The problem with vowing to only vote for third party candidates is that it doesn't really address the problem. It focuses on labels, rather than on the underlying issues (major party candidates enjoy a huge advantage due to unregulated donations that are used to influence voters through ads, and so on). For example, if Libertarian, Green, or other "third" party candidates refuse large financial backing on principle, they will probably never have any chance of being elected to a position such as senate or president. Voting for them tends to become an exercise in futility.
If they decide to give themselves a chance of winning by accepting financial donations and backing, they fall into the same trap that has made major party candidates so unresponsive to anyone except very-well-to-do folks like the Koch brothers, George Tsoros, etc. If Gary Johnson decided to accept the financial and political backing of the Kochs, or allowed them or other wealthy folks to establish super-PACs to help him get elected, what do you think would happen to his politics once he got into office? Ever heard the expression, "you have to pay the piper"? I suspect his policies would look a lot like Obama's, or John Boehner's, or George Bush's. Many of his supporters would become just as disenchanted with him as they are with the Current Occupant. And we're right back to square one.
The problem with vowing to only vote for third party candidates is that it doesn't really address the problem. It focuses on labels, rather than on the underlying issues (major party candidates enjoy a huge advantage due to unregulated donations that are used to influence voters through ads, and so on). For example, if Libertarian, Green, or other "third" party candidates refuse large financial backing on principle, they will probably never have any chance of being elected to a position such as senate or president. Voting for them tends to become an exercise in futility.
If they decide to give themselves a chance of winning by accepting financial donations and backing, they fall into the same trap that has made major party candidates so unresponsive to anyone except very-well-to-do folks like the Koch brothers, George Tsoros, etc. If Gary Johnson decided to accept the financial and political backing of the Kochs, or allowed them or other wealthy folks to establish super-PACs to help him get elected, what do you think would happen to his politics once he got into office? Ever heard the expression, "you have to pay the piper"? I suspect his policies would look a lot like Obama's, or John Boehner's, or George Bush's. Many of his supporters would become just as disenchanted with him as they are with the Current Occupant. And we're right back to square one.
Didnt see that as morally superior. I'll tone it down for you Sr. wouldnt want to offend.
I didn't see it as morally superior either, I was just wondering why you were so angry at my seemingly benign response. Caps lock means yelling in internet you know.
like when you refer to someone as thinking that they're morally superior to everyone else when they post something and say that they wished people in the world would give a shit about it? That's polite and civil yea.
sirdroseph wrote:
It is a human tragedy of epic proportions, but sadly I don't know if there is anything that we can do that would not cause even more suffering.
meower wrote:
take in some refugees? Provide food? GIVE A SHIT???? just a couple.
Geez, I don't know how one could misconstrue your comment to mean you were talking to me.
Location: i believe, i believe, it's silly, but I believe Gender:
Posted:
Feb 26, 2014 - 12:02pm
sirdroseph wrote:
I will be honest, I usually only reserve that type of dialogue for you. Your condescending nature really gets my goat. I think that I have a long enough posting history to validate that I have nothing but polite and civil discussions with virtually everyone here on a regular basis. (there are always exceptions, we all get angry sometimes). Perhaps a little self examination would be in order for you as well, this is never a bad thing you know.
like when you refer to someone as thinking that they're morally superior to everyone else when they post something and say that they wished people in the world would give a shit about it? That's polite and civil yea.
I do apologize, I misunderstood your post about pledging not to vote for a major party candidate. I see that your area does allow third party candidates, and also presumably write in votes.
You really should dial back the ad hominem. People would be more likely to engage you if you stop trying to stereotype everyone with insults.
I will be honest, I usually only reserve that type of dialogue for you. Your condescending nature really gets my goat. I think that I have a long enough posting history to validate that I have nothing but polite and civil discussions with virtually everyone here on a regular basis. (there are always exceptions, we all get angry sometimes). Perhaps a little self examination would be in order for you as well, this is never a bad thing you know.
Who said I was not voting??? I never said that, I do vote. Please show me where I ever said that I have not been voting. I accept your apology in advance. Contrary to your myopic, insulated ivory tower world there are Independent and LIbertarian candidates on virtually every ballot perhaps you should bother to look before you automatically just pull your D lever.
I do apologize, I misunderstood your post about pledging not to vote for a major party candidate. I see that your area does allow third party candidates, and also presumably write in votes.
You really should dial back the ad hominem. People would be more likely to engage you if you stop trying to stereotype everyone with insults.
I am doing my part (by refusing to vote)so I guess I have earned my right to complain about the system.
