THR Votes For The President

[chaim]

Lets see, until just over a month ago I was a registered Democrat. Does that mean I like Kerry? Heck no, he is one of the reasons I left the party. The man is a traitor to his country, his former uniform, and to every man and woman who ever did or ever will wear the uniform of their country. Basically being for socialism doesn't help either.

OK, I'm now a registered Republican. Does that mean I like and/or I'm voting for Bush? Lets see, $500 trillion deficit (I'm a fiscal conservative), destroying the morale of the Army and especially the Reserves and Guard with this you're going home in 6 months, no 1 year, no 18 months crap- if it is open ended tell them that and most of them will be able to deal with it, don't keep raising their hopes of going home only to dash them (I love the Army, even though I'm a civilian), the Patriot Act (I'm all for freedom), tightening the "War on Drugs" (see previous), putting US citizens, or at least one citizen, in jail without charges and without access to a lawyer for two years (see previous)... I don't think so!


What many die hard supporters of the two major parties keep forgetting (as Pax so nicely has explained) is that the votes of the rest of us do not automatically belong to them. The politicians have to earn them. Some of us may well dislike, or even hate Kerry, but we may feel just as strongly about Bush.

I hear everyday from my party loyalist Democrat dad how upset he is with Nader and his supporters. "That bast&%d is going to give the election to Bush", really?! I didn't know the election (or any particular person's vote) belonged to Kerry, or Nader, or Bush.

If the party faithful Democrats are upset that some left-wing people might vote Nader, then earn their votes. If party faithful Republicans are upset that independent minded right-leaning (or far-right) voters may vote Libertarian, Constitutional Party, or whatever, then earn our votes. Don't just b-tch and moan when we don't just roll over and give our votes to you for nothing.

 

[chaim]

Thumper, I know you directed these at Pax but I just have to answer them:

In YOUR specific case, Pax. Most folks lean to one side or the other, even if they don't agree 100% with either side's policies.

In a 50/50 electorate, you are definately pulling a vote from your fave by voting for an unelectable third party.

You still don't seem to get at least part of what she is saying. No ones vote belongs to anyone until they cast it. By voting 3rd party no one pulls a vote from anyone. Some of the people who think like you but may lean 3rd party could just as easily be said to be pulling a vote from the 3rd party (more so). To some people voting for the winning candidate, or one most likely to win, who comes closest of the major candidates isn't a choice. It is more important to register their dissatisfaction. Remember, throughout our history, one of the ways the two party system has perpetuated itself is by paying attention- when a third way starts to gain enough popularity they start to incorporate the parts of the third party platfrom they each fit best with. If the Libertarians start to do well enough in the future we may see a more libertarian Democratic and Republican Party in the coming years. For some that is what they are voting for.

Additionally, you and others have been making the arguement that voting Libertarian takes away from the Republicans. What makes you so sure that all of those votes would go Republican if they would vote for the major parties? The Libertarians take issues that span the left-right axis: right on guns, left on abortion, for instance. There are Libertarian leaning Republicans, LIbertarian leaning Democrats, Republican leaning Libertarians, Democratic leaning Libertarians, etc. Some of those Libertarian votes would probably go with Kerry if there was no Libertarian Party or if third party voting was illegal (or otherwise impossible). Now among those Libertarians who are here, I doubt many would vote Democrat, but going back to the previous line used here:
8 Kerry
9 Bush
3 Libertarian wouldn't automatically be 12 Bush, 8 Kerry without the Libertarians, it could just as easily be 10 and 10 or 11 Kerry 9 Bush (or vice versa).

I know you pooh pooh the "this election is REALLY important" thing

What makes you think that she, or anyone else who goes third party, doesn't think the election is important?! Many of these people won't compromise and hold their noses and vote for the major parties precisely because they realize the importance of the elections!

Another point, all elections are important, but few are at a point where one side is ok, and the other means all is lost. If it ever gets there then all is already lost because one side will never win all the elections. This is why it is so important that some people vote third party. When enough people do the major parties take it as a signal to make some changes, and they usually each incorporate certain aspects of the third party- moderating both parties, and this is exactly what has so far kept it from becoming a choice between acceptable and all is lost (so far anyway we have not crossed the line to a point that is unrecoverable).

