Democrats & Liberals Archives

How to Vote

Vote for the candidate. Vote for your party. Vote against incumbents. What should you do when you enter the voting booth in November? Actually, the question should be, What should you do before you enter the voting booth? There is no simple rule to follow. You should evaluate and compare competing candidates according to criteria you determine.

Way back many decades ago, when I was in high school, a civics teacher taught me the rules for electioneering:

"If you have a good candidate and a bad platform, speak about the candidate. If you have a bad candidate and a good platform, speak about the platform. If you have a bad candidate and a bad platform, wrap yourself in the American flag and speak about the Constitution."

Today, you should speak about security.

Candidate electioneering is mostly hot air. Disregard what politicians say. Pay no attention to what their ads say. Don't go to their staged events (unless you are already sold on the candidate).

To vote properly, you should do 3 things:

  1. Compare Candidates' PRINCIPLES - By principles I mean political principles. You are not concerned with how a candidate behaves in his private life. You want to know how he will act in the specific job he is running for. When evaluating candidates for Congress, for example, list how the incumbent voted on several bills important to you and compare this against what you believe how his challenger would have voted. To help you do this, refer to many organizations keeping score, both on the right and on the left. You favor the candidate whose pinrciples are closest to yours

  2. Compare Candidates' INTEGRITY - Integrity means sticking to principle. During your evaluation of experience, determine if either candidate strays from principle. Although you can't determine what a candidate will do in office from his electioneering, you CAN determine if he has integrity. Is he always lambasting his opponent and never telling you what he would do? Does he shift position with the wind? Does he show no respect toward his opponent?

  3. Compare Candidates' PARTY - Parties have principles they claim to go by. Pick the party whose principles are closest to yours. Make sure you evaluate priciples the parties practice, not the principles they merely advertise
I call this political candidate evaluation procedure PIP (Principle, Integrity, Party). Each is important. Yes, you may like a candidate because of his principles, but what good is it if he does not follow his principles? If you believe in both his princples and his integrity, you still may not want to vote for him because of his party. This may be especially true when voting for seats in Congress, where party discipline may be strong and the would-be officeholder may be forced to conform.

If you want to be a good citizen, you have a job to do between now and November. Evaluate the expected candidates according to your criteria. Then you will be ready to vote meaningfully.

Posted by Paul Siegel at April 6, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #138564

But keep voting out incumbents handy, because unless an incumbent knocks your socks off, the state of the union indicates systemic reforms are necessary in Congress, and they won’t happen with the current lot of incumbents. They have been talking reform for decades, but, what about government has actually improved?

When it comes to incumbents, VOTE RESULTS, not platitudes and promises. If the national debt is your concern, can you support an incumbent who has been ineffective in reducing it, and more likely, instrumental in increasing it? That’s the test for incumbents, RESULTS, since they were last elected.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 6, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #138566

David R. Remer:

Aren’t your 3rd Party Candidates by definition have nothing but platitudes and promises to offer?

Posted by: Aldous at April 6, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #138567

What I mean is… what criteria should we use IF the Incumbent is unvotable? What standards should we follow for a complete novice which is what most Greens, Libertarians, etc. are?

Posted by: Aldous at April 6, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #138571

Aldous, I am not a member of any third party. I don’t advocate for any particular 3rd party. I advocate for challengers against incumbents who are irreponsible, ineffective, or corrupt.

So, your questions don’t make a lot of sense to me.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 6, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #138572

P.S. I would not presume to tell voters what their most important issues are, therefore, I cannot say what criteria they should look for in a challenger.

But, even if the challenger wins and is also ineffective, irrepsonsible or corrupt, you are no worse off in that regard. However, the incumbent having lost is a positive as it serves to put other incumbents and freshman alike on notice, that too could lose their reelection bid next time if their term in office reflects irresponsibility, corruption, or ineffectiveness.

Incumbents losing will motive other polticians toward results which the people expect for their vote.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 6, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #138576

Again I am quite happy with my congresswoman,Lynn Woolsey. Yes, the one that invited Shehann to the State of the Union. She is an incumbant. She also opposed the war from the git. Should I refuse to support her because she was ineffective in stopping it(so far)? I have trouble with your reasoning.

