Please do not vote for Kerry or Bush

[natedogg]

Neither of these two jackasses deserves to be President. I know a lot of people feel it's important to vote against the bigger evil (whichever side that is to you) but perhaps this quote will change your mind:


We could argue all day about whether Bush or Kerry is the "lesser evil." The fact is that they both support the war in Iraq. They both oppose gun rights. They both supported the PATRIOT Act. They both support the war on drugs. They both support confiscatory taxation. They both support ruinously high levels of spending, huge deficits and increasing debt.

It's hard to tell them apart on the real issues. They spend their time scrapping over "swing votes" in the gray area of the "center" -- which means, in practice, "how do I not make too many people too angry to vote for me?" That's no way to do politics. ....

All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil. If you don't like the way things are, how do you change it by voting for more of the same?

From slashdot.org Q&A with Michael Badnarik

Think about it.


natedogg

[juanez]

Who do you suggest we vote for? Only Bush or Kerry have a chance to win (this time). Better to vote for the "lesser of two evils" than none at all, which would only strengthen the "greater of two evils".

[Abednego]

I disagree. I think you should vote for Bush.

[Bez]

I agree that both are shite. Did you play in a UB limit tournament against me when some loser kept mouthing off about poor play?

[Manimal]

Incorrect, especially in states like New York, where one candidate is a mortal lock to win. In these states, it's more important to vote for 3rd party candidates, in the hopes that they will receive enough support (5% of the vote) to qualify for the public grant to run a campaign.

And even if you feel that you're "wasting your vote" by voting 3rd party, look at the ramifications of voting for the lesser of two evils. You maintain our current system, which is hideously flawed. The only way to change the system is by voting - and if you vote major party, you're saying that you support what they're doing, clearly not the message you want to send if you're simply voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The only way to change the system is by voting

[/ QUOTE ]

Voting is probably the least a person can do to change the system. In fact, I'm sure there's a 99.9%+ chance that no vote you cast in you lifetime for a President, Governor, Senator, or even House Representative will have any impact on the system- either positive or negative. It certainly won't influence which person gets elected.

BTW, I'm relatively happy with the system. The system has created the most economically and militarily powerful nation the world has ever seen. And, despite the doomsayers, America's place in the world as this dual powerhouse isn't coming to an end in my lifetime.

You don't think so? Ask somebody older (if necessary) what they thought of America's place in the world a quarter of a century ago, 1979, compared to today. The smart money says America is much better off.

[Boris]

If your going to compare 1979 to today then you can't draw any conclusions about our system. It's the same now as it was then.

[MMMMMM]

"If your going to compare 1979 to today then you can't draw any conclusions about our system. It's the same now as it was then."

Does not compute.

[Boopotts]

No, your vote isn't going to matter. I agree with that. But voting in national elections is a way of symbolically supporting our constitutional republic. That may or may not matter to you, but it is worth considering.

[astroglide]

perot got 5% of the vote. nobody seemed to notice or care, but it was all the rage when nader ran. 'if only a third party could get 5%!!!'

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect, especially in states like New York, where one candidate is a mortal lock to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that I'm incorrect that Bush or Kerry will win the election? I'll give you 10000000000000000000 to 1 odds that Bush OR Kerry will win.

[astroglide]

i'll bet you a dollar then, i'm sure one of them could die or get disqualified for some reason before the election

[jdl22]

I'm in for a penny.

[The Dude]

If you live in a state where the results aren't going to be close, why does it matter that you vote for the "lesser of two evils?" For example, if I still lived in Washington, my voting for Bush (who I think is the "lesser") would mean nothing. Kerry will win the state hands down. My vote is better placed going to Badnarik - Libertarian.

Currently, I'm registered in CA, and unless the state election is going to be close, I'm voting Libertarian. If it's going to be close, then I'll put my vote for use choosing the lesser of two evils.

[Boris]

Not surprising it doesn't compute. I can only guess that Dynasty was referring to our two party electoral republic. Since this is exactly the same system that was in place in 1979 as now, there is now way you can say our system is so great SIMPLY BY COMPARING 1979. If you can't understand that your even more hopeless than I thought.

