GP Poll: Will Video Game Issue Decide Your Presidential Vote?

Bonnie 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.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    FngKestrel says:

    @Silphion Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    And like Xen, I’m a working professional in the game industry, so yes it is quite important.

  2. 0
    Paladyn ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “…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 material, doesn’t that logically cover what’s necessary?

    What I don’t want is to have violence or other types of speech to carry the same legal status as pornography, where it’s illegal to present it to a minor. While parents have the right to know the content of something, it’s their prerogative to allow their child to access such material if they so choose.

    The bottom line is that the government already intrudes into our life too much for our supposed “safety”. The whole lot of them should stay out of our lives as much as humanly possible. I want them out of our living rooms, bedrooms, gamerooms, gun safes, and whatever else they have a mind to screw with. Oh yeah, and while they’re at it, I’d wish they’d lay off of my wallet alot more too.

  3. 0
    Smashpro1 says:

    This issue has already affected me. During the Illinois orimary, I took where every candidate stood on the key issues for me, but I eventually bit the bullet and voted Romney. In the fall election, if it is down to Obama and McCain, I’m taking Obama. If it is McCain and Clinton, I am simply not voting

  4. 0
    Xen says:


    As a working professional in the games industry, and as a US citizen working abroad, I’d say that Video game issues are a HUGE factor in who I will vote for. Who gets elected will also be a deciding factor of whether I return to the states at some point or not. If that makes me a “total fucking idiot” as you say, well then that’s a surprise to me.

    BTW, If you play games, there is a 100% chance I made one of the games you’ve played or will play in your lifetime. I believe that makes you a total fucking idiot by proxy.

  5. 0
    Coravin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  6. 0
    DigDug says:

    Video games really are the most important issue in this election. Not directly, but in that they are related to who gets to nominate judges to the supreme court (and to lower courts). Conservatives are 1 vote away from a 5 vote majority that could last decades. And Republicans tend to nominate conservative judges that interpret the 1st Amendment more narrowly, and that tend to want to give more power to states to regulate as well. Either Obama or Clinton would nominate judges that interpret the Bill of Rights “liberally”, and therefore more like you would expect, for example, the ACLU to come down on 1st Amendment issues.

    I really doubt that the candidates will make a huge difference on the other issues. They all three know we have to be careful withdrawling from Iraq (even McCain knows we have to get out). All are fairly moderate on economics and just about all the other issues. Plus you have Congress to balance whatever the president tries to do (parties rarely control both branches). The real impact of any President in the long term is the kind of judges they appoint to the bench. Obviously there are exceptions like Bush invading Iraq, but that was after one of the most traumatic events this country ever went through: September 11th. And even so, Bushes judges (Roberts and Alito) will be on the supreme court decades after we’re long gone from Iraq.

    In short, the supreme court is in the balance. We need liberal judges (appointed by EITHER Obama or Clinton) to continue at least a balance and protect video games and other media from what I think would be a more conservative, restrictive interpetation of the 1st Amendment if McCain wins.

  7. 0
    James says:

    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.

  8. 0
    James says:


    I think he is more in touch than you realize. I come from a small southern town and what he said is the truth. People who are losing hope tend to scapegoat. What he was saying there is that people in that situation find someone to hate. I have seen and dealt with it personally, and even within myself.

    This is just like the article saying he is anti-video game. He was using games as an example of something neglectful parents use to keep their kid entertained while they ignore them. Notice, he said turn off the TV right before that. It is amazing how people are so quick to jump on Obama for every little thing, but Hillary and McCain get tons of passes.

    As to answer the original post: my priorities for voting are-
    1.Free Speech (Obama. could be better, better than the other two)
    2.Transparent Government (Obama is the only one here)
    2.Advancement of Science/Technology/Education (I believe this leads to a better economy by creating new jobs to replace any lost overseas and creates products to export. Obama is the only pro net neutrality. )
    2.Economy (McCain or Obama here. Neither perfect.)
    2.(realistically)Socialized Medicine (Obama’s plan is better than Clinton’s)
    2.Out of Iraq (Obama)
    3.Diplomatic Foreign Policy(Obama)
    3.Protecting/Advancing Citizen rights (pro-choice, pro gay marriage)(Obama, could be better)

  9. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  10. 0
    Randomguy says:

    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.

  11. 0
    sqlrob ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @jadedcritic: “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.”

    Which is exactly why I cast my vote such that they will be opposite. I’d rather a government that is frozen than one that gets the wrong things done.

    As with the others here, video games are a barometer into how they view the Constitution and Free Speech. If I can’t trust you to follow your oath, why should I trust you in office?

  12. 0
    E. Zachary Knight ( User Karma: 1 ) says:

    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.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  13. 0
    E. Zachary Knight ( User Karma: 1 ) says:

    @ TheGreg and anyone else who says that Obama is not friendly towards games

    I don’t think that is the case. Sure he has labeled people who play games as not politically active, but that is not the same as saying he wants to legislate games.

