Third Party & Independents Archives

I disagree. It’s really quite simple: If a person wins the Presidency who will do grievous harm to everything you believe in, then you lose.

Think of it this way: Choose your lunch:
A) An ice cream cone
B) A dirt sandwich
C) A bullet in the head

You may prefer (A), but if voting for (B) causes you to get (C) instead, then you lose.

Vote strategically. Vote with your head, not with your heart.

-Cf

I like that allegory, Christopher!!! But at the same time it kind of scares me.

I wrote:

If they can simply trot out two centrist-sounding candidates and play on fear and hatred to get you to vote for their candidate over the other, there is no reason for this method of political discourse to ever change.

Christopher wrote:

If a person wins the Presidency who will do grievous harm to everything you believe in, then you lose.

Sometimes I wonder why people think that the president is a King or Dictator. The President is quite impotent without congressional help. There are checks and balances on the system that are put into place, including a well drafted and amended constitution and several courts in place to defend it.

What can the president really do? Appoint Judges to the Supreme Court? Not without Congressional Approval. Wage war? Very limited with out Congressional Approval. Make laws? Nope. Vote budgets into law? Nope.

I am not afraid of my way of life changing if either Bush or Kerry get into office (we already know there is almost no difference between the two) and that our way of life is not going to change that drastically because of who is president. If it does, we’ve obviously given a single person way too much control, more than I imagined.

Your ‘allegory’ is simply a scare tactic to get people to vote the way you want them to. If you truly feel that if you don’t vote AGAINST someone you are going to lose your way of life you are nieve.

Doom and Gloom, Doom and Gloom. Get out the Fear agenda, someone may want to change things!

ok its about time you saw it my way
dictatorship!!!! its very subtle manipulation in our gov. and from others that the 3rd party vote is just a throw away but in fact i BELIEVE that they are afraid of things to come. and if we actually vote for who and what we believe we can change things. so what happens when we are stagnant for too long!!!!????????????????PU!!!
REVOLUTION!!!!LOL!!!! someday things will change i just hope i can see that day~!!
thanks

> What can the president really do [all by himself]?

Direct America’s foreign policy towards isolation and polarization. Go to war needlessly. Break treaties. Allow the Congress to pass any damn thing they want without vetoing anything. Spend lots of money in creative ways. Direct how federal agencies operate. Manipulate intelligence efforts to deceive Congress. Manipulate regulations to benefit big business.

And yes, interaction with Congress gives the President more power, not less: Through the President’s significant ability to make or break key legislation in Congress, he/she can do a hell of a lot of good - or bad.

Rhinehold, you simply can’t argue on the one hand that we should on principle vote for our favorite candidate for the Presidency, and on the other hand argue that the President can’t do much anyway. If the Presidency was so unimportant, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The fact is that the office is the most important in the land, and that the person holding that office can do an awful lot.

Plus, you inadvertantly walked right into the biggest reason why a third-party President would be a terrible situation for America: They could never ever get any laws or appointments passed in Congress, and in fact would likely be steamrollered by Congress if he/she ever tried a veto. The whole checks and balances thing would be thrown out of whack by an Executive who didn’t have any party backing in Congress. Such a President could only ever do what Congress wanted, and would almost certainly be humiliated and impeached before they even took their hand off the Bible at the swearing-in.

-Cf

I want to add that I’m not at all against third parties. I frankly wish we had more parties here in America. But they’ll have to work their way up by winning local races, then statewide races, then congressional offices, then the Presidency. It’s crazy to try to take the White House without a firm national political base.

An alternate scenario is that new parties can be born more quickly by breaking free from existing parties. If middle-of-the-road Democrats like Lieberman and Biden joined with non-psychotic Republicans like Lugar and Schwarzeneggar, they could probably create an interesting new party. If the Greens made common cause with liberal Democrats, they might make a new party. Such things have happened before in America, they could easily happen again.