Looking at Kerry's record, do you think his version of the Patriot Act (or Campaign finance, for that matter) would be preferential to Bush's?

Personally, I don't think Bush is any better. Would Kerry be worse on certain issues, yes. However, on others Bush might likely be worse. Essentially, this is a choice between horrible and pretty much equally (but differently) horrible.

 

[Iain]

We already have a third party over here, and a fourth and a fifth... Only two really viable ones (if you like to think about it that way) and a third important but not challenging for govt.

My story is about people voting on a serious issue that meant a lot to them. My parents constituency voted Labour in 1997 and helped bring in Blair, the new Labour govt then decided to scale back the local hospital drastically, removing the A&E (ER to you) meaning a trip to Worcester 20 miles away if you needed emergency treatment.

Local people didn't like this and in the next election the main man in the 'Save Kidderminster Hospital' campaign stood for MP. He won. So presently in the House of Commons sits a single issue Independant MP who can't really do anything about what has happened to the hospital.

But - it got some major media attention and taking a Labour seat I am sure raised some eyebrows in Millbank (Lab HQ). This is a good thing for local democracy and democracy in general.

 

[Marko Kloos]

I don't ever do "me, too" posts, but Tamara and especially pax have summed up the crux of the matter far more succinctly than I could hope to achieve in my early-morning-pre-caffeine-boost state.

To sum it up for the nosebleed section: I will not vote for Kerry or Bush because neither of them represents my position on how the country ought to be run. Both of them are wiping their butts with the Bill of Rights, they just use different ends of the parchment.

And anyone who vites for Bush merely because "Kerry would be worse" is helping to destroy freedom while saying, "At least my favorite pet right is not too badly mauled this time."

Someone once defined insanity as the repetition of the same act over and over again, expecting different outcomes. If that is so, then the majority of the electorate is suffering from collective insanity. There is absolutely no chance of the country going back towards freedom, if people keep electing Statist A over Statist B, because he's a little less anti-freedom.

If either Bush or Kerry want my vote, they have to freakin' earn it. If you vote for Bush because "where the hell else am I going to go?", then you're the one wasting your vote, because you are telling these clowns that their voter base will stay loyal if they're just a teensy-weensy less Statist than the other guy.

Worse, you will have proven that "being on the winning team" is more important to you than your convictions, or your freedoms. Then stop wearing your Molon labe hat and yakking about a 21st Century Lexington or Concord, and stand in line with all the other guys to have your chains fitted. If the Founding Fathers had used their chances for success as the deciding factor when they debated on having a country of their own, we'd still be subjects of the British Crown.

 

[seeker_two]

I vote for the candidate who most represents my views--& the views of the original signers of the Constitution. Since neither Bush nor Kerry represents these views, I WILL NOT be voting for either of them.

Right now, Michael Peroutka is looking pretty good.

For the rest, see my sig line...

 

[stevelyn]

Bush? Kerry? What choice? Both are Skull and Bones who've sworn oaths that supersede any oaths to the Constitution they may have sworn in the past.

No Thanks! I vote my conscience and cast my vote for Aaron Russo which won't count anyway since it's likely the AK delegation to the electoral college is committed to Bush to begin with. At least I'll be able to live with myself and bitch with a clear conscience.

 

[Thumper]

You know, I went to a series of Libertarian action meetings...at least, I was going to. Ended up being a bunch of mindless dreamers that reminded me a LOT of flower kids.

Started working for Tom Delay's campaign...the difference is AMAZING.

You CAN make a difference from inside a party. Do any of you think that there's any possibility of a Libertarian winning the Presidency?

Parties shift and move...do your part to make it right.

I have to admit, though...I sneakily use Pax' and Marko's arguments to convince Nader voters to hold to the cause. They eat that stuff up.

 

[Tamara]

Do any of you think that there's any possibility of a Libertarian winning the Presidency?

...and I'd be mortified to be caught "cheering for the losing team."


