Voting

Herschel

New Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
3,303
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
East Central Illinois
#1
A lot of people have mentioned that they can't agree with any of the "major" Presidential candidates this year. A few people have suggested that they like Ron Paul and his policies, but can't vote for him because he isn't popular enough. I voted for George W. Bush in 2004 because I felt cornered.

I didn't want Dubya to be President, but I really didn't want John Kerry and his trial-lawyer buddy to be in office, either. I justified the war and said, "It's OK. We're spreading Democracy." I justified Bush using his religion to try to influence legislation and said, "He's just living by his beliefs." I know the healthcare system in this country is a disaster, but I "didn't know if any one person had the answer to fix it." I rationalized the debt and said, "It will work itself out, someday." Now, we're in a war that costs $10,000,000,000 every single month, not to mention thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of lives lost since 2003. We have a President that seemingly acts in his own interest, rather than in the interest of the country. Our economy is in a recession and the housing market is about to collapse. And our national debt is nearly $10,000,000,000,000.

We need change. We don't need to tweak things and readjust, or end the war in Iraq by gradually removing troops over the next 20 years. The reason we keep getting stuck with these terrible Presidential candidates is that we don't stand up and vote with our beliefs. As a result, we have a two-party system that presents candidates that are essentially exactly the same.

I'm not posting this to start an argument. I'm just saying that we should consider our current political, economic, and social situation. Does it really seem like voting for Obama to counter Hillary, or Huckabee to counter McCain is really going to change anything? It might feel good in the short term, but what about the next 4 years?

Every vote sends a message. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary, etc. Why waste it on someone that you don't truly support? Our country is tired of the status quo and we need things to improve.
 

ACooper

Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
27,772
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
IN
#2
Every vote sends a message. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary, etc. Why waste it on someone that you don't truly support? Our country is tired of the status quo and we need things to improve.
I hear you Herschel. There is an intern at work, and we were working on a project together. There was time for chit chat, and of course politics came up. He said if he had to choose RIGHT NOW it would be candidate X. I asked him why, from the conversation we had been having it seemed that candidate X seemed far from his view points.

He explained that candidate Z didn't have a shot in @#$% and he didn't want to 'waste' his vote.

I tried to explain that voting for someone you didn't agree with JUST because they may have a shot WAS wasting your vote.........

I would rather support a losing candidate and vote my conscience, to me that is not a waste.
 

zoe08

New Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
5,160
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Texas
#4
Unfortunately in our system there will always be 2 main parties. That's just how it works, so you have to pick the lesser of the 2 evils. I will be voting republican because they share more of my beliefs, but it doesn't mean I agree with everything.
 

Gempress

Walks into Mordor
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
11,955
Likes
0
Points
0
#5
I really wish they would do away with the electoral college and go to direct voting. I think that would give a much more direct indication of voter preferences.
 

drmom777

Bloody but Unbowed
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
5,480
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
60
Location
new jersey
#6
I really wish they would do away with the electoral college and go to direct voting. I think that would give a much more direct indication of voter preferences.
Well, for one thing, if we had done that we wouldn't have had eight years of the shrub, and the world would be a different place. I'm not sure what it would be like, but different.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
94,266
Likes
3
Points
36
Location
Where the selas blooms
#7
I tried to explain that voting for someone you didn't agree with JUST because they may have a shot WAS wasting your vote.........
:D Keep it up, Coop. It might make a few people stop and think before they knee-jerk vote - and waste their vote on the lesser of two evils.

And maybe they will reach a few more people with that concept . . . . and then they will reach a few more . . . .

Just look at the changes in thinking there have been on this forum in the last couple of years.
 

Gempress

Walks into Mordor
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
11,955
Likes
0
Points
0
#8
I don't mind voting for the no-chance-in-heck candidate IF I feel strongly enough about their stances. I've done so in the past. But sadly, there has been precious few of those. Maybe two. In this presidential election, there is absolutely no one who inspires me. Any one of the lot could win, and I frankly wouldn't care overly much.

And as to the "lesser-of-two-evils" voting, here's my take. I could vote for the impossible candidate. He won't win, but I'll vote. But *because* I voted for the no-shot candidate, the popular candidate I absolutely can't stand managed to win the election over the popular candidate I find marginally acceptable. I don't feel as if I'm doing my country any favors in that case.

I see nothing wrong with using my vote defensively, rather than offensively.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
94,266
Likes
3
Points
36
Location
Where the selas blooms
#9
I used to think that way, too, Gem.

