when it suits her and violate the rights of a group of people whom she thinks aren't large enough to be worth protecting if it means getting easy votes. I've seen that level of arrogance refelected in almost everything else she says and does.

McCain I'm not so sure about. He doesn't seem to be as arrogant or a censor-happy as Hillary, but as was said here earlier, I remember him being right up there next to Lieberman and echoing his sentiments with regards to video gams. At the same time, though, I think he's aware there are much bigger and more relevant issues at stake, which is why he's never addressed it really. And yes, I'm one of those people who would sooner vote for McCain than Hillary if Obama didn't get the nomination. But that' a discussion for another time.

I always assumed Canadians were up to no good. But seriously, I figure Canadians probably mostly care about free trade issues when it comes to the politics of their neighbors to the south. Like, how do they feel about the North American highway, which would allow cheaply paid Mexican truckers to drive all the way up into Canada, and compete with regional truckers for jobs? Bush is pushing for such a thing, but it seems likely that his successor will have some say in that as well.

I have no problem admitting that by and large, video game issues play no factor in my vote. The logic behind how I'm voting is actually relatively simple.

1. The video game industry will survive whomever we elect. They've survived multiple presidents, they'll survive this one.
2. Bi-partisanship is largely extinct. If we elect a majority democratic congress, we cannot elect a republican president if we want to get anything done. They'll quibble for years, and we have to assume that whomever we elect will serve two terms. They do.
3. I'm sick to death of Iraq. It has officially gone on longer then the civil war, and I'm tired of politicans who think it's OK to keep us that at enormous cost when it's not working. More specifically, I'm tired of politicians who think it's OK to spend more time and resources on international policy then domestic. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think we should spend a little less time trying to police the world and fix a few of our own damn problems. Accordingly, I cannot support a candidate who supports Iraq. Period.
4. I can't support Hillary, if only because I spent a little time looking over her healthcare proposals and she's frigging nuts. As messed up as our healthcare system is, her stuff would be like trying to fix a traffic jam by adding a few jackknifed semis. Besides, it drives me nuts when she argues about how "experienced" she is. Excuse me, since when is first lady a position of any actual power?

In short. I'm praying Barak wins the democratic primary - because if he doesn't I have no idea how I can vote.

The war in Iraq is probably number 2 after Economy, then comes health care, education, freedom of speech etc. So Obama is my man, if the Aristocrats in the Democratic Party decide to let us eat cake and put up Hillary then I'm still going to vote Obama as a write-in.

Problem is our "progame" candidates aren't so much "progame" as they aren't explicibly and outspokenly antigame like Hilary is. Frankly, we don't know exactly where they stand and its not even a choice between the lesser of two evils but an evil and a possible evil. We haven't had a candidate make a single speech about the importance of protecting free speech from media hysteria, so we have to assume that by saying nothing they aren't against gaming and therefore they are by default for gaming.

Yeah. Fix the economy first, then you damn politicians can get your asses kicked in court when you dick around with the first amendment.

only a retard would pick the leader of his or her country based on video game views, I would rather they have thier mind on other things. I would no sooner base my vote on video game opioion than I would on the race or sex of the person ( ya you know who you are )

There are things out there bigger than games, and certainly bigger than any of us. Voting means nothing now. Ron Paul was the last best hope for the defense of American liberty. For the defense of the Republic..........

Have you ever heard of the military industrial complex?

Presidents, governors, senators, judges, mayors, and other assorted political figureheads come and go, but the military industrial complex stays. It is forever. And BTW this isn't some conspiracy BS. Eisenhower and George Washington both warned us of standing armies and private bankers. You all should watch Zeitgeist. That fleshes out my argument better than my writings.

Yuki
Even more so when the lesser evils are so alike your screwed no matter what you do, from what I have seen and read,Obama is right of Hillerys left on most issues, his plans might be reaching seem to be better balanced than hers, Mccain is a fcking sell out and his neo reaper leaders are as scary as theneo dims palying petty politics while they are in power.