Posted by: BillS at April 6, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #138581

The problem with political parties is there aint a dimes difference between them. They all claim to be different but they say the same things. They just use different words. I noticed this back in the 1960 elections and I haven’t seen any change sense.
So using what the parties are saying won’t help any.
The best way to find out who to vote for is to listen to what they say and compare it to what they’ve actually done.
The main question is do they have the same principles you have?
Then have they at least tried to get the things they promised to get elected to their last office done?
If so they might be the right person for the office they now seek. If not don’t even vote them in a garbage collector.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 6, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #138584

BillS, would you cut off finger to save your whole hand. That is the reasoning. A handful of competent responsible incumbents, if they exist, are powerless against the system that keeps them ineffective.

Would choose to support an ineffective system in order to keep your representative, or, isn’t the loss of a few good representatives a worthy price if the entire system can be put back on the right track, such that most politicians put the nation’s future and their constituents agendas ahead of party, money, and special interests?

If you are a loyalist, that’s fine. Our colonial period had them too! But, in the end, to make this land a better place, the loyalists good and bad had to be overthrown, gotten out of the way, to make room for a much better system that would benefit all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 6, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #138585

Paul, I tend to agree with you,however: Where can one find information, (truthful) about the Candidate’s PRINCIPLES,and Candidate’s INTEGRITY,if he’s a virtually an unknown? Especially state candiates?

I have always wondered how to solve this problem so any suggestions are welcomed.
I simply refuse to vote a straight ticket!!!!

Posted by: Linda H. at April 6, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #138597
BillS wrote: Again I am quite happy with my congresswoman, . Yes, the one that invited Shehann to the State of the Union. She is an incumbant. She also opposed the war from the git. Should I refuse to support her because she was ineffective in stopping it(so far)? I have trouble with your reasoning.

BillS, please don’t get mad, but have you really researched Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) voting records? Citizens rate congress persons each year on their fiscal responsibility. 100% is a good score, meaning the congress person is considered responsible. Needless to say, that is a very rare score. However, Lynn Woolsey scored 0% (that’s right: ZERO), along these other knaves that scored a big fat goose egg in CCAGW’s ratings:
In the Senate there were four: Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.).
In the House, there were eight representatives who scored zeros: Reps. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), Steven Lynch (D-Mass.), Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii), John Olver (D-Mass.), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D- Calif.), Diane Watson (D-Calif.), Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
But, there’s more.
[] Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
[] Lynn Woolsey states: support Tax incentives for child care; eliminate marriage penalty. (Jul 1999) but voted NO twice in following two years ?
[] Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on eliminating the “marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000)
[] Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
[] Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
[] Lynn Woolsey Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
[] Lynn Woolsey Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
[] Lynn Woolsey supported MEDS Plan: Cover senior Rx under Medicare. (Jan 2001) , but Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003) ?
[] Lynn Woolsey
[] Lynn Woolsey
But there is more.
In-Jul-2003, Tina Phan, age 17 at the time, was a victim of a rape in July of 2003. Stewart Pearson, a 20 yr old punk, using a rag soaked in toilet bowl cleanser and Ajax, smothered Tina with it. Trying to fight off the effects of the chemicals of the rag and the stronger knife wielding Pearson, she was eventually overpowered. Tina Phan was then raped and brutalized. Tina Phan later told police that Stewart Pearson had told her he had committed this crime before and would do it again. Pearson initially denied raping Tina Phan but last fall admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to rape in September in a deal that dropped other charges, including assault and sodomy.

On 2-DEC-2003, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) abused the power of her office and wrote a letter on behalf of rapist, Stewart Pearson, the son of an employee in Lynn Woolsey’s office. It did not matter to Lynn Woolsey that Stewart Pearson pled guilty to rape. In a letter written on her official congressional stationery, she asked the judge to consider mitigating cirumstances and show leniency. The judge ignored the letter, and sentenced Pearson to eight years in prison.

So, BillS…I don’t know, but that is awfully damning evidence.
Perhaps you didn’t know about that ?
Personlly, I couldn’t vote for someone that abused the power of their office (on the state representatives official stationary) on the behalf of a rapist because the parent was an employee in her office.