Here are some really amazing and beautiful diagrams showing how parties are born and how they evolve.
—> The History of the Political Parties in the United States (Part 1: 1730 to 1892)
—> The History of the Political Parties in the United States (Part 2: 1892 to 2003)

I’ve voted Green locally many times, and I’ve voted for other third parties and independents before as well. But for President? Not until the candidate can prove that they have a political foundation to support them. The Greens and Libertarians simply don’t have it yet.

-Cf

What does it take to create a strong foundation in your eyes? 300 locally elected libertarians? 500? The ability to maintain a place on the ballot in all 50 states for 20 or so years?

Just curious, since you are not going to vote for one until they meet some criteria, what that criteria is would be a benefit to know to work towards.

I think that all third party supporters are asking for is decent treatment in the media and people not to scare them from voting for someone because ‘xxxx’ might get elected if you do. There are a lot of people I know who are libertarian but identify themselves as democrat or republican because 1) they were raised that way and 2) their candidates are ‘electable’. The only way that people are going to start supporting a third party candidate is if the pretense of it being a waste of your vote is put away.

If you don’t feel comfortable voting for a third party candidate, don’t! That was my whole point, vote for who you want to vote for, don’t let someone scare you out of it.

Oh, and as for your lunch choice, let’s make it the way it really is:

Choose your lunch:

A) An ice cream cone
B) A knife in the heart
C) A bullet in the head

B and C are still going to kill you, one just more slowly than the other. You might not get A but you might make it possible for A to be a real choice in the future.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
John Quincy Adams - US president (1825-29)

“Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half.”
Gore Vidal - Author

Like the old saying about there is no such thing as dumb vote, there is no such thing as a wasted vote as long as one votes their own mind.

To Greg and Chris:

Be very careful about lunch choice A. In our current litigious society, you might get sued for providing a less than healthy lunch. Or worse, someone might be lactose intolerant, have a reaction and sue you for damages. Worse yet, someoen might get “fat” due to eating all that ice cream, and sue the ice cream maker along with you in a class action suit.

Chris:

I understand your reluctance to support a 3rd party. At some point, someone will need to bite the bullet, so to speak. If every 4 years, we as a country decide that a 3rd party vote might do more damage than good, then 3rd parties will NEVER increase in power. If they are to ever increase in power, voters will need to accept whatever short term results such a vote might create, in the attempt to create long term change.

Think of it this way…when a person lifts weights, they break down muscle tissue and create lactic acid….and they hurt. They actually break down their body a little bit, but the result is the body rebuilds even more strongly. And the long term result is increased strength.

Sometimes, short term pain can create long term strength. If you never are willing to work out, though, you won’t get stronger.

Dang, jbod! I can’t believe you’re trying to sound principled just to convince someone NOT to vote for Kerry. That just seems pretty sleazy. I’m totally partisan, but I’m honest about it.

Vote for Kerry because if you don’t, Bush will win.

I bet you signed a petition to get Nader on the ballot and contributed to his campaign, too.

Republicans. Ugh.

AP:

You jump to so many conclusions that it’s almost embarassing for you. I said nothing about voting for or against Kerry, for or against Bush, for or against Nader, Badnarik or ANYONE.

What I DID say was that if people choose to never vote for a 3rd party because they don’t want to possibly influence a current election, then 3rd parties will remain in a non-viable status.

For those who want 3rd parties to gain more power and break up the duopoly that Dems and Repubs currently have, they need to encourage 3rd party votes, even when the candidate is not viable. By incremental gain, 3rd parties can be more than the onetime force (notice that Perot got a lot of votes, but then failed to sustain that momentum).

AP, you may jump to your conclusions as you choose. That’s certainly far different than assessing situations accurately, though.

P. Diddy has this Vote or DIE! campaign going now.

Nothing is better than trying to get the youth of America to become interested in politics and voting. But I do have a few problems with this campaign.

1. It’s run by P. Diddy, a criminal. A guy who shot up a nightclub, causing several people to be injured. A guy that was apprehended with an illegal handgun in his vehicle. Vote or DIE? Maybe vote or I’LL MURDER YOU! would have been better.

2. This campaign is “non-partisan” LOL! P. Diddy is clearly a Kerry supporter, as are many of the people involved in the Vote or I’ll mur… um, DIE! campaign.

