Who's Your Pres?
This is one of my sore points, so I'll try to be nice and hope that I don't come-off too harsh.
Badnarik, the Libertarian Party Candidate is registerd in 49 states and has a potential 527 (out of 538) electoral votes, but he's ignored. Even though the LP is the third largest with over 600 elected officials throughout the US. Did you know that he (along with Cobb) was arrested trying to serve a judical order to show cause that was directed by a Federal judge for the hearing that happened on the 12th that nearly stopped tonight's debate in Arizona?
Cobb, the Green Party Candidate is on the ballot in 27 states with a potential of 286 electoral votes.
Peroutka, the Constitution Party Candidate is on the ballot in 36 states with a potential 353 electoral votes.
Nader (last time I checked) was still non-viable, because he didn't have enough potential electoral votes to win . Also, he's not represented nationally by any major 3rd Party because none of them want him. The closest he comes is an "endorsement" by the Reform Party. I haven't kept up-to-date with this sociopath who's more likely to attack you if you agree with him on the destination, but disagree on the route, than if you totally disagree with him; hence his campaigning only in borderline Kerry states.
Badnarik, the Libertarian Party Candidate is registerd in 49 states and has a potential 527 (out of 538) electoral votes, but he's ignored. Even though the LP is the third largest with over 600 elected officials throughout the US. Did you know that he (along with Cobb) was arrested trying to serve a judical order to show cause that was directed by a Federal judge for the hearing that happened on the 12th that nearly stopped tonight's debate in Arizona?
Cobb, the Green Party Candidate is on the ballot in 27 states with a potential of 286 electoral votes.
Peroutka, the Constitution Party Candidate is on the ballot in 36 states with a potential 353 electoral votes.
Nader (last time I checked) was still non-viable, because he didn't have enough potential electoral votes to win . Also, he's not represented nationally by any major 3rd Party because none of them want him. The closest he comes is an "endorsement" by the Reform Party. I haven't kept up-to-date with this sociopath who's more likely to attack you if you agree with him on the destination, but disagree on the route, than if you totally disagree with him; hence his campaigning only in borderline Kerry states.
Be educated and checkout the following web sites:
http://www.constitutionparty.org/
http://www.greenparty.org/
http://www.lp.org/
If you spend enough time reading these sites you may learn some very interesting things.
http://www.constitutionparty.org/
http://www.greenparty.org/
http://www.lp.org/
If you spend enough time reading these sites you may learn some very interesting things.
Aye, all three of the above parties are very interesting and worth checking out. Our country needs more discussions that go beyond the traditional two biggest parties (and I say that being a Bush supporter). The information is out there. All you have to do is read it, think about it, and then react in whatever way seems fitting to you. 
Mauglir
That's the problem. Most people don't research. The 3rd Parties are getting some attention in smaller newspapers, but the majority of the folks that think they're well read, still don't hear anything about the 3rd Parties because they don't read anything outside of the Times, etc. controlled media. The situation is even worse for the masses that just get their news from the TV. I've run into folks that believe Nader is the only/largest 3rd Party, because if they other parties were larger, then they'd be on the news more than Nader.mauglir wrote:The information is out there. All you have to do is read it, think about it, and then react in whatever way seems fitting to you.
The real source of the problem is government and government enforced monopolies (e.g. the CDP) thinking that it's OK to be BIpartisan when the law requires them to be NONpartisan. At least this time around, there have been two court cases actually heard, but of course the media ignored them.
Ray
I'm not old enough to vote, but if I could I'd vote for Kerry simply because he isn't Bush. And people please forget "what you believe in." Voting for the Green Party is throwing your vote away. If you don't vote Democratic or Republican you are just upsetting the balance and ruining the final outcome.
Guest wrote:I'm not old enough to vote, but if I could I'd vote for Kerry simply because he isn't Bush. And people please forget "what you believe in." Voting for the Green Party is throwing your vote away. If you don't vote Democratic or Republican you are just upsetting the balance and ruining the final outcome.
There's a good reason why people under 18 aren't allowed to vote in this country, and I think you just proved it.
Mauglir
mauglir wrote:Guest wrote:I'm not old enough to vote, but if I could I'd vote for Kerry simply because he isn't Bush. And people please forget "what you believe in." Voting for the Green Party is throwing your vote away. If you don't vote Democratic or Republican you are just upsetting the balance and ruining the final outcome.
There's a good reason why people under 18 aren't allowed to vote in this country, and I think you just proved it.
Sometimes you just need someone new; Bush is a bad president, so, yes, voting for someone who isn't Bush is a good start.
Yes, a vote for the green party is a wasted vote; this is a reality supporters of third parties must cope with. It isn't the fault of the third party or its beliefs, it is the fault of society. This isn't going to change just because the third party really is the better choice in any given election.
Note: I am talking about presidential elections; in local elections, it is still possible for third party candidates to be elected, which is good.
If you don't like the two candidates, vote for the lesser of two evils, but don't throw your vote away, that's just stupid.
The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.
Some of us are advocating the exercise of our rights as citizens to read up on a variety of ideas, to be informed, and then to apply that knowledge to our own lives and personal convictions in order to help make important decisions. And just because you read about third parties, it doesn't automatically make you a supporter. Good voters are informed. Informed voters are people who use their right to access free information.
Faulting "society" for something like the balance of power in our political parties is just an easy way for people to shrug off responsibility and point the finger at an abstract term. If you think "society" has a problem, you've got a responsibility to do something about it, because you are a part of the society.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is just a poor way to participate in a democracy. It's like going to a bar and saying "Gosh, I sure don't like Budweiser or Miller, but what else is there? Guess I'll order the one I can stomach the best." Now THAT is stupid.