"Changing a party from the inside?" You still Just Don't Get It: both major parties are so far off base that I might as well go try and change the American Communist party from the inside, as they hew about as close to the Constitution as the Dems or the GOP these days. By these lights, Solzhenitsyn was a clod for not working within the CPSU and Gandhi should have joined the British colonial government.



Ah, screw rational debate, I guess I'll just stick to catchphrases and snide innuendo about "flower children." It seems appropos, given the bumper-sticker-catchprase-nadir that political philosophy has sunk to in this country...

 

[Obiwan]

Well...at least you're not bitter

 

[WIG19]

No flaming here; you just simply need to rethink your polling choices. No place for an independent thinker, nor any place to clearly say "haven't decided yet." Choices such as this are the reason that GWB's numbers on GWOT are skewed. Normally the question is asked to determine simple agreement on progress re GWOT and DOESN'T split it out between Afghanistan and Iraq, which many feel are different things. (I agree.)

I DON'T feel bad for America; I do, however, feel lousy (the lousiest in 30+ years of voting) about the viable choices. Now call NBC, ask for Joey Lucas and get a REAL poll out there.

 

[Thumper]

Oh come on...none of that is even close to being accurate.

It has nothing to do with "being on the winning team."

It has to do with being EFFECTIVE.

What EFFECT do you expect to have, Libs? You think your .02 percent of the vote is gonna get either party's attention? Oh wait, you don't think the parties are salvageable.

You expect The Lib party to EVER be effective? Did it hurt your feelings when Ron Paul quit the team?

Bumper sticker mentality? Easy to throw out there. You admire the Naderites? Think they're helping their cause?

"I sleep better at night when I vote my conscience." Great...sleep well.

 

[Obiwan]

Maybe we could start getting the Dems to vote Libertarian....

That would be safer...but unlikely...and that is the problem

 

[pax]

It has to do with being EFFECTIVE.

Okay, let's define terms here.

"EFFECTIVE" at what? What, exactly, is the purpose of a vote?

The purpose of a vote is to inform the world of which candidate most closely reflects the voter's views, values, and political opinions.

Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

If the voter's views are not most closely reflected by the Republican party, a vote for a Republican is not going to be "EFFECTIVE," because it would not accomplish the purpose of a vote.

pax

I wish that I may never think the smiles of the great and powerful a sufficient inducement to turn aside from the straight path of honesty and the convictions of my own mind. -- David Ricardo

 

[Thumper]

I'm not referring to just a vote...sorry about the confusion.

I'm referring to political action, period. Even if it's just sitting at your keyboard trying to sway people. I think we can agree that the goal of political activism is to be effective.

What effect can libertarians have?

If they were larger, the ONLY effect they would have would be to throw an election to Kerry. Unless I'm missing something?

What else do you hope to achieve?

Pipedreams and idealism are NECESSARY. We're just arguing about how to get to the ideal. ('Course, getting two people to agree on the ideal is next to impossible, too.)

Just don't let your idealism become detrimental to your cause.

Do you think the Nader supporters are on the right track? If not, how do you separate yourselves philosophically from them?

 

[pax]

I think we can agree that the goal of political activism is to be effective.

"Effective" at what, Thumper? You need to define your terms.

If they were larger, the ONLY effect they would have would be to throw an election to Kerry. Unless I'm missing something?

Unless you're missing something?? Just everything else I've said. That's all.

pax

Republicans can afford to be statists as long as they are just a little less anti-freedom than the Democrats. Most conservatives will still grudgingly vote for them, because "where the hell else are they going to go?" And people are surprised that their freedoms are eroding at an ever-quickening pace? -- Marko Kloos

 

[Thumper]

"Effective" at what, Thumper? You need to define your terms.

Come on, now...

Is there anyone here who doesn't know what being politically effective means? Pax, I know you do.

In pursuit of honest discourse:

By "effective" I mean viably working to move our political landscape closer to the Ideal, whatever you hold that to be.

If that's not your goal, then I really am missing something.

 

[pax]

By "effective" I mean viably working to move our political landscape closer to the Ideal, whatever you hold that to be.