3. Again, claiming to be “non-partisan”, but this campaign is aimed at getting people ages 18-30 to vote. Why is that important? Well, we all know that people in that age group, when they vote, tend to vote Democrat much more than Republican. Don’t get me wrong on this point, I am not suggesting that they not be allowed to vote or anything like that, but what I am suggesting is that this “Vote or DIE!” campaign was thought up by democrats to help them win. Ask yourself this, do you think that if polls showed that 75% of people 18-30 ho don’t vote would vote for President Bush if they voted, that P. Diddy or any of the other Hollywood stars involved in this would be? NO! What they are looking for is uninformed young people to go out there and vote for John Kerry. That was Vote or DIE! is all about.

Vote-trading is one answer to this dilemma. If you’re in a swing state, you vote for the lesser-of-two evils major party candidate, and in exchange someone in a non-swing state votes for your man, to help build up the party.

Rhinehold,

In my humble opinion…The only “wasted” vote is the one that wasn’t cast!

If you feel strongly about an issue, any issue,vote for the person that shares your views.
If 2nd best loses because of your vote, so be it.
If you have strong feelings about that issue, and you vote for someone that doesn’t share that view…what the hell will happen to your issue ??

You are proving to those running for office that your issue was meaningless to gain your vote !

I am trusting in the fact that you called 2nd. best and told them your issue/view beforehand.

I’m a bumpkin, but even I know that much !!

I have to agree that it isn’t a wasted vote if you vote for the candidate who you believe will accomplish goals you support. If I wanted to make a statement that I don’t agree with either party (D or R), i might write in Ralph Nader. When I look at congress which is going to be a Republican majority, I would like to have some of those ‘checks and balances’ put in place. Congress that is controlled mainly by one party is best checked by a president of another party or court system that is mixed.

I would like to see someone else in the White House other GWB in order to veto some of the crap that is coming out of Congress. Realistically I don’t believe Nader will get elected. Thus I vote Kerry.

I think I’m gonna stay away from Rhinehold’s and Chris restaurants. Perhaps I’ll just fast for Ramadan.

> At some point, someone will need to
> bite the bullet, so to speak.

I admire your principles, Joe. How about you be the first to step up to the plate and write in the name of someone you think is the ideal candidate instead of voting for mainstream Bush?

I’m with AP here. I think you are being disingenuous in order to “encourage” potential Nader voters.

-Cf

Who would be the ideal Libertarian candidate?
Or Conservative candidate?

CiC George isn’t universally loved by every conservative. This administration has done several things that are not Libertarian nor Hardball Conservative. I think most conservative voters realize they won’t find a perfect candidate, but they’ll vote for the guy that is closest enough to their values … and can win.

In the 2000 race, George Bush had name recognition and was attractive to women. He seemed like a moderate as the Texas governor. In the 2000 primaries, Bush also had the RNC favor over McCain. Bush seemed less like a rich guy than Steve Forbes and more down with the ‘people’.

What makes the best candidate? Steve Forbes was a hell of a lot smarter than Bush, but smart doesn’t get elected. John McCain, a war hero, who commands respect from many sides of the table, could not get the support of the RNC. The RNC wanted a guy who could win.

CF:

To be honest, I’ve already thought much about voting for Badnarik this time around. Now here’s the full truth behind my statement. I live in New York state, and we all know NY’s electoral votes will go to John Kerry. So my vote is, to use a popular Democratic buzzword, disenfranchised. Doesn’t matter if I vote or who I vote for—-the outcome will be the same.

So it’s a painfree decision for me to make. Right now I know nothing about Badnarik, so he takes the lead. I don’t like Nader’s policies, I don’t like Kerry, and a vote for Bush does nothing, except help him in the popular vote area, which has little value.

As for people who truly like neither Bush nor Kerry, they should vote their consciences. You see, I’m not gonna dictate who someone else can or should vote for. I notice Democrats around the country creating lawsuits to prevent Nader from even being on the ballots—-how truly democratic THAT is!!

You can think what you will. To see you align with AP gives me pause, since I typically have found your comments to be more salient than his. But choose to align yourself as you will.