But it came to my mind that as long as we are reactive, rather than proactive, there will never be any substantial change - we are just perpetuating the miasma. Well intentioned, but . . . . well, good intentions are handy paving stones.
 

Herschel

New Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
3,303
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
East Central Illinois
#12
Unfortunately in our system there will always be 2 main parties. That's just how it works, so you have to pick the lesser of the 2 evils. I will be voting republican because they share more of my beliefs, but it doesn't mean I agree with everything.
Are you sure that this years candidate will share your beliefs? Unfortunately, the party name means very little now.
 

Herschel

New Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
3,303
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
East Central Illinois
#13
I really wish they would do away with the electoral college and go to direct voting. I think that would give a much more direct indication of voter preferences.
The electoral college is our last stand against vote fraud. "Direct" voting through electronic machines with no paper trail is going to lead to even more corruption.

A lot of people haven't been following it, but there is currently a recount for the Republican candidates in the New Hampshire primary. It turns out, the New Hampshire Secretary of State has "lost" a lot of ballots and other documents. This news came only after the Secretary of State asked to end the recount prematurely because it has been too much work, asked to delay it while his staff rests, and a other ridiculous requests.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#14
We won't get rid of the two party system. If we get rid of either the republicans or the democrats, they'll just be replaced by a new party with a new name but will be forced to become one or the other. And in the end in order to get elected you have to run towards the middle....

The only way we could have more than two major parties would be to get rid of the single member district setup we have and set up a proportional represntation system. This won't happen because Congress would have to vote on it. A change like that would hurt both the repubs and the dems and since they control Congress, it just won't happen.

Anyways, when it comes down to it, I'll vote for what I feel is the best of the available candidates. It's what I did last time though I wasn't pleased with the choices lol.
 

Herschel

New Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
3,303
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
East Central Illinois
#15
Anyways, when it comes down to it, I'll vote for what I feel is the best of the available candidates. It's what I did last time though I wasn't pleased with the choices lol.
The easiest way to get rid of the 2 party system is to vote outside of it. If everyone in the country decided to stand up and find a candidate that they truly like (without watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.), then I have a feeling things would be different.

The people that run the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee have so much say in our Presidential choices. I wonder if they have any special interests? ;)

This country was set up so we could choose our leaders. By saying that you will choose from the "available candidates", it points to the fact that we don't choose our leaders. We are presented with a group of people that we don't really like and choose the least "evil" of them all. The "available candidates" should be every eligible citizen of the United States.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#17
The easiest way to get rid of the 2 party system is to vote outside of it. If everyone in the country decided to stand up and find a candidate that they truly like (without watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.), then I have a feeling things would be different.

The people that run the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee have so much say in our Presidential choices. I wonder if they have any special interests? ;)

This country was set up so we could choose our leaders. By saying that you will choose from the "available candidates", it points to the fact that we don't choose our leaders. We are presented with a group of people that we don't really like and choose the least "evil" of them all. The "available candidates" should be every eligible citizen of the United States.
Actually, that wouldn't work. Sounds fine but it wouldn't.

Say we DID elect a third party. The way our system is set up it's basically winner-take all. You get a good sized minority of the vote and you get nothing. So if hypothetically either the republicans or the democrats WERE outvoted you'd get a new second party and either the repubs or democrats would become a third party.

Just look at the history of political parties in this country. Every time we get rid of one major party, it's replaced by more of the same thing.

What we need is a whole revamp of the entire system but that won't happen because to do so would be to hurt those in power and they're not stupid enough to do something like that to themselves.

ETA: And this iw why I don't understand the 'what we need is a viable third party' argument.
 

Herschel

New Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
3,303
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
East Central Illinois
#19
Say we DID elect a third party. The way our system is set up it's basically winner-take all. You get a good sized minority of the vote and you get nothing. So if hypothetically either the republicans or the democrats WERE outvoted you'd get a new second party and either the repubs or democrats would become a third party.
I'm not saying we need just one more party. I'm saying that voting should be more of a free for all, rather than controlled by the media/special interests.

The problem is that the "major parties" basically support the same values. Right now, we need major change in our government. Unfortunately, Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, and McCain aren't all that different. They bicker over words, but it's basically the same.

Have there really been any drastic changes from Bill Clinton's administration to Dubya's? (Other than the war, although Clinton did have his own little wars) Health care is still terrible. Our debt (which we always seem to ignore) increased during Clinton and increased some more during Bush.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top