Third Party & Independents: Archives

David:

>”this election becomes almost impossible to predict until the votes are actually counted.”Hopefully, it will become predictable by…ohh, say…January??

Very nice piece David. I myself fall into the “who should I vote for” crowd. And since there is no way to predict who will win, I am very torn. I have always voted for the person I agree with and respect the most. This has always been a third party.
Do I disregard my previous criteria for voting and vote for Bush, the lesser of two evils? Or vote third party and take the chance of a Kerry victory?
The past 4 years have been really good to me and my family. I finally have a great job and my taxes, for once, did not go up. Heck, I even got some extra money back.
Kerry has said how he will repeal my tax cuts and will probably even raise taxes, to provide for his social dreams he has created to get votes.
Third party or Bush? I have alot to ponder in so little time.
Great article David, makes one think alittle bit more. Thanks!

While GWB spends more per year killing 10,000 innocent people/year in Iraq than was spent per year on WWII the Iraqis are killing 1,000 of our soldiers/year. Putting this unecessary problem in perspective OBL killed less than 1,000 innocent people/year while American’s murder eachother at a rate of about 14,000 people per year with about as many traffic fatalities each year. OBL has moved on to a new plan while idiots spend more per year to fight a gang of 5,000 radical Moslems than was spent to stop Germany and Japan. Hussien kept these extremists in check for free. During Watergate Deep Throat repeated the advise, “Follow the money” over and over again. Why worry, by December the Supreme Court will reappoint their partner in organized crime.

Tim, your comments reflect a clearly conservative bent. But, they don’t express your concern over a Bush win. One thing I have seen some conservatives not wanting to vote for Bush say, is that Kerry will be up against a Republican Congress. Hence, Kerry will not have his way on big spending agendas the way Bush has.

On foreign military policy, Kerry will be as dependent upon intelligence and the Pentagon as Bush is, so, it is only in regard to the State Department and the exercise of diplomacy that Kerry will differ much from Bush, as far as I can tell.

So, to me, it would appear that if you lean toward the Libertarian Party, a vote for Badnarik, is a vote for your best candidate, and the loss of the vote to Bush, even if Bush lost, would not be that dire.

Neither a Kerry or Bush win is going to make a huge difference on foreign miliary policy. Neither is going to have any effect on the national debt other than to add to it.

The thing to bear in mind, is that whoever is elected President, Soc. Sec. ain’t going away. Neither is Medicare and neither is Iraq, at least not in the near future.

Therefore, it would seem to me that for borderline undecideds the Supreme Court nominees become the biggest issue in play if one is debating whether to vote for a Republocrat or a third party Candidate. A wasted vote that seats three supreme court justices that a voter didn’t want to see take root, could be a great concern for remorse, depending upon ones values regarding specific issues and constitutional interpretation.

Bayviking, your comments demonstrate clearly how election issue priorities are headline driven instead of voter issue related. Were it not for campaigns and headlines, getting drunks off the road would still be a big issue, as would crime. But, poltiicians and media prefer to sell votes based on what advertising focus groups show American’s can be easily convinced to care about.

Welcome to the mass media/advertising driven society… eh? Wal-mart would still be under the gun if it weren’t for their massive advertising campaign showing Wal-Mart employees and customers touting the heavenly virtues of Wal-mart and community values. What a joke.

David- excellent article. I think it highlights that the oversimplified views of the two parties, red/blue states, liberals/conservatives have really be overstated (as Obama pointed out very well in his convention speech).

As for myself, I am actually completely without a candidate again. It seems that Michael Badnarik has done a complete 180 on his view on abortion, and the campaign has refused to answer my emails to explain this change. As I said in a previous post, the only thing stopping me from voting libertarian in the past was that their candidates are so strongly pro-abortion. Badnarik was pretty strongly pro-life, but he has changed his views completely in the last three months (his VoteSmart questionnaire answer changed from “abortion should always be illegal” to “abortion should always be legal”). Needless to say, this has left me in a tough spot, and the campaign’s refusal to even acknowledge my inquires has been even more frustrating (I contacted the Libertarians for Life organization and they basically echoed what I just said above).

Anyway, with 2 months till this election, I have absolutely not idea who to vote for. The issue of Supreme Court judges is especially on my mind at this moment- and so are circuit court appointments (the later because I am going to be applying to clerk for said judges in the next two years). But on the other hand, Bush completely mischaracterized himself in 2000 as a small-government candidate so I don’t see how I could vote for him again. Then again, because our electoral system is so poorly set up, my vote does not matter at all (Kerry aint losing Massachusetts!)

This is going to be a very interesting, important and unpredictable election. I am just glad I found a place like watchblog where I could talk about these issues with similarly interested and passionate people.