What I would not give for Ron Paul or a old style money conservative even a good solid blue collar democrate would be nice but all we seem to have now adays are soulless neo fck wads.....

I am leaning to Obama if not him then Mcain maybe.... I hate throwing my vote away but I might just do that and vote or a 3rd wheel.

Sure it will be a factor for me, it decides the fate of my career.... but I get the feeling that the 47+ people who said that games will be their "deciding factor" aren't actually old enough to vote.

I'm 20 and that is my deciding factor. I vote.

The video game issue would normally be an important issue to me, not just for the most obvious reasons, but for the fact that any given politician's stance on it shows me exactly what kind of person they are.

However, since the two candidates who I know have railed against video games in the past aren't going to win no matter which one I vote for, the point is moot.

In case you can't tell, I'm saying that Senator John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. Why? Because his opponent in November will be either a black man, or a woman, and as much as I don't like it, the voters of the U.S. are not willing to elect a non-white or a female.

Not that I think Obama or Clinton should get votes based on their skin color/gender, I'm saying that it shouldn't condemn them to failure. Their inner flaws should do that.

Yes.

Also, I forgot to add earlier:

I also feel the censorship issue is more important, because it wouldn't just fuck up America. It wasn't that long ago that Hillary was advocating a ban of Manhunt 2, because Britain had banned it. If we start censoring our own media, it won't be long before other similar countries start following our lead and limiting their own free speech.

The stance video game issue, I think ties into a lot of other things about a candidate. It reflects their position on free speech, government intervention, the imposition of personal morals on the greater population, etc.

All of those things are very important to me, and I want the candidate I vote for to reflect my feelings about them. The video game factor is also very important to me. I love video games and am currently going to college to pursue a career in video games, so I want to see the industry flourish uninhibited and not be suppressed.

Also, the aforementioned issue tie even further into the really, really, important issues, like the war, the economy, etc. So the candidate's stance on those issues reflects how they feel not only about video games, but on other important issues.

So yes, the video games debate will influence my vote, but not just because of the issue itself, but because of the implications of each candidate's stance on the issue.

I honestly think that it really depends on how focused a candidate is on the issue. All of them have expressed some concern over video games but the real question lies in weather or not you think they will tackle the real problems facing this country first. It is obvious that Hilary has some issues with games but from what I can tell she seems more focused on fixing the main issues mentioned in this article first.

Obama on the other hand seems to really only have an issue with how much entertainment the public consumes on a whole. The only quote from him I can ever think of is when he requested that people get up and off their video games and go outside. He is not asking for censorship at this point but instead looking for moderation.

I vote because I want my beliefs and ideas represented. Video games, Net-Neutrality, and issues on technology are a large part of my life. That said, Hillary Clinton and John McCain do not represent or reflect my personal views on games, information technology, the business of such, and the regulation of such.

Obama, while not perfect (indeed, his views and reasonings are not some I agree with), does closely match what I want done.

Though we call ourselves a Democracy, I think of this as a Republic. However, I still have the power as a citizen to help decide the government body. As such, I want a representative who is juts that, a representative of what I think a country should be run. Thus, I vote for whomever best matches. They may not be perfect, my vote allows me the chance for my voice to not only be heard, but echoed.

And this, folks, is why a candidate's stance to video games matter to me. Because I care about it.

If Freedom of Speech is your first priority in selecting a candidate, consider this: The next president will likely shape the balance of the Supreme Court for years to come.

The current (conservative-leaning) court has already passed what I see as a very dangerous judgement against free speech, where they ruled that a sutdent's rights were not violated when he was forced to take down his "bong hits 4 Jesus" banner by school officials at a non-school function. The ruling said it was OK to censor his speech because of the context of that speech. This worries me.

I am neither Republican nor Democrat; I vote for candidate, not party. I actually like McCain as a politician, he has shown a willingness to compromise with his opponents in order to get work done... but I won't be supporting him in the general election because I'm too afraid of how the Supreme Court will end up under another republican administration.