Then, you know about this: Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey gave Cindy Sheehan the guest pass to attend the 2006 State of the Union speech by George W. Bush. Sheehan’s attendance at the speech became infamous when she was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a political message.

What to hear about your Senators California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Fienstein ?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 6, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #138599


Now, there’s a good job for you in blue and Jack in red:

You two love to do research and the electorate need research, but rarely know how to do it effectively.

Prepare a form for posters to fill out. The form should include spots for me/us/we/they to present the ten items we think are important to us, and you could include five you think should be important to us. The form should include a blank space for the state name.

You receive the form, look it over, figure how incumbents from that state preformed the important functions listed by the submitter and against your own list and grade the incumbent on their merit.

Us ignorant savages make out by finding out about our leaders, our country makes out by having a more informed electorate and you guys make some change on the side.

Perhaps you could use an ADOBE PDF form and we’d all save time by filling it out and filing it on line. You could email the grading to each individual.

How would you like to be an entrepreneur?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 6, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #138600

Paul Siegel,
That’s not a bad list.
But allow me to improve upon it:
4. Look at government’s accomplishments (if any).
Is the nation on the right/wrong track?
Are things getting better or worse?
Look at the pork barrel, waste, corporate welfare, refusal to vote for bans on gifts and campaign contributions and reforms, their attendance records.
See to see what porker awards they have won.
Almost all Senators and Representatives have earned a spot in the porker-hall-of-shame.
Then, look at all Senators and Representatives records.
See and look at the voting records.
Can you name 10, 20, 50, or 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible and accountable?
If not, the problem is widespread (as is the case now).
In that case, the best policy is to vote non-incumbent.
Preferrably, vote for the non-incumbent with the best chance of winning.
Repeat this step every election.
Eventually, incumbents will get the picture, and start listening to voters instead of their big-money-donor puppeteers.
5. What all voters need to know.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 6, 2006 11:09 PM
Comment #138629


Nice bit of research. A rateing of 0% from CCAGW bears little wieght with me . I sent her there to spend money.Just money on the right things. I agree with most of her positions on the list you gave me except full implemintation of the 9/11 commission recommendations. I also understand that any list of past votes can be misleading as one may support an original bill but not as amended etc. I noticed that her opposition to a tax break was on your list. Giving tax breaks while suffering a deficit seems irresponsible to me.
I do recall much local discussion of that letter. She apoligized and admited a mistake. That may not be enough for you but it was for the people of her district. She was reelected handily.
I was never more proud of her than when I heard she had invited Cindy Shehann to that speech,by the way.

Posted by: BillS at April 7, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #138647

That’s fine BillS.

It’s your Representative.
If that letter thing doesn’t bother you (in which Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) abused the power of her office by writing a letter on behalf of rapist, Stewart Pearson, the son of Lynn Woolsey’s aide, asking the judge to consider mitigating cirumstances and show leniency (written on CA. State Representative stationary, not personal stationary)), then nothing will, which exemplifies the problem with this nation.

You are right. That apology is not enough for me. But, she’s your Representative. Not mine, thank goodness.

But, you are not alone. Ted Kennedy should be in jail for manslaughter, but his constituents in Massachussetts keep re-electing him too.

By the way, the 0% (the worst grade) CAGW rating means that Lynn Woolsey votes on a lot of pork barrel. She’s right up there with the worst of them (Senate there were four: Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.).
In the House, there were eight representatives who scored zeros: Reps. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), Steven Lynch (D-Mass.), Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii), John Olver (D-Mass.), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D- Calif.), Diane Watson (D-Calif.), Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)). So, all that pork-barrel doesn’t bother you ?

And, didn’t you find it interersting that she said she supported tax incentives for child care, and elimination of the marriage penalty in 1999, but voted NO twice in following two subsequent years ?

So, none of that bothers you? Interesting.

No wonder the nation is in deep $#!+

Posted by: d.a.n at April 7, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #138650

Why not all Elected Officials are bad, the fact that Americans need to change the Political Thinking in Washington is more important than the political party of your choice. Conservative, Independent, and Liberal Citizens need to stop looking at what is Politically Unalienable Correct for themselve and begin realizing that the American Spirit needs Political Leaders that believe in being Politically Unalienable Correct for “We the Consumers” not “I the Corporation.” Now can you state that your Candidate is ready for a political debate over the Economic Viability and Financial Independence of all Legal American Citizens or will your Children’s Children still be returning to these same issues 40 years from today?