    He has said that he is in support of voluntary industry regulation for all media.

    Plus in the context of those statements about slacking, he is talking to people who would rather focus their time on meaningless activities, whatever they may be, than try to do something with their lives. He is speaking to those who don’t vote because they are not interested or don’t care.

    That is not the same as saying he wants to legislate games.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  14. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  15. 0
    point09micron ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  16. 0
    EmeraldDragon says:

    Nope, game issues won’t be part of my vote casting.

    As I see it, Video Games are protected under the First Amendment and it will out grow it’s scapegoat appeal eventually just like movies, TV, and comics did.

    Besides there are far more important issues in the world.

  17. 0
    1AgainstTheWorld ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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…)

  18. 0
    Father Time ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    If it came down to Hillary vs. Mccain I would vote for Mccain purely over the games issue.

    If it came down to Obama vs. Mccain then I’m not sure who I’d vote for.

  19. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  20. 0
    Gray17 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

    Hey, even if we can’t get them into power, voting for them makes for a much better protest vote than not voting.

  21. 0
    TheGreg says:


    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.

  22. 0
    shady8x says:

    Some of the candidates are strong one issues but weak on another, to me Obama is about equal to MCcain on the issues you mentioned (though he was above before recent statements…)

    Hillary actually does decently against both but her attempts to destroy our unalienable rights by destroying the bill of rights puts her way below both…
    She has tried to destroy the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 8th amendments…

  23. 0
    Drifter says:

    Well, I live in Canada, so take this opinion into context. Whoever wins here will probably affect us though…

    I really hope Obama wins. It was my hope from the beginning. I have a natural tendency to lean to the left, and Hillary, well… You know her history from the articles here. In this case, it was probably videogames that convinced me.

    Not that I can vote in the United States. Oh well.

    I think most of what I’ve said here has been said actually…

  24. 0
    Gameclucks says:

    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.

  25. 0
    Silphion says:

    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.

  26. 0
    Thad says:

    Doesn’t look like we’re learning much with this one; the vast majority of people are saying it’s an issue just like any other.

    I AM frankly terrified that there actually ARE people who say it’s their defining issue, that effectively things like the war, the economy, healthcare, the environment, domestic spying, and torture are all irrelevant and video game censorship is more important than any of them. (Then again, maybe those people are simply using it as a deciding factor between Clinton and Obama, whose policies on all those other things are basically identical. You didn’t specify primary versus general election, and in fact made a reference to the Pennsylvania Primary in your post.)

  27. 0
    Jacob Pfeiffer ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  28. 0
    Glen Haupt says:

    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.

  29. 0
    Bill ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m not voting for any of the 3 candidates. I’m going 3rd party or independent. This to me isn’t about games, but liberty and freedom. If I don’t stand up for the small things then I will watch my liberties and freedoms die the death of a million cuts. They use a slow bleed method instead of taking them all at once.
    You say there are more important issues; I say that games are just the close up of the Big Picture. Basically you are willing to vote for people who want to take freedom from you because you think other issues are more important. Since none of the candidates are protecting my liberty, it really doesn’t matter if I don’t vote for them, but at least when those freedoms have been taken I can say I had no hand in it.
    So when you r games are finally banned by one of the 3 fucking stooges because some other thing you thought was more important compelled you to vote for them, then remember to keep your bitching to yourself. You’re just as complicit as those you voted for who took your liberties from you. I won’t be any better off but my conscience will be clear.

  30. 0
    point09micron says:

    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.

  31. 0
    point09micron says:

    Media and censorship issues are important, but… c’mon. Is anyone seriously making this their only concern, or even a major concern, in determining who to vote for for PRESIDENT? Is this really more important than the war, or the economy, or foreign policy, or sustainable energy issues, or anything else that actually affects your LIFE?

    Yes, I feel that censorship issues are more important in the long run. Wars all end eventually. The economy is always in flux, always has been, and always will be. Energy issues have been studied for years, and improvements are continually being made (I might also point out that the President has precisely nothing to do with it, because it’s a scientific problem rather than a political one). Foreign policy isn’t a problem, because the perception of Joe Average Frenchman doesn’t factor in to the big picture of which country is fucking over which other country.

    On the other hand, censorship of media (such as video games), would have a long-lasting negative effect on this country, well beyond any of our lifetimes. This is because it’s a Constitutional issue, whereas the others you listed are mainly political. Presidents come and go, but a fundamental change like limiting free speech is far harder to undo, both due to the immediate effects, and the long-term psychological effect on future media producers.

  32. 0
    Catch 33 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  33. 0
    Verbinator ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    No. The only potential candidates even talking about this are Democrats. The Democratic Party and their platform, etc. hit “Epic Fail” level with me before getting anywhere near the issue of games.