Certainly he would appoint justices that would be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, he has promised as much to his backers on the far right. Unfotunately, making abortion illegal won't make it go away, it will just make it less regulated and much more dangerous. If a video game law ever makes it SCOTUS Appeal, they may decide that it's ok to censor pretend violence or other forms of speech. We don't get to directly vote for the judicial branch of government, and I think it's important to consider that when voting for the other two branches.

Oops, I screwed up in the second sentence. Meant whoever wins in YOUR country.

Dennis,

I was just wondering are there any candidates that are not in the "big two" parties that are more supportive of games/free speach? We already know Obama and Clinton aren't friends of gamers (I don't know Mccain's stance on it though i figure with his particular generation it's not looking good.)

I know the chances of getting a third party candidate in power is slim to none, and slim left town a loooong time ago, but I'd like to at least know there's someone out there who beleives in some of the freedoms the country was supposedly founded upon.

God, wouldn't it be cool if there weren't politcal parties at all? Then there wouldn't be all those a-holes agreeing with each other just because they're of the same party.

The candidates' stance on gaming will definitely have an impact on my vote, since it's such an important part of my life. But voting the issue is for gun nuts, the Religious Right, extremists on either side of the abortion issue, etc. I like to think I'm better than voting on just one cause. (And also well aware that voting the issue is what makes the NRA the most powerful special interest group in the country...)

The current (conservative-leaning) court has already passed what I see as a very dangerous judgement against free speech, where they ruled that a sutdent’s rights were not violated when he was forced to take down his “bong hits 4 Jesus” banner by school officials at a non-school function. The ruling said it was OK to censor his speech because of the context of that speech. This worries me.

If there were school officials there, how is it not a school function? Assuming it was actually a school function, he would be in clear violation of 2 school rules. If not, he's at least guilty of encouraging others to break the law (i.e. bong hits), which usually isn't protected speech.

Oh, and was that a US Supreme Court decision, or the decision of a lower court? I find myself thinking about Tinker v. Des Moines county school district.

But as to my view,

Video Games played no part in my support of Obama. I do not want to see another Clinton or Bush in the White House for the rest of my life. I also don't like her plans for health care and Iraq.

Of course she wants to pull out, I want to pull out, but not in the manner she wants to. Obama's plan seems more reasonable to me.

Health care is a touchy issue with me. I am not for universal health care. We don't need it. Unfortunately, Obama is for it. That is the most damaging point for me. But I can look passed that as I don't think it would pass.

I would rather the government give tax breaks on FICA for people who are paying for their own health care. Same for Social Security and people who have a retirement account.

The main thing I like about Obama is his desire to bring the US government up to date with technology. He will be the first president to appoint a Chief Technology Officer to the government. This will be someone who can actually clue the government in on things such as the video game issue and Net Neutrality.

I won't ever vote for McCain. I want someone who will get us out of Iraq, not keep us there for another 8 years. He is also old and out of touch with the people of the US. That is not something we need right now. We need someone who will listen to the people.

With all the important issues out there, I think it's a tad irresponsible to only focus upon video games as the issue in a campaign. Sure, you may have a strong opinion about it, but it shouldn't be the main reason you dislike a candidate.

I understand why a candidate would be a little bit scared to show support for video games, since they'll instantly be labeled the "family hating" candidates. Little do parents realize that when games are marked as "harmful to minors" without good data and research to support that idea, it can lead to infringements on their rights to decide what their children view. Hell, even if it is true that games are bad for kids, it's still better than having them become stupid or nutty from a lack of idea flow. That's the kind of shit cults resort to.

I forgot to mention, Games fall under Free Speech. Like others have said, I use that issue as more of a barometer than an actual issue. I do, however, place more emphasis on it than most, since I am planning on working in the industry.