America needs Revolutionists so that “We the People” can defeat OBL and his Rapitalistic Friends, not a politician who wants to hide behind their political party’s platform. Just once in my life would I like to hear a plan to move forward instead of backwards. Maybe that is why I support

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 7, 2006 2:56 AM
Comment #138654


Curious you forgot to mention the Bridge to Nowhere Pork.

You also forgot to mention the obvious fact that pork barrel spending has broken all records under this Republican Congress.

…And yet you only mention Democrats…

Posted by: Aldous at April 7, 2006 3:21 AM
Comment #138677

Not true Aldous.
Dozens of times on this site I have posted the following. The 2005 porker-awards were mostly Republican, and I even said that more than once.
I’ve even said Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is the worst. Here they are again:
Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Robert Bennett (R-Utah) , Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-Mo.), Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss., Senate) , Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Robert Cramer (R-Ala.), John Culberson (R-TX), Randy Cunningham (R-CA.), Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA.), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), John Doolittle (R-CA.), Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Chet Edwards (D-TX) , Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.), David Hobson (R-Ohio) , Mark Kirk (Rill.), Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) , Tom Latham (R-Iowa), Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), John McCain (R-AZ) ($1 million for the brown tree snake), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), George Nethercutt, Jr. (R-Wash.) , Anne Northup (R-Ky.), John Peterson (R-Pa.) , Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont) (parking garage that voters petitioned to have the pork-barrel money returned), Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala., Don Sherwood (R-Pa.) , Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, Senate) (he is the worst), John Sweeney (R-N.Y.), David Vitter (R-La.), James Walsh (R-N.Y.) , Zack Wamp (R-Tenn.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Chairman Bill Young (R-FL)

Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), Marion Berry (D-Ark.), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Robert “Bud” Cramer (D-Ala.), James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), Sam Farr (D-Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (D-S.C.), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) , Mary Landrieu (D-La.) , Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) , Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) , John Murtha (D-Pa.), David Obey (D-Wis.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.)

And, why don’t they want any one overseeing their greed either? Here is a list of politicians that voted against the creation of the Office of Public Integrity:
Senator Akaka (D-HI)
Senator Bennett (R-UT)
Senator Chafee (R-RI)
Senator Coburn (R-OK)
Senator Coleman (R-MN)
Senator Dayton (D-MN)
Senator Domenici (R-NM)
Senator Pryor (D-AR)
Senator Stevens (R-AK)
Senator Voinovich (R-OH)
Senator Warner (R-VA)

Aldous, you should know by now, I don’t play favorites by party affiliation. I effectively praise or criticize all parties equally, since parties are neither the problem or the solution. The problem is irresponsible, FOR SALE, bought-and-paid-for incumbents, and voters that tolerate it.

However, if you permit me to make an observation of your rhetoric, it clearly favors the Democratic party, and you clearly dislike Republcans. Correct me if I’m wrong?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 7, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #138685

Henry Schlatman,
Thank you!
I feel the same way.
We’ve tried everything else.
Finally, why don’t we simply try what we were supposed to be doing all along?
No complex schemes.
No vast theories.
No clever manipulations.
Just the plain, simple truth, and a desire to do the one simple, common-sense, safe, peaceful, non-partisan, inexpensive, and responsible thing voters were always supposed to do: vote out irresponsible incumbent politicians, always.

That does not mean vote out all incumbents always. Keep the good ones.
Many try to extrapolate to that nonsensical conclusion.
That’s a clever detractor.
The goal is honest and simple.
When we finally have the Education, Transparency, and Accountability to see exactly who is responsible and who is not, voters will know exactly who to vote out, and who to re-elect.

But, it is truly very, very difficult to find any responsible incumbents.

And that is because incumbents have perverted and over-complicated the system to make it ripe for abuse and self-gain.

Take the 10,000 page, pork-laden BILL for instance. That certainly has become a complicated, abused process.

The simple solution, that incumbents refuse to consider is the simple: One-Purpose-Per-BILL.