I’m under no idealistic vision that my comments will compel anyone to vote in any particular direction. Perhaps you and AP think it possible that through my prose, I have the ability to sway voters. Thank you for the compliment.

I disagree. The Oklahoma voter who votes for Kerry has no say in the election. Eliminate the electoral college and every vote counts.

Actually, not everyone’s votes would count, just win LA, Chicago and NY and Bob’s your uncle! Who cares about those ‘fly over states’ anymore…

“Eliminate the electoral college and every vote counts.”

Well, there you go. Problem solved, we can all go home now…

Oh, you say it would take an amendment to the Constitution? And when did THAT particular feat last happen? And what, exactly, does amending the Constitution require?

Hmmm, perhaps there’s more work to do…

With the current state of politics in this country, do you truly believe eliminating the electoral college to be a viable plan? Or are you just spouting platitudes?

And people say I’m crazy because I want to eliminate the Dept. of Education and the IRS… And neither of those ideas involve a Constitutional Amemdment…

Actually, a third party vote is the most effective of all, because it stands out more. A party with, say, 10% of the population/legislators behind it, is in a broker/power position far out of proportion to its actual size. If we assume that the remaining 90% is split more or less evenly between two principal parties, the third party is the deal-maker. I like having that kind of influence.

Hope you apply Logic.
A strategic vote to make sure Bush and crowd are out of there for how they lied to get us into war, etc. appears the lesser of the evils.

Third parties aren’t the answer nationally quite yet. Proportional voting and getting rid of Electoral college probably need to be in place first.

Nader shouldn’t be encouraged. He’s basically socialistic in spending on too many programs and approaches. He’s a millionaire attorney himself. Fellow trial attorneys give him piles of dough. (which group has hemorrhaged this country and will never change the archaic costly legal system)

AP, you may jump to your conclusions as you choose. That’s certainly far different than assessing situations accurately, though.

Oh, I think I got it right, jbod.

I notice after your subsequent sob-story about being disenfranchised, you stopped short of taking your own oh so principled stand. You never actually stated you would not vote for Bush.

Moving on, I saw an interview with John Zogby while he was in Singapore recently. He’s predicting a Kerry win based on the leanings of undecided voters and a higher than expected turnout of “unlikely” voters.

Their numbers - about seven million - could tip the scales in a tight race… Mr Kerry is ahead by 9 percentage points. So over the next three weeks, said Mr Zogby, the battle will be less over issues and more on voter turnout.

While Mr Kerry would want the ‘undecideds’ to vote, Mr Bush would want the very opposite.

So look out for subtle Bush campaign methods of discouraging voters, like… oh… having their “grass roots” voter registration organizations only keep Republican registration cards and destroy the rest.

It’s easy to email or call your local election office and confirm that you’re registered.

http://www.vote-smart.org/voter_county_election_offi[remove me]ces.php

AP:

As I said, you may jump to whatever conclusions you wish, however wrong they may be.

As far as my vote counting, its obvious under the current electoral process that my vote at this point doesnt matter. I explained why that is clearly. I’ll assume that you understand the process sufficiently to be able to comprehend the logic—-if not, let me know and I’ll re-explain it. That’s why I’ve considered a percentage electoral vote, which has been discussed in other threads.

As I said, voters need to decide what is most important to them. Thanks again for thinking that I have enough wisdom and rhetoric to sway people, but I doubt it. I think people will vote their consciences, as they should.

Badnarik addressed this in one of his clever quips:

“Somehow the term ‘thinking for yourself’ has become ‘wasting your vote.’ The definition of liberty is making your own choices.”

Pretty much sums it up and trounces any chance at rebuttal.

If you don’t vote for Kerry, Bush will win. It’s that simple.

If you’re ok with that, then make whatever choice you want. But don’t think your choice doesn’t make a difference.

If you don’t vote for Kerry, Bush will win.

What’s so great about Kerry? He’s liar too. At least if Bush wins we won’t have to hear: “If you don’t vote for X, Kerry will win.”