You've answered my question precisely and completely, without telling me what I needed to know. (Have you ever worked for MicroSoft tech support?)

When I asked "effective at what?" I was asking you to define the goal. What is it that you want to see happen as a result of your personal, individual vote?

I have told you what I want my vote to accomplish: I want to tell the world which candidate most closely reflects my political views, values, and opinions.

Obviously you don't share that goal for your own vote. So what, exactly, are you hoping your personal vote will accomplish?

(Hint: you aren't going to put a candidate into office all by yourself. So let's not go down that particular rabbit trail, k? We're talking about the purpose of your individual vote.)

pax

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -- Samuel Adams

 

[Iain]

Thumper,

Say I want small government and to be out of Europe. The major party that most closely reflects this are the Conservatives. So I throw myself in to campaigning for them whilst fully aware that...

1. No Conservative govt. has ever really shrunk govt size.
2. Conservatives signed us up to Maastricht

...am I helping my cause by working for the Conservatives?

How to actually help my cause is another matter, but I'd rather not feel that in reality I was half helping, half hindering it.

 

[fjolnirsson]

Worse, you will have proven that "being on the winning team" is more important to you than your convictions, or your freedoms. Then stop wearing your Molon labe hat and yakking about a 21st Century Lexington or Concord, and stand in line with all the other guys to have your chains fitted. If the Founding Fathers had used their chances for success as the deciding factor when they debated on having a country of their own, we'd still be subjects of the British Crown.

Amen.

It has to do with being EFFECTIVE

No, it has to do with being able to hold my head high, and meet my own eyes in the mirror every morning. Realistically, does Michael Badnarik have a chance at enough votes to get elected? No. But that doesn't mean I should vote for either of the main contenders.
Just because I'm gonna be raped, doesn't mean I have to pull my pants down for the guy. Should I offer to make him dinner afterward?

 

[Thumper]

To address the bulk of your post, :

I'm referring to political action, period. Even if it's just sitting at your keyboard trying to sway people. I think we can agree that the goal of political activism is to be effective.

On a pretty frickin' strange note...

(Have you ever worked for MicroSoft tech support?)

Yes I did, for a long time...touche.

Still, I'm referring to activism. Your vote is only a tiny part of it. My opinion is that you can be much more effective working withing the a party.

To put a point on it, who's going to be more effective supporting my rights, Ron Paul or Mike Bednarik? I'm asking legitimately.

 

[Moparmike]

Ron Paul isnt running for POTUS. Badnarink is.



The point you should be wanting to put on it is whom does Pax, fjolnirsson, Marko, and I believe will "be more effective supporting (our) rights," Bush or Badnarink?


Sidenote:

Marko, Chaim, Tamara, & Pax: *Salutes* Well done!

 

[Ala Dan]

Republican here, I will vote for my friend GWB

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

 

[Tamara]

Republican here, I will vote for my friend GWB

Next time you're having dinner with your friend, tell him that his views on socialized medicine blow, and that he needs to keep his lips together when smooching Vicente; no tongue.

 

[Tamara]

Thumper,

You know, I went to a series of Libertarian action meetings...at least, I was going to. Ended up being a bunch of mindless dreamers that reminded me a LOT of flower kids.

Started working for Tom Delay's campaign...the difference is AMAZING.

Well, since I remind you of some "flower child", you remind me of some guy going to work for Big Blue in the late '70s with big ideas about how he's gonna "change 'em from within."

Me, I heard about this Bill guy who's got a killer idea for a startup...


Since we're throwing trite homilies around and all...


(BTW: How do you justify actually working for the election of someone who votes to deprive you of your rights? That's gotta be rough... )




PS:

Me: bumper-sticker-catchprase-nadir

and

You: Bumper sticker mentality? Easy to throw out there. You admire the Naderites?

Please note that "nadir" and "Nader", though homonyms and semi-synonymous, are not the same word.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Bush? Kerry? What choice? Both are Skull and Bones who've sworn oaths that supersede any oaths to the Constitution they may have sworn in the past.

We need a smiley wearing a little tinfoil hat. I'd put one right here