Then, we all would know exactly why someone voted for or against a BILL. The way it is now, no one can understand why anyone votes for or against a 10,000 page pork-laden BILL, and incubments all hide behind that fact to explain their reason for voting for or against any BILL.

Many similar, common-sense, no-brainer simplifications would increase Transparency, which would lead to more Accountability, and finally result in more Responsibility. But, we can’t get there without more Education to understand the importance of these important components. Fortunately, we have the Constitution. We now need to build upon that, and understand the human factor, and wisely account for it within the design of our society, governments, and organizations.

But, Education is the first step.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 7, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #138697
To vote properly, you should do 3 things:…
I’d like to add two more things to the (growing) list. 1. Vote in the primaries. Given our dysfunctional two party system, this is where the “real” election occurs. In most places, most of what comes afterwards is a foregone conclusion. Instead of haranguing about the other party’s horrible players, choose the proper face for your own party in the primary. 2. Insist on a paper ballot. Electronic voting machines have been proven unreliable, prone to miscounts, and vulnerable to tampering. If everyone insisted on paper ballots, that would truly be “voting with your feet” on how we should vote. Now, back to your partisan bickering. Posted by: Foil Hat Guy at April 7, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #138718

Foil Hat Guy. I will second those recommendations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 7, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #138733

iN THE 2006 AND 2008 ELECTIONS YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF ONE IMPORTANT QUESTION.What party is better equipt to protect my family and our freedom?From past history we know that the democrat’s do not have the gut’sto fight.this is just a fact.this is a party that will never see a cause great enough to fight for.this is harsh but the democrat leadership has no gut’s.they are very good at fighting thier own country but when it come’s to danger in any form they just can not cope.Ask your self why the military of today are so afraid of the liberal democrats.the people who are dying for this country beleive that the lib’s are acually helping the enemy by weakening the united states with all the cut and run jazz.If you would like to see the coward’s of war run this country vote democrat.If you would like to stand tall and make the world a better place for all man kind vote republican.this is a hard decission for some but if you love this country and beleive that we are a global leader you will vote to give george bush the tool’s he need’s to keep this country strong.This is with out a doubt the most important decission you will ever make.

Posted by: justwondering at April 7, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #138772


I’m just wonderin’ something. What planet are you on?

At any rate, you are right.
Freedom is important.
But no party can guarantee it.
You’ve got to remove your partisan blinders, and open your eyes.
Your blind, militant partisan leaning blinds you from the most simple of truths.

You have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the demonizing of the other party.
You have been thoroughly seduced into the petty partisan warfare, and seem mighty fond of wallowing in it.

Parties are neither the problem or solution.

People are the problem.

Guns don’t kill people.
People kill people.
Automobiles don’t kill people.
The people driving them do.
McDonalds doesn’t make people fat.
The people that eat there 3 times per day make themselves fat.

Too many irresponsible incumbents, and too many irresponsible voters.

While there is some slight gravitation of people with varying philosophies to varying parties, the actions of the parties are not that different.

Open you mind for just a few seconds, and consider the real, root cause of most (or all) of our problems. We are all culpable.

If you really want to do the right thing, do the one simple, common-sense, peaceful, non-partisan, and responsible thing voters were supposed to be doing all along:

Vote out (or recall) all irresponsible incumbents, always, every election, until no more irresponsible incumbents exist, and government finally agrees to pass the many badly-needed, common-sense, responsible reforms that incumbents have refused to pass for so many decades.

Please Stop Repeat Offenders (i.e. Master Cheaters)
Don’t Re-Elect Them !

Posted by: d.a.n at April 7, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #138796

d.a.n. you are right no party can guarantee freedom but if you don’t fight to keep it beleive me you will lose it.Your side just don’t have any fight in can you be trusted to protect any thing when you have proven too many times that you are not fighter’s.words dont win wars resolve wins wars.quitters never ever win.are you a quitter d.a.n. ever finished any thing you started?I’ve got my doubts.