David, I agree that voting for someone across the aisle isn’t always easy, but it’s sometimes necessary. I sometimes do that at the state and local levels, but rarely at the federal level. I guess I just find the other party’s national campaigns entirely too abrasive most of the time.

Of course it’s like choosing a church, doctor, university, spouse, or anything else. Sometimes you just have to accept some things you don’t really care for to get the things you do.

I do wish you’d used a more objective source than moveon.org for one of your examples, but otherwise I pretty much agree with you.

Oh, and regarding your comment about the youth vote and its possible impact on the election: Students at the local university have managed to approve property tax increases for all of us in the area for years. Any referendum with a title that includes words like health or environment, no matter how dubious, is virtually guaranteed to pass. Of course most students will never pay those taxes, but they no doubt feel good about themselves for having approved them for the rest of us.

I think Bush and the republican party just made a tatical error by not exrending the assault weapon ban. Although red/blue does not always agree on things. The safety of our kids are parmount.

By almost 75% of Americans saying it is wrong to let the bill expire, Bush and the republican congress allows themselve to look weak on homeland defense.

I agree with Henry that for most people, the safety of our kids are (sic) paramount. But when it comes to safety, most people these days are thinking about terrorism instead of banning scary looking rifles just because they look scary (even they have the same capabilities of legal rifles with a non-military look).

I had a cousin (who got high marks for his sharpshooting in the Army) tell me that some of the classic-looking hunting rifles with quaint scenes of deer carved in their stocks are actually far deadlier and more accurate weapons than the so called “assault rifles” which come painted in camoulflage and look nasty but are actually little more than low-performing props compared to their traditional-looking legal counterparts.

Misha, thanks for the comments. A rational vote (using the word rational, literally) implies that one sits down with pencil and paper and lists in the first column, the issues most important for one’s vote. In the 2nd and 3rd columns etc, one lists the Presidential candidates. Then working down the list of issues place a check mark for the candidate who most represents your position on the issue, or a question mark where more information is required.

Having worked through the list, if there are a number of question marks, a little websurfing is called for. Otherwise, total up the check marks for each candidate and vote for the one with the most.

Now, how many voters will make a rational vote?

Hence, I conclude there is little that is rational about how Americans choose their President and often it doesn’t much matter as bureaucrats run most of the government anyway. But, in elections like this one, with the makeup of the Supreme Court at stake for perhaps 2 decades or more, I think the real question becomes, is the American political system worth the effort to cast a rational vote? Some 40 to 49% of eligible voters don’t think it is. I sometimes wonder if they are right.

NOTOTH said, “I do wish you’d used a more objective source than moveon.org for one of your examples, but otherwise I pretty much agree with you.”

How very partisan of you, Nototh. I mean to object to MoveOn.org as a source and not the Republican site I used for the last two citations.

I appreciate your comments though. I didn’t understand your statement about the students not having to pay the taxes. Why wouldn’t they?

Martin,
You said: “banning scary looking rifles just because they look scary (even they have the same capabilities of legal rifles with a non-military look).” The reason for the changes in the rifles were just not cosmetic.

Almost all assault rifles prior to the ban 10 years ago were and are easily transformed into a fully automatic rifle within minutes. At the time the manufacture would save money by only putting a small piece of metal so the switch would not go to full auto. One the redesign of these weapons into their current form is to do away with that problem.

How very partisan of you, Nototh. I mean to object to MoveOn.org as a source and not the Republican site I used for the last two citations.

I appreciate your comments though. I didn’t understand your statement about the students not having to pay the taxes. Why wouldn’t they?
Posted by David R Remer at September 13, 2004 10:28 PM

I stand corrected on item one, David. I didn’t look much past the “moveon.org” citation before tapping the keys. Mia culpa.

My rather convoluted comment about college students voting in local elections was simply that most of them are only residents in the area for a relatively short period of time so any local changes they effect are eventually left behind for others to deal with.

In this area, the proponents of various referenda often focus on campus voters to secure funding for their pet projects. I was referring specifically to a hefty property tax increase that was opposed by the majority of the homeowners and farmers in the county, but was passed overwhelmingly in the student vote, which passed the measure. There is another referendum on the upcoming ballot for yet another expansion of county government and it will probably pass as well, despite the fact that it will impose yet another property tax increase on local homeowners.

I’m not suggesting that students shouldn’t be allowed to vote wherever they happen to be going to school, though I’d prefer to see them vote absentee in their own hometowns. I’m just just pointing out that the act of voting, youth or otherwise, affects far more than just what happens inside the beltway.

I hope my convoluted explanation of my earlier convoluted statement somewhat explains my convoluted reasoning.