[elwoodblues]

Nobody noticed or cared that Perot got 5% of the vote? Are you on crack?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"If your going to compare 1979 to today then you can't draw any conclusions about our system. It's the same now as it was then."
----------------------------------------------------------
Does not compute.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising it doesn't compute. I can only guess that Dynasty was referring to our two party electoral republic. Since this is exactly the same system that was in place in 1979 as now, there is now way you can say our system is so great SIMPLY BY COMPARING 1979. If you can't understand that your even more hopeless than I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are missing the point, Boris.

Dynasty is saying that the same system we had in 1979, has gone on to produce terrific results (and it has, both compared to its past, and compared to the results of other countries' systems around the world. Indeed, the same holds true if the time frame is extended significantly backwards, too).

If you maintain a system, but produce ever greater results with that system, does not this suggest that that system is working very well? That's what Dynasty is saying. You on the other hand are ignoring results and comparing only the base system--when the point is that that system appears to be producing ever greater results.

Now to further illustrate, consider the AIDS virus. It has a system, or architecture, that works very well (from its own point of view). Compared to 1979 (or around then), AIDS has proliferated greatly--it has produced great results in that time period. It is by many measures a champion virus. Yet it is using essentially the same system it used way back then. See how your argument misses the mark here--as it does with Dynasty's example? Indeed, the increased success of both systems is a form of testament to their efficacy.

By the way, you also might try sharpening up that wit of yours a bit before casting aspersions on others' wits;-)

[astroglide]

people talked about the 5% issue when nader was running as if it was an unprecedented event. perot got it, his party got funding, and it went nowhere. everybody supporting nader either didn't notice or forgot.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty is saying that the same system we had in 1979, has gone on to produce terrific results (and it has, both compared to its past

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't describe a system which allows a poverty rate of 12.5% (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty03.html) - a rate which has near enough maintained itself for the last 35 years - to have acheived terrific results.

[andyfox]

"Voting is probably the least a person can do to change the system."

I'm not so sure about this. Perhaps on the national level you're right, but voting can be quite effective on the local level. I was active, many years ago, in Santa Monica, and elections, which were decided by very few votes, were significant in changing long-term city policies invovling rent control, pay for cops and firemen, renovation of the city's infrastructure and tax base, and a whole host of other issues.

In California, we changed our governor last year because we had the option, through the recall process, to vote on it.

But even on the national level, many votes for representatives (and sometimes senators) end up quite close. Good grassroots organization that gets people out to vote can make a difference. Of course each individual vote doesn't make a difference in the sense that elections are never decided by one vote.

But think of how our history would be different, for better or for worse, had a few more hundred people voted for Al Gore in Florida than actually did. But that's probably the .0001% of the time that a vote mattered.

[andyfox]

George Wallace made quite a showing in 1968. That "movement" also went nowhere. As with Perot, it was a one-person party.

[Boris]

I don't have to cast aspersions on your lack of wit. It's obvious for anyone who cares to look.

Of course you can argue that the USA form of government in the best, or at least very successful. I even agree with that hypothesis. But it is non sensical to arbitrarily choose one point in time, compare it to today and then say the our form of government is responsible for this country's success. Even if true, you wouldn't know it based on that comparison alone. I could easily pick two time points, say 1927 and 1933, or 1965 and 1975 and say look at our screwed up form of government.

[MaxPower]

While your vote may not decide the election it may determine the policies of those you elect.

If you belong to a demographic (e.g. senior citizens, evangelical Christians, Jews)that votes in large numbers the government will adopt policies that favor you. If you belong to a demographic (e.g. college students and young adults) who do not vote in large nubmers, you will get screwed.

[MaxPower]

I would love to vote for a 3rd party candidate. I dislike both parties, but the libertarian party is not a viable party and probably never will be.

Although I would like to see the 2 party system collapse, I'm not sure how that could happen. I do my part by regsitering as an independent.

I respect Libertarians a lot, but I don't think they can get elected to national office with seriously corrupting their principles.