Posted by: justwondering at April 7, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #138817

First your way off, d.a.n. is anything but a Democrat.
I agree that it seems like the Liberals don’t have the guts to fight a war. However, there are Republicans that won’t fight for this country either.
I’m not Republican, I am Conservative. When it comes to defending this great country I’m ready to lead the charge. The question you have to ask though, is the war in defense of this country or is it just like Vietnam? I believe it started in defense of this country and has turned into another Vietnam.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 7, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #138826

Linda H:

A good place to start researching an unknown candidate is the League of Women Voters.


No forms are needed. The important thing is that each voter does his or her own research. You pick about 7 actions you consider important and evaluate your candidates on each.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 7, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #138833

john counts,masterblaster,justwondering signing sorry to say there is no hope for you good people.

Posted by: justwondering at April 7, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #138915

How about lets vote out anyone that supports the presidents new budget. It is dishonest. It does not include the cost of the wars. Even with that it locks in huge defficits forever.All pretense of pay/go has been abandoned .It relies on some magical supply side pipedream to even bring it up to the level of a disaster. Anyone that supports it is by definition an irresponsible incumbant.

Posted by: BillS at April 7, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #138981

I’m with you completely on that.

Now I understand your handle (i.e. justwondering).
It seems to be a permanent condition.
Logic simply does not work with some people.

Ron Brown,
: )
Yep, I’m fairly centrist (onl y slightly to the left -0.50) with libertarian leanings (-3.85).
Ron, have you ever taken the test? It takes about 20 minutes. I’ve taken it several times, answering questions different ways to see how it determined the scores. I was impressed with the accuracy.

justwondering is entertaining if nothing else. He thinks everyone is liberal, no matter what, consistently running all about screamin’ Liberals! Liberals! Liberals!

Might as well talk to a fence post.

And, it would be interesting if justwondering took the test at I’d bet it probably lands somewhere near the very top and left (facist).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 8, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #139021

I didn’t really understand the chart that well but according to it I’m Left/right 0.38 and authoritarian/libertarian 2.38. I don’t know where that puts me exactly. It seem to me some of the questions were vague.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 8, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #139059

Ron Brown,
You may not have noticed, there are numerous questions, but some of the questions were repeated (actually), with a slightly different angle. Some ambiguity is intended, while closely related questions try to zero in on the person’s real viewpoints.

What is interesting Ron, and why I encourage people to take the test is they may not be exactly what they think. I, like you, thought I was conservative. But, your score is very close to mine. You are Centrist (slightly more than me) with some Libertarian (less so than me) leaning. You, Ron, are more Centrist than myself. In my opinion, that is a good place to be, and you should be proud of it. And, I’d say, based on your many hundreds of comments here, over the years, corroborate that Centrist/Libertarian measurement. Congratulations (truly)!

Take the test to see what your real political compass is.

What some say about the political compass:
[] Time Labert
[] digitalronin

Posted by: d.a.n at April 8, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #139061

Sorry Ron,
Did you mean + or - on those values ?
If your values are positive (as stated, Left/right 0.38 and authoritarian/libertarian 2.38), you are only very slightly to the right (on a scale of 0 to +10 from the center), you are still mostly Centrist, and have a small bit of Authoritarian leaning (2.38 on a scale of 0 to +10. Actually, that makes more sense too, based on what you say. The slight Libertarian leaning didn’t sound quite what I expected, and that is because you reported positive values.

… … . Authoritarian
________________!__________________ Right
… … . Libertarian

Posted by: d.a.n at April 8, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #139077

I just retook the test. I don’t know what I might have done different but this time I got a 1.88 left/right and a 2.97 libertarian/athoritian.
I do know that when I did it last night I was very tired have had only 3 hours sleep in the last couple of days. I reckon these a positive numbers as I don’t see a - sign.
I printed it this time and will try to scan it into my computer and get it posted here.
Wish me luck as I have no idea what I’m about to try.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 8, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #139105

Well, Ron, that’s only a bit more conservative.
You are still mostly a Centrist, with a little Authoritarian leaning.

That would put you about here (below):
… … . Authoritarian
________________!__________________ Right
… … . Libertarian
The complete Left/Right scale is -10 to +10
and the Libertarian/Authoritarian scale -10 to +10
The center of the chart is ZERO.
Ron Brown: R
d.a.n: D

Posted by: d.a.n at April 8, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #139263

I found out what I did last night. I gave you my wife’s score. According to her and the printout she made I scored the same this morning as I did last night.
If I’m a centrist and I think the Republicans are Liberal where does that put them on the scale?