Gee whiz, bye gollie,

I was under the impression that there were more offices open for votes in Nov. than just Pres., I must be wrong?
If you care about an issue its up to you to support your issue. Get a freaking copy of your ballot in advance of election day, call everyone on that ballot and ask their views on that issue( If you don’t already know).
In my opinion, everyone that splits their ticket on election day, whether they know it or not, is an independant!!
Anyone that just pulls a single handle is a sheep !
People vote because they care about an issue or a group of issues, at least I do.
If you don’t care about any issues, why the hell do you even bother voting ?

If you are voting based on hate, heres a tip…Hate is a full time job…it will eat you up!
If you vote based on apearences…. stay home Nov.2nd.. go to the saloon on friday night, vote on a wet teeshirt contest…nothing but apearences there!

Thats my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

Everyone should vote in the way they think is best. If you think it is best to have a two party system, vote for Bush or Kerry, because if you always vote for the two parties, you will always have the two parties. I consider the two party system a good thing, because it tends to homogenize the electorate. I will vote for Bush because he is the better of the two party candidates, but I know there are other opinions both about Bush and the two party system. Those of you who really believe in third parties should vote for third parties. If not now, when? If not you, who?

jack: people used to think homogeny was a good thing when Ford only build cars that came in black. Thank goodness the free market of ideas prevailed, I like driving my red car.

Gunthrie

Then vote for Nader. I know people disagree. I am satisfied (not elated) by the choice offered, so I don’t have a problem with the two party system. But I think that those who do should vote their convictions. It is not a left/right issue. This year it might mean George Bush gets elected. That’s good. In 1992 it meant that Bill Clinton won. The most serious recent challengers (Anderson, Perot and Buchanan) have tended to pull votes from the right.

If Nader cost Gore the election in 2000, hurray for Nader. No matter. You third party guys should not vote for Kerry just to perpetuate a system you claim not to support.

I’m from Brazil. You know what’s really wrong with US elections? Your voting system is totally screwed up. Let alone the bizarre idea of an “electoral vote” (when are you guys gonna realize you’re a nation and not a bunch of states?): you only get to vote once each election. Explaining: over here, we go voting once. If a candidate gets more than 50% of the votes, he’s elected. If not, there’s another voting, but just between the two most voted candidates (I’m not sure that sentence is right, but I think you can get the meaning of it. And please excuse my misuse of your language.)

Why is that cool? Because you don’t have to think about whether you should vote with your head or your heart, as somebody put it. You get to do both. First round, vote on whoever you want. Second round - when there are only two options - pick the best, or the less damaging. Easier, no?

Anyway. My opinion doesn’t matter much, but my voting goes for Kerry. Because you guys have to take that lunatic out of the Oval Office. And keep in mind thta, as long as this system of yours doesn’t change, every vote for an independent candidate will be as efficient as a blank one.

Lets see then.
Brazil is a democracy. An ok country, not a world leader. Majority rules in a democracy. 51% vote for a sheep, the sheep is your leader.

The US is a Constitutional Republic. A superpower and THE leader of the free world. Our form of govt. has been successful for over 200 years and because of our Constitution, which protects all these silly states who in turn keeps our fed. govt. under check and everybody wants to come and live here.

Your right, we should become more like Brazil.

Why is that cool? Because you don’t have to think.
Thats the best way to pick a leader. Dont think!

I was in Brazil when you all were writing your constitution in the late 1980s, but I haven’t followed your politics much since. I think I met Lula a long time ago. It is funny that he is turning out to be a moderate.

Reform is always possible and Brazilian 50% rule is attractive, but any system can be gamed. Think of the case of France when La pen managed to beat out the socialist candidate Lionel Jospin, so the runoff was between Chirac and Le pen. The left hated Chirac with a passion but “held their noses” and voted for him. Jospin evidently lost in the first round because of the protest votes. Chirac’s popularity now hovers under 40%. He is less popular than Bush.

The tone of all these postings is that there is something seriously wrong with the U.S. system. I don’t accept that premise. The French case is just a recent example of a worse scenario. There is no indication that a plethora of small parties is better for democracy. In America, if