[Manimal]

I'm never posting when I'm half asleep again, lol.

To clarify my point - it is not necessarily correct to vote for the lesser of two evils. This is especially true in states like New York, where one candidate would literally have to die or concede to lose the state. Obviously, voting third party in a state such as this will not have any effect on who is inaugurated next year. However, to use the most (in)famous example, the people that voted for Nader in Florida in the 2000 election heavily influenced the result. So, if you do live in a state where it's close, it's better to err on the side of caution if you want to make sure a candidate doesn't make it into office.

However, even if you chose to vote third party in a close state, that vote can have a significant impact by helping to secure federal funding for a third party, should the vote help their candidate receive 5% of the popular vote.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
"Voting is probably the least a person can do to change the system."

I'm not so sure about this. Perhaps on the national level you're right, but voting can be quite effective on the local level. I was active, many years ago, in Santa Monica, and elections, which were decided by very few votes, were significant in changing long-term city policies invovling rent control, pay for cops and firemen, renovation of the city's infrastructure and tax base, and a whole host of other issues.

In California, we changed our governor last year because we had the option, through the recall process, to vote on it.

But even on the national level, many votes for representatives (and sometimes senators) end up quite close. Good grassroots organization that gets people out to vote can make a difference. Of course each individual vote doesn't make a difference in the sense that elections are never decided by one vote.

But think of how our history would be different, for better or for worse, had a few more hundred people voted for Al Gore in Florida than actually did. But that's probably the .0001% of the time that a vote mattered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're making my point for me and probably agree.

Voting is close to the bottom of the list of things you can do to influence government. Above it would include such things as registering others with similar beliefs to vote, working/volunteering for a campaign, working/volunteering for a special interest group (saving whales, tax cuts for billionaires), etc.

My point is that a person's one vote isn't going to accomplish anything. If you want to have influence, you have to do a lot more.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I would like to see the 2 party system collapse, I'm not sure how that could happen. I do my part by regsitering as an independent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Registering as an independent has accomplished nothing but making you feel independent.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you can argue that the USA form of government in the best, or at least very successful. I even agree with that hypothesis. But it is non sensical to arbitrarily choose one point in time, compare it to today and then say the our form of government is responsible for this country's success.

[/ QUOTE ]

The choice wasn't arbitrary. I chose 1979 because it was a generation ago (a fairly long time) and because it was just before a significant political shift in the U.S. However, I could agree with an arguement that 25 years is too short a time period.

How about 1776 (or 1791) to 2004? I like our system (which isn't restricted to the federal governemnt) and what it's done since then.

[Manimal]

I really should have clarified a little more, so I will now.

The system works, obviously. The country's still here, we're a powerhouse in just about everything. However, there is a much more ideal way to run things. The Social Security/planned debt spending is only going to get worse, unless someone steps up to fix the problem. That's not going to happen until it's far too late, because candidates are afraid to bring up issues that will alienate those who vote. So, basically, things have degenerated to the point of elections as popularity contests. Just look at this year. We're 6 weeks away from the election, and all the press coverage can focus on is the drama around Bush's time in the service. We can't even get clear responses on what their plans in Iraq are! We know nothing about these candidates.

That's because this system is based around politicians acquiring/keeping their jobs, rather than around making sure that nothing becomes fundamentally flawed in the country. Instead of running ads about what they'll do to fix the country, we are treated to ads deriding the other candidate, on things that really don't matter. Bush is no military genius, but he is clearly dedicated to military action, right or wrong. Why does his time in the service matter? Kerry's ever changing mind may, in fact, have been a response to the wants of the people that put him in office. There's no way that he can/will waffle that much if he gets into office.

It's not an easy process to change the system, since it's so established. But what other methods do we have of voicing our discontent with the government? We can't just sit idely by, and hope that a(n) spiritual/emotional/intellectual/physical revolution comes along and changes everything. I'm voting Libertarian in the hopes that they get their 5%, so that next election, maybe they can score 8-9%, and then work on building that foothold into something meaningful for the elections in 16-20 years. That's a long time to wait, and a long shot to happen, but them's the breaks. To quote the Libertarian candidate, "If you were in prison and you had a 50% chance of lethal injection, a 45% chance of going to the electric chair, and only a 5% chance of escape, are you likely to vote for lethal injection because that is your most likely outcome?"