It's funny to read people complaining about the U.S.A.'s presidential candidates being "too" conservative or liberal, when (according to the rest of the world having any semblance of a party system, and history and study of international and other-nation politics suggests they're right that we're merely educated not to believe this), we only have centrist candidates with so little difference between them that we might as well only have one party because there isn't a real left-wing or right-wing candidate in the dual-party bunch.

I agree, though, that videogames are (or at least, should be) a HUGE issue in this election. Not because of videogames per se. But because, do we really want somebody whose judgment is so poor they would wasting federal tax dollars on unconstitutional laws that dictate to parents (outside of immediate safety/health issues) what their children can and cannot watch/read/play/do? Or, more specifically, do we want somebody running our nation who believes such Big Government control is really better for the nation; or that parents are really so ineffective and children so malleable as to demand the government step in, but only for videogames because they are scary; or who is so unfamiliar with the constitution and with a passtime of 75% of the nation that they believe videogames' violence actually doesn't have any redeeming values and is the single most important determining factor for children who will be criminals or aduls who already are?

None of the scenarios for "reasons a candidate would support federal [or even state] legislation against videogames" are acceptable; all hint at a lack of knowledge about the state of the nation and the media so common within it; and most suggest a liberty in meddling with affairs better left to parents to deal with, as well as a frightening insouciance about spending our tax money in pursuit of "feel-good" legislation at the cost of things like health care, the economy, Katrina aid, and little trivialities like supporting the huge population of (soon-to-be 75% of) veterans suffering from PTSD and the far-too-many suffering from physical ailments.

That would be far too close to Big Brother's thought control, and definitely too constitution-ignorant and/or elitist to be the position held by a good president following a couple of terms that have attempted to bring the executive branch as near to ignorance of and derision for the very checks and balances that make this government worthwhile as we ever need to get (well, far nearer, but eh, too late now). Anyone who could, at some point within the past several years, look at the problems within the realm of education, housing, veterans care, and so on ad nauseum, and decide that legislating videogames was more important than all of these things, is either too crafty or too stupid (or both at the same time, even worse) for me to want in charge.

Coravin is partly right: compared to the western world's average of political views, our candidates actually lean more towards the right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

Look at Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, those are the only guys that lie out of the "main sequence".

Dr. Ron Paul is in the race guys...Go read up on what his is.

www.ronpaul2008.com

"...we only have centrist candidates with so little difference between them that we might as well only have one party because there isn’t a real left-wing or right-wing candidate in the dual-party bunch."

I agree. The last Right-winger we had in office (on the American political scale at least) was Ronald Reagan, and the last Left-winger was LBJ. Just about everyone else we've had in recent memory has been so spinelessly moderate that it's quite disgusting. Every 4 years, they all do the same political dance. First they sway the the left or right depending on what party they belong to. Then they swing as far to the middle as they can during the general election.

I'm against government censorship of anything, no matter how offensive it might seem to a random person. The government's job is not to shield the people from each and every thing that might offend them, or even do them harm. People shouldn't look to government like a nanny. The government isn't your caretaker, it's at best a necessary evil. On the other hand, I'm also against having children exposed to things they aren't able to handle. I'll try to make my points clear in this regard.

First, let's address the violence issue. I believe that children are largely not damaged by depictions of violence. War games and "cowboys and indians" type of play has been common throughout history. Cartoon characters drop anvils, pianos, etc. on their enemies' heads with no large-scale consequences for millions of people who have grown up to lead perfectly normal lives. Contact sport are organized violence, yet we wouldn't suggest banning football if one little miscreant couldn't determine that it wasn't appropriate to tackle random people in public. More realistic, graphic violence needs more attention, but not from the government. I was perfectly fine watching Robocop and Highlander in Middle School, but I know that other kids might not be. Parents need to accept the responsibility of training their own children. It's shameful that so many parents today are abrogating that duty and are trying to foist it on government or "society". If "it takes a village" to raise your child, you're too damn lazy.

Then there's sexually explicit material. We have age of consent laws and pornography laws already on the books. If someone's legally not supposed to have sex, and also not supposed to possess certain classes of sexually explicit m