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 9, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #139356

Hmmmm. That’s interesting.
You and your wife’s scores are close (both fairly Centrist).

I suspect most Republicans are, despite their party affiliation, more liberal than many think.
It would be interesting to develop a more thorough test, and take it for each politician based on the way they vote to see where they really fall on the chart. Guess what? Someone did that.

See the voting records and political compass chart for any politician at:

I think Centrist (i.e. moderate) is a good thing, but it takes all kinds.

The test is only two-dimensional and people are multi-dimensional. But, it’s not a bad estimate for only about 50 questions.

But, the real issue of concern is probably too many people that fall in the extremes. Once these things take root, they seem to spread as if contagious.

What is really alarming these days is the growing dependency on government, lack of self-responsibility, lack of education of the fundamentals that are prerequisite for any healthy government or organization, the failure to adequately account for one basic human factor, and (like most all problems) the lack of education and understanding of the unfortunate consequences.

Americans’ will suffer the consequences, and rightly so if they are expected to ever learn, the lack of attention to voting responsibly and always paying close attention to government, which is, as a rule, aways trying to grow corrupt. That rule applies to all organizations, governments, and societies. Too many voters have forgotten the basic reason to vote. Too many voters have succumbed or resigned to self-interest and/or wallowing in the petty partisan warfare (rooted mostly in that one overlooked, basic human trait), but fail to understand how, in the end, they shot themselves in the foot.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 9, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #193827

Why must we Vati?
Why we must Vati.

I believe, most people in America, old enough to vote, know that corruption is flourishing in our Nation’s Capital. Yet incredibly, this knowledge seems to generate very little real concern. It definitely should: Because corrupt politicians can even bring America, the richest, most powerful country that ever existed, to her knees.

Every day the Republican and Democratic Party Lords work at enacting bills, which cedes one international conglomerate after another some financial quid pro quo, for pac-money received. And nearly all concessions to Big Business prove to be detrimental to America’s working people. Under the present system America will eventually have hungry masses without health care, millionaires, and no middle class. America, as we know her, is at this moment rapidly degenerating.

Our National debt has now exceeded $8,548,384,110,614 as of the first of October 2006. To put that number in perspective, we just passed 300,000,000 citizens, so for every legal man, woman and child in America, we now owe $28,494.61. Talk about selling children into slavery, America has to be, the all time number one, on this list. Just the interest on our debt is costing us 427 billion, 419 million, 205 thousand, 5 hundred, and 30 dollars a year, at 5 percent. Actually we don’t borrow our money that cheaply. That is 1 billion, 171 million, 11 thousand, 5 hundred, 22 dollars each and every day, which our legislators are throwing away, because they failed to balance our budget. And every day, they are in session, our misguided politicians continue to give away, more and more money to Big Business. Their insatiable greed is like a growing cancer, sucking the life-blood out of America. Even if we could elect legislators, which prudently budgeted America’s great wealth: It would take our children, at least, thirty years to pay off these incredible debts, we have recklessly accumulated.

Still not concerned? Well let me relate one more fact: If America’s lenders get nervous, and cut off our credit, our government will disintegrate, beyond resurrection, in less than a year. Soup-lines, power outages, riots, fires, violence, hunger and sickness will be the future, of what was once the greatest Nation On Earth, the United States of America.

Obviously, the Senators and Congressmen ruling the House and Senate are never going to voluntarily give up their seats, or the source of their power, their pac-money. And stated short and quick: The only way, we are ever going to oust enough corrupt officials to demand drastic political reform, is to vati. Washington is in sad shape, and if we love this country we had best wake up, and do something to correct this untenable situation. If you have a better idea, I’ll listen to you, if not, let’s vati.

By: GrandpaNate @ Rawlins, Wyoming. Also see:
And Earth’s History @

Posted by: GrandpaNate at November 7, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #241312

The url in the above article is missing the ‘m’. It should be HTTP://

Posted by: GrandpaNate at December 23, 2007 2:25 PM
Post a comment