I think you don't have much right to complain about candidates who get elected, at least compared to people who did vote. If you call up Sears' consumer hotline to complain about a product, the first thing they will probably ask you is, "when and where did you purchase the product?". They probably won't want to talk to you if you never bought anything from them.
You are what could be called an electoral non-stakeholder in a business sense.
I suppose you do have a right to complain about an election system that you feel morally compelled not to participate in, since you have chosen to live in the US. The question is, how actively do you pursue its reform?
Who said I was not voting??? I never said that, I do vote. Please show me where I ever said that I have not been voting. I accept your apology in advance. Contrary to your myopic, insulated ivory tower world there are Independent and LIbertarian candidates on virtually every ballot perhaps you should bother to look before you automatically just pull your D lever.
I am doing my part (by refusing to vote) so I guess I have earned my right to complain about the system.
I think you don't have much right to complain about candidates who get elected, at least compared to people who did vote. If you call up Sears' consumer hotline to complain about a product, the first thing they will probably ask you is, "when and where did you purchase the product?". They probably won't want to talk to you if you never bought anything from them.
You are what could be called an electoral non-stakeholder in a business sense.
I suppose you do have a right to complain about an election system that you feel morally compelled not to participate in, since you have chosen to live in the US. The question is, how actively do you pursue its reform?
Now that I know my ballot won't be invalidated for doing so, I may not vote for either presidential candidate. I will however, be voting on state questions and against every incumbant Republican I can.
Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light. Gender:
Posted:
Oct 21, 2012 - 9:16am
islander wrote:
haven't hit the link yet, but I've heard of a growing movement, here and in other countries as well, where instead of picking a 3rd party or write-in as a protest, they simply spoil their ballot - big red line through all choices or something, and hand it in. It separates the non-votes from the protest votes and makes a pretty strong statement as well - "I bothered to come out and tell you that I don't like any of the choices put forth". The Oklahoma situation seems particularly corrupt, this might be an option. I don't know how this affects other ballot measures though.
Yup, this happens here in parliamentary elections, and in many local elections - the number of spoiled ballot papers are declared. I have spoilt my paper in local council elections by scribbling a pithy note of my opinion of the candidates. I know it won't change anything, but it's nice to think that the tellers who count the votes are employees of the council to which the buffoons were hoping to be elected would have a chuckle about our opinion of their soon-to-be overlords, and all the candidates will take note of the number of spoilt papers.
In a fit of youthful zeal, I stood for election to our university student union executive (to run the bars, as it happens) and I had to stand against not only my rival, but RON. RON being ReOpen Nominations, another way of saying "non of the above". Happily I won. Just. Eventually.
In the meantime, here is a short educational video on the ritual of British parliamentary election night results, one that particularly illustrates the importance of the Returning Officer:
You know, in your state with no (?) 3rd party candidates and no write-ins, the "staying-home protest vote" is perfectly valid.
I used to think WTF when people would write in Mickey Mouse or None of the above on their presidential ballot, but that, at least, makes a point and separates that voter from the hordes who stay home because they're lazy and ignorant. A few years ago I had a coworker complain about all the Obama/McCain posts on FB (or was it MySpace she was on back then?)... and everyone in the office was talking about voting etc because IT WAS ELECTION DAY and she had no idea. Not "no idea that it was today," but no idea that there was an election at all, or that she was eligible to vote for the first time in her life...
But as an activist nonvote, not choosing from among the 2 viable choices is still a big deal. You're saying the good things one guy will do vs the bad things the other guy will do aren't as important as saying "I don't want that on my head" ...which is valid, but it's a big statement. It's saying "I'm so upset with this (laundry list, granted) that I will not vote to help myself or others in this (much smaller list) area."
haven't hit the link yet, but I've heard of a growing movement, here and in other countries as well, where instead of picking a 3rd party or write-in as a protest, they simply spoil their ballot - big red line through all choices or something, and hand it in. It separates the non-votes from the protest votes and makes a pretty strong statement as well - "I bothered to come out and tell you that I don't like any of the choices put forth". The Oklahoma situation seems particularly corrupt, this might be an option. I don't know how this affects other ballot measures though.
Not criticizing your decision this round, but what are you prepared to do about it? The OK ballot access laws are keeping you from voting your conscience. That problem needs fixin'. Don't take this sitting down, get busy setting it right. Agitate to change the laws.
You often despair at how so many people can vote for Republicans, statements like that are a big part of your answer. Edit; Both you and I make lousy Buddhists. Difference is, I don't profess to be one.
I am not a Buddhist, I practice Buddhist philosophy, but I am certainly not perfect. And saying that I am evolved is simply true, not a brag.
brutal