  34. 0
    Vinzent says:

    Yes it will be a factor for me.

    I am not an economist. I am not a diplomat. I can’t tell if the proposed plans from these yahoo candidates will improve the economy or our world standing. And after being lied to by every candidate for the past 20 years, I think we’re boned either way.

    But I do know that the Bill of Rights is important. I also know that if a candidate is stupid or malevolent enough to try and strip those rights from it’s constituency, dictatorship and revolution are not far away. I may not know much, but I know how to watch the History Channel.

  35. 0
    JBourrie says:

    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.

  36. 0
    Shih Tzu says:

    Media and censorship issues are important, but… c’mon. Is anyone seriously making this their only concern, or even a major concern, in determining who to vote for for PRESIDENT? Is this really more important than the war, or the economy, or foreign policy, or sustainable energy issues, or anything else that actually affects your LIFE?

    At this point there’s no way Hillary can get the nomination, but if she did, you can be damn sure I’d be voting for her, no matter how much anti-game political pandering she’d done. This country can’t afford another four years of Republican incompetence. There are too many issues that actually matter in this world to make video games anything close to a priority.

  37. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    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.

  38. 0
    Weatherlight ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Thank god I am throwing my vote away and voting for Ron Paul. This becomes a non-issue for me. I dont have to worry about him changing the constitution or creating an unconstitutional law. Until more people start throwing their votes away for candidates that did not receive the nomination of the two big parties we will be stuck in a rut of going nowhere as a country. Only politicians looking out for their own best interest, promising you the world and doing nothing.

  39. 0
    Paul Gonzalez says:

    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.

  40. 0
    Bongotezz says:

    a candidate’s position on games causing violent crimes should be taken into account. it basically tells you how intelligent someone is. if they blame video games on violence then they are either dumb or easily lead and should not be president. video games cause no more violence than comic books, heavy metal, or rap music – all were accused of doing this in the past.

  41. 0
    Eddie says:

    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 )

  42. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

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

  43. 0
    Marlowe says:

    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.

  44. 0
    Conejo ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    i can’t see how anyone can be constantly bitching about costs in Iraq and not be absolutely sickened by the fact that the government isn’t even pretending that they aren’t in the pocket of Big Oil currently.

    four years of “record profits” and yet gas prices are still climbing AND they continually request further government money for “research”

  45. 0
    Thefremen ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  46. 0
    Icehawk ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    In the wide picture I cannot say that games Should be a deciding factor compared to things like a recession, war and crime. Should not but at least on some levels does. Any politician on a medium to low level that attacks my pastime will not get my vote, pety maybe but there it is. Sometimes you just have to go with the least the evils (and evils in that reference are politicians. Though on second thought they usually are evils anyway).

    Those polticians that chose to make a platform out of attacking games instead of addressing larger problems are open to blantant contempt and disgust and should expect nothing more.

  47. 0
    jadedcritic ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  48. 0
    Are'el ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  49. 0
    PeterWDawson ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    How a person stands on video games is a great way to judge if the politician’s a tool or actually thinks about subjects. It can show if a politician really values free speech and how he feels about the media. That in mind I’m Canadian so I don’t care who wins the election unless it’s some moron who thinks we’re harboring illegal WMDs.

  50. 0
    Black Manta ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  51. 0
    Edidid says:

    While free speech is very important, how that applies specifically to video games is not going to be my deciding factor when voting.

    In MN voting against the video game law supporters coincides with my political view in my area, but it is not what decides my vote.

    On the national level there is little reason to bicker over video games (or other luxuries) when economics and other serious concerns remain. Besides, whoever is the next president (or possibly whoever wins the election after that) will be appointing judges who will determine if video games fall under free speech or not. We are a long way from have a set decision on the issue at the national level.

  52. 0
    GRIZZAM 512 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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…

  53. 0
    Malygris ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m not eligible to vote in the US election so my opinion won’t go any further than that, but I think that while a candidate’s stance toward videogames is important in itself, it’s of greater significance as a barometer of a more overarching attitude. Since there is absolutely zero proof that videogames are harmful to minors; since videogames are already well-established as an adult pastime; since videogames have time and again been determined by US courts as having the same First Amendment protections as other forms of media; and since there is already a very well-functioning regulatory body in the ESRB, what does it say about a candidate who finds any kind of need to impose legislation against the industry, much less make it a priority? A leader who ignores factual evidence in order to pander to the masses for political expedience is not someone I’d want serving at the head of the most powerful nation in the world. It’s not worth excluding a candidate based on that single issue entirely, but it does demand much greater scrutiny of his or her (let’s face it, her) positions, credibility and suitability for the big chair.