Just looking at today’s paper here in Scotland, made me realize that it seems like President Bush and John Kerry are just looking at bringing up the negitive past on each other. What ever happened to being truthful and honest about what your running for? Instead it looks like the canidates rather look better then their conterparts by putting them down. Just a question to throw out to you, If our founding fathers where to be here now/today, how would they respond to the way we are running the Country, let alone the politics? Give me a honest politician any day!

David, thanks for your input. However it looks like I may have to give Bush and the GOP an extra point now since they showed “a little” bit of respect for the Constitution and didn’t renew the illegal assault weapon ban. The gay marriage amendment, abortion issue and Iraq, really has me going nuts and not wanting to vote for him, but the little rational vote idea made me redo my own little chart. Even though I disagree with Bush on many things, the thought of a country under kerry and his “visions” is twice as scary. If only we could have the “real” Democratic agenda of years past, instead of the liberal agenda now, I do believe my vote would be different.
Thanks again David

Henry:

Bush made a political calculation about the assault weapon ban, as did many members of Congress. The NRA is very powerful, especially at the Congressional level. In 2002, many who opposed the NRA lost their seats, and now in 2004, those with seats remember that.

Bush certainly could have led the fight to extend the ban, but then again, so too could Congress. That neither did, despite the overwhelming percentage of the people that want to is disheartening for a “democracy”.

The real truth is that the ban didnt accomplish all that much. It was a mixed bag. I’d prefer to see fewer laws, but more enforcement of them, rather than more laws with limited enforcement.

Joe, I could not disagree about the laws; however, I wonder if the NRA has really won. Nov. 2nd will be the day to see if America has changed. Since big city crime is headed to smallsville, will have the populace changed their mind. Remember, Bush is using fear to promote himself.

Henry: You said “I wonder if the NRA has really won”
The NRA represents the people, so it is the people who have actually won. They have won back some of their Constitution right.

“Will the populace change their mind”
I doubt it, since mass killings using so-called “assault weapons” are so rare, they probably won’t notice any change.

Can you name one incident, in recent history, where a person with no criminal background, used an “assault weapon” to kill dozens of people, that could not have been done with an “average” firearm?

Tim, I am glad there was some assistance available at WatchBlog. It is commendable that you actually deliberated before deciding to how you would vote. Now, if we could just get another 50 million Americans to do the same, we might get a government responsible to the people instead of the other way around.

Tim,
How am I suppose to answer a double negative question. For any one can use anything as a weapon. Hence the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, as I have stated before most people even in smallsville understand the difference between a ten round clip and a banana clip. The first child to die because of a person using one of these weapons will bring fire to the door steps of NRA.

Tim:

I’ll say you got a great job. Not everyone makes more than $200,000, the threshold for Kerry’s promised tax cuts.

Who is your headhunter?

NOTOTH, I apologize, I lost track of your reply for a bit.

Thank you for clarifying my question about the students paying taxes. I can see how that could be a real issue in a college town. A bit of sticky one though. Given that the students for all intents and purposes are residents while at the school, and contributing handsomely to the local economy, I can see why they would want a say in local affairs that may impact the student body, especially if it is a large one at any given time. On the other hand, as you say, so very many of them will not remain to foot the bill for the decisions they make. That said, as students who voted graduate and leave, they are replaced by new students who will have to pay, as long as the school remains in existence.

So the population that votes, will also pay for the decisions made by the vote, even though the individuals of that population may change over every 4 years. The student population number does not change much from year to year I would guess, so students will pay for the decisions made at the ballot box in roughly the same numbers as were present when an election was held.

I’d like to suggest to all the people supporting Bush because they think he’s such an honorable guy to read Kevin Phillips’ American Dynasty. As the author (a Republican) himself says in his forward, “…in examining two Bush predidencies and the family’s four-generation pursuit of national prominence and power…I found a greater basis for dismay and disillusionment than I had imagined. The result is an unusual and unflattering portrait of a great family (great in power, not morality) that has built a base over the course of the twentieth century in the back corridors of the new military-industrial complex and in close association with the growing intelligence and national security establishments.” This is a well-researched book with 23 pages of endnotes to verify information. I challenge anyone to tell me he/she still finds our present president, his father or his grandfather to be honorable after reading this book.

This is one tough election. To vote for the current Pres. who talks tough about terrorism and about compassionate conservatism but never addresses our open borders where 3 million illegals pour in each year since 2001.Bush has outspent just about everybody on government and while I love lowering taxes - the govt. must be cut or else… Or to vote for some lame brained guy who is still fighting the Vietnam war while fighting our country for being there in the first place. He is the democrat who seems to have forgotten that the one who got us into Vietnam in the first place was also a democrat. What to do - what to do?

jimbob, vote for the lame brain. Chances are everything bad you’ve heard about him is right-wing spin. You already know for a fact the current president isn’t tough on terorism, compassionate, or fiscally responsible.