And here's a funny little story about votes not counting:

2 years ago, I transferred to a college in my hometown. I had spent the past couple years in Baltimore attending college, and the summers working/partying, so I had no idea what was going on politically. Despite this, my mom nagged me every day to vote against one candidate, since she was convinced this guy would be awful in office. So, the Sunday before the election, I'm sitting at a family dinner, and my mom tells us all to remember to vote against this guy. I don't know if it had been a rough week between work and school, or what, but I just went off when she said that - I had no idea what these candidates stood for, and I wasn't going to vote for a guy on someone else's word. I guess I made a pretty convincing argument, since my dad and brother decided that they, too, weren't informed enough to vote.

And the guy that my mom hates so much won the election by two votes.

[Boris]

I think if you go back to 1800 and compare the US to the other new world countries you can make a very stong argument that our form of government is best out of the options that have been tried. The only other country that comes close is Canada.

I'm not sold on the idea that there was a massive political shift in 1980 in terms of any material institutional changes. Certainly there was a shift in political rhetoric. But since 1980 the US has enjoyed great success and some setbacks under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

I had this discussion one day with my politically conservative econ professor and he said basiscally it boils down to whether or not people want to live in a country. Since the US is a net importer of humans that is a good argument for our system.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
And here's a funny little story about votes not counting:

2 years ago, I transferred to a college in my hometown. I had spent the past couple years in Baltimore attending college, and the summers working/partying, so I had no idea what was going on politically. Despite this, my mom nagged me every day to vote against one candidate, since she was convinced this guy would be awful in office. So, the Sunday before the election, I'm sitting at a family dinner, and my mom tells us all to remember to vote against this guy. I don't know if it had been a rough week between work and school, or what, but I just went off when she said that - I had no idea what these candidates stood for, and I wasn't going to vote for a guy on someone else's word. I guess I made a pretty convincing argument, since my dad and brother decided that they, too, weren't informed enough to vote.

And the guy that my mom hates so much won the election by two votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making my point. Your vote wouldn't have meant anything. Neither would your father or brother's vote.

It was your mother who almost influenced the election by recruiting three other voters. It was her activism which almost made a difference- not her, or anyone else's, voting.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sold on the idea that there was a massive political shift in 1980 in terms of any material institutional changes. Certainly there was a shift in political rhetoric. But since 1980 the US has enjoyed great success and some setbacks under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

[/ QUOTE ]

The makeup of Congress has shifted dramitically since that time.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The system works, obviously. The country's still here, we're a powerhouse in just about everything. However, there is a much more ideal way to run things.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is often the cause of people saying "the system doesn't work" or other similar complaints. People compare the way things are to an ideal system, or at least a much better non-existent system. They compare what they have to what they want. That's always going to put the current system in a negative light.

superleeds mentioned above that an arguement against the current system is that there is a constant 12.5% poverty level. That's obviously bad if you compare it to the ideal and goal of 0% poverty. But, why are you comparing it to that? Why aren't you comparing it to the poverty level in Zimbabwe?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sold on the idea that there was a massive political shift in 1980 in terms of any material institutional changes. Certainly there was a shift in political rhetoric. But since 1980 the US has enjoyed great success and some setbacks under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

[/ QUOTE ]

The makeup of Congress has shifted dramitically since that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The country has definitely been becoming more and more conservative for about 40 years. 1980 and 1994 are the big elections where the movement yielded results.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
superleeds mentioned above that an arguement against the current system is that there is a constant 12.5% poverty level. That's obviously bad if you compare it to the ideal and goal of 0% poverty. But, why are you comparing it to that? Why aren't you comparing it to the poverty level in Zimbabwe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also I might add that personal wealth of households in the U.S. hit an all time high in the second or third quarter of this year. The idea that those in poverty are a ubiquitous group is utterly preposterous. Some people are just not motivated to better their lot in life. I'm not saying everyone below the poverty line is unmotivated but there are at least some.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty is saying that the same system we had in 1979, has gone on to produce terrific results (and it has, both compared to its past

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't describe a system which allows a poverty rate of 12.5% (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty03.html) - a rate which has near enough maintained itself for the last 35 years - to have acheived terrific results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poverty level statistics are misleading. They include drug dealer, professional gamblers, hookers, pimps and all the others who earn a tidy living in the underground economy. Subtract all the tax evaders and you might find the poverty level in the US is at or near it's theoretical minimum.