I am a Bush supporter, but I am not a cookie-cutter Republican. In fact, the majority of my past votes have been for the Democrats (including Al Gore in 2000). I don't agree with the Republican party on every issue, but I also don't agree with the Democrats on every issue. I like the Libertarian party a lot, but I don't agree with the position on defense issues. The great thing about this country is that you can believe anything you want, and we have access to more free information that we could ever hope to digest in a lifetime to help shape our beliefs. Vote for any candidate you want. I'm not going to try to sway anyone. Just participate in the process and try to vote for something you believe in.
Some of us are advocating the exercise of our rights as citizens to read up on a variety of ideas, to be informed, and then to apply that knowledge to our own lives and personal convictions in order to help make important decisions. And just because you read about third parties, it doesn't automatically make you a supporter. Good voters are informed. Informed voters are people who use their right to access free information.
Faulting "society" for something like the balance of power in our political parties is just an easy way for people to shrug off responsibility and point the finger at an abstract term. If you think "society" has a problem, you've got a responsibility to do something about it, because you are a part of the society.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is just a poor way to participate in a democracy. It's like going to a bar and saying "Gosh, I sure don't like Budweiser or Miller, but what else is there? Guess I'll order the one I can stomach the best." Now THAT is stupid.
I am a Bush supporter, but I am not a cookie-cutter Republican. In fact, the majority of my past votes have been for the Democrats (including Al Gore in 2000). I don't agree with the Republican party on every issue, but I also don't agree with the Democrats on every issue. I like the Libertarian party a lot, but I don't agree with the position on defense issues. The great thing about this country is that you can believe anything you want, and we have access to more free information that we could ever hope to digest in a lifetime to help shape our beliefs. Vote for any candidate you want. I'm not going to try to sway anyone. Just participate in the process and try to vote for something you believe in.
Mauglir
there's a great line in a story i read once, and i find it very profound. the context is a high school speech day (it's a real traditional event in sydney, apparently) called "have a say day", where kids in years 11 and 12 gather in martin place (i think...) and a few of them give speeches on topics they find important. one boy talks about how he's watching the news and seeing how protesters in democratic republics (that aren't) are attacked by the "people's army" (that isn't really) and how it touched him. he speaks about the apathy of voters and that we "vote not to get the best party in, but to keep the worst party out."
he also talks about how good it is for the students to be able to gather as they're doing now, and concludes by saying that if they don't vote that's fine: "maybe someday we can have a people's army too."
iirc the 2000 presidential election in the usa had the highest voter turnout on record, with just over 40% of registered voters (?) going to the polls. personally, i find that kind of social apathy for something so important to that society more than a little disturbing...
he also talks about how good it is for the students to be able to gather as they're doing now, and concludes by saying that if they don't vote that's fine: "maybe someday we can have a people's army too."
iirc the 2000 presidential election in the usa had the highest voter turnout on record, with just over 40% of registered voters (?) going to the polls. personally, i find that kind of social apathy for something so important to that society more than a little disturbing...
*toot*
My feeling is a wasted vote is when you vote from someone you don't believe in.
I agree that 40% of registered voters is embarrassingly bad, but I’m afraid a partition of the problem is probably a good # of registered voters don’t actually exist. Despite what politicians would have you believe the voting system in the US is antiqued at best. I’m sure myself I’m counted as 2 voters myself. Once for where I live now and once for when I lived at home, because when I registered to vote where I live now I never had my named removed from when I lived at home. Another hole is people that die aren’t being removed from the voter lists either. So if I had to guess, probably 10 to 20% of registered voters just do not exist. 50-60% turn out is still a very poor turn out though.
I don’t think until the other candidates become better well known that voter turn out will improve. Because I believe that the missing 40-50% are people like me who do not vote because they don’t like either candidate. Until I discovered the other parties and found a candidate that I believe in, I didn’t vote out of protest.
I agree that 40% of registered voters is embarrassingly bad, but I’m afraid a partition of the problem is probably a good # of registered voters don’t actually exist. Despite what politicians would have you believe the voting system in the US is antiqued at best. I’m sure myself I’m counted as 2 voters myself. Once for where I live now and once for when I lived at home, because when I registered to vote where I live now I never had my named removed from when I lived at home. Another hole is people that die aren’t being removed from the voter lists either. So if I had to guess, probably 10 to 20% of registered voters just do not exist. 50-60% turn out is still a very poor turn out though.
I don’t think until the other candidates become better well known that voter turn out will improve. Because I believe that the missing 40-50% are people like me who do not vote because they don’t like either candidate. Until I discovered the other parties and found a candidate that I believe in, I didn’t vote out of protest.
You shouldn't vote for someone just because you don't like the other candidate. Even though you think Bush is a bad president doesn't Kerry's not even worse. You should vote for who you think is the better person.Guest wrote:I'm not old enough to vote, but if I could I'd vote for Kerry simply because he isn't Bush. And people please forget "what you believe in." Voting for the Green Party is throwing your vote away. If you don't vote Democratic or Republican you are just upsetting the balance and ruining the final outcome.
I don't know the exact stats but let's just say:
: 1 million people lose jobs under Bush.
: Voter says "I'm voting for Kerry without doing any research because Bush lost Americans' jobs."
: Kerry gets elected.
: 10 million people lose jobs under Kerry.
Based on what I know, I hate both candidates equally and am choosing not to vote because I don't want to take part in whichever lying retard gets into the white house.