  54. 0
    Video Game Otaku ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  55. 0
    Zerodash ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’d normally be going with McCain because I am a business (co)owner. However, his spotty net-neutrality & Iraq stance make it difficult for me. Hillary is simply a no-no for a plethora of reasons- video games is no small part.

  56. 0
    Conejo ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.”

  57. 0
    Vake Xeacons ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Be happy we still care at all. I wasn’t even registered till last month. I didn’t want to vote. I’ve been screwed over by more politians, regardless of well I research the campaign. It’s easy to say,

    “What’s the point? This world is beyond redemption; let the [heathen] cattle have it.”

    The hope, that our generation can help change the world, is not easy to come by. It seems a fantastic dream, like winning the lottery. No matter how hard you fight, everything just seems to be slipping backwards faster. It’s frustrating. Sometimes, it feels like you’ve just run out of faith. At least I’m voting. So, you’re welcome.

  58. 0
    Cheater87 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  59. 0
    Vake Xeacons ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    For the most part. It’s the #1 issue at least. But I haven’t heard many candidates views on it yet. I know Clinton’s a no-no. McCain hasn’t said anything, but he’s got the same black ties to Lieberman as Clinton. He’s out. Obama said he’s willing to hear the issue before deciding, so we’ll see about him.

    @GP, it would be so nice if you could find and post a list of the candidates and their views on games (or if you already had, either update or link to the archive).

  60. 0
    Gray17 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    You’re a total fucking idiot if you decide who to vote for based on their stance on videogames. There are far more important issues.

    No, it’s a useful factor for deciding, as it does tend to help show their priorities and views on other matters.

    For example someone pushing censoring games, and making a big deal about games causing violence ain’t too likely to do a good job in office. They’re likely too far to the left or the right in regards to speech to be someone we’d want in office. Likewise if they’re busy making any sort of deal about videogames, they probably don’t have their priorities in place, and will waste time and money doing things that will make them look good, as opposed to actually getting useful stuff accomplished.

  61. 0
    Sean ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  62. 0
    Are'el ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It wouldn’t be my final deciding factor, no. But it is something I would take seriously and weigh with all the other issue. Stances on video games are like a barometer for other, more serious issues.

    How does the canidate feel about free speech?
    Are the knowledgeable of modern tech issues?
    Do they look to cure society’s problems, or blame them on easy targets?

    When you think about it, even though video games seem trivial in light of war and economics, there are several social issues tied to video games’ fates. So you probably shouldn’t completely dismiss a canidate for their gaming policies, but you should take notice of them.

  63. 0
    TBone Tony ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  64. 0
    TBone Tony ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    For me in Australia, the elections were last year in November.

    And with Australia talking about an R ratings for Videogames so soon after the election, I feel that as a gamer in the land downunder, it has been a positive step since the last government had no interest in Videogames.

    Although I could be wrong though, as the new PM in my country is wanting Laptops in every school, I am still conserned about his and his parties stances on the Videogame issue and how there is still no proven link between violent videogames and violence in real life.

    it is just the South Australian AG that is the main problem here, and he has been in power for more than 10 years or so. And that has nothing to do with the Australian Federal Government.

    But yeah, looking at what is happening in America and the UK and looking at the extreme politicians there, I will keep an eye on what the Australian Government of today says about Videogames.

  65. 0

    […] 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. […]

  66. 0
    Rou says:

    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.

  67. 0
    Benji ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    One thing I’ve considered is that, if you’re voting Democrat (and a lot of habitual gamers would lean that way, I think), it’s hard to find a strong difference between Hillary and Obama’s policies. They both hate Iraq, both love healthcare, blah, blah, blah. So to me at least they’re basically two identical candidates, except one’s got a proven record of wanting to censor media for the sake of protecting stupid parents. In that context, yes, I would vote based on a candidate’s stance on games – it’s certainly not the most important issue to me, but I’ve failed to distinguish between candidates based on anything I would consider more important.

  68. 0
    Yuki says:

    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.

  69. 0
    michael lee ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    My vote is actually for the London Mayoral elections, but the theory is the same. It will be an important factor, but it will not be the only one.

    (Not that my vote really matters, being a Greenie)

  70. 0
    T5 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Defending the indefensible, thats fine. This comment of his really shows you the kind of man he his and that is an elitist business as usual politician (make no mistake all three of them are) Saying that people cling to guns and religion because they are bitter is an absurd notion and while you cite your town there are hundreds if not thousands of towns that would disagree with Obama’s ignorant claim.

    The said fact of the matter is that no matter who is elected president we are going to see a growth in government, taxes, and a loss of more freedom all in the name of trying to help and care for you.

  71. 0
    shady8x says:

    @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…
    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…

  72. 0
    T5 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Obama talked about supporting federally funded studies into the effects of video games.

    The question with obama is will anyone vote for him due to his latest blunder. No I’m sure I am just too bitter…

  73. 0
    Mlucky says:

    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.

Leave a Reply