[MMMMMM]

"I don't have to cast aspersions on your lack of wit. It's obvious for anyone who cares to look."

Uh. I'd be happy to take a Stanford-Binet IQ test against you for real stakes.

"Of course you can argue that the USA form of government in the best, or at least very successful. I even agree with that hypothesis. But it is non sensical to arbitrarily choose one point in time, compare it to today and then say the our form of government is responsible for this country's success. Even if true, you wouldn't know it based on that comparison alone."

Of course you wouldn't KNOW it based on that comparison alone. But is is a form of evidence or a testament. More evidence of course is needed to form a conclusive opinion.

"I could easily pick two time points, say 1927 and 1933, or 1965 and 1975 and say look at our screwed up form of government."

Sure you could, Boris, but looking at the overall success of the USA over a much larger time frame your argument seems rather besides the point.

Dynasty's point is not meant to use one example to provide irrefutable proof--but it should be taken as a good rough indication or example, especially since it rings true over most larger time frames as well.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No problem there. I haven't voted anything but Libertarian since 1984.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
No problem there. I haven't voted anything but Libertarian since 1984.

[/ QUOTE ]

Klingons aren't supposed to believe in democracy. They conquer what they see and rule over all.

[J_V]

Yes, Dynasty. I've been preaching this for years.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Poverty level statistics are misleading. They include drug dealer, professional gamblers, hookers, pimps and all the others who earn a tidy living in the underground economy. Subtract all the tax evaders and you might find the poverty level in the US is at or near it's theoretical minimum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll just take your word that out of the 35.9 million at or below the poverty level in the US a sizeable chunk are just scroundrels. Why don't other First World countries have so many of their citizens claiming poverty status? Guess they haven't heard of drug dealing, professional gambling, prostitution, living of immoral earnigs and screwing their IRS or equivalent.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Klingons aren't supposed to believe in democracy. They conquer what they see and rule over all.

It's much easier to conquer a society with a small government. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Easy E]

I've gotten more useful information from him than the other two anyway

Natedogg For Leader (of the free world). com

[natedogg]

nt

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
No, your vote isn't going to matter. I agree with that. But voting in national elections is a way of symbolically supporting our constitutional republic. That may or may not matter to you, but it is worth considering.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. which is why you shouldn't vote at all. or vote for a 3rd party, if that suits you.

i will not vote. i don't think any candidate has earned my vote. and i'd rather spend the time i would WASTE voting on doing something else that will have a better impact on people. i may go feed homeless people or something. i'm not sure what i'll do in place of the time i could waste voting. but i'd rather not condone a failing 2party system that has been reduced to partisan bickering and hate and dividing the nation along stupid and arbitrary lines in the name of preserving nationalistic, flag-waving bullshit.

we need a change and it's never going to happen voting for idiots who have no other aim than to wield the power of the presidency. perhaps, the best candidates for president are those who would outright refuse the nomination. i know i am afraid of anybody who WANTS to be president...

[MelchyBeau]

In response to the person talking about Perot getting 5% of the vote, that is infact wrong. Against H.W. Bush he recieved 19% of the popular vote, 0% of the electoral. Against Clinton and Dole he recieved 8% of the vote, 0% of the electoral vote. In my personal opinion, I believe that the electoral college is what prevents 3rd parties from being strong. If it was a purely popular vote that decided the presidency I imagine that if a guy got 19% of the popular vote, although he wouldn't have won the election his platform would be heard more strongly, and politicians in power would be forced to take that into consideration

Melch

[astroglide]

over 5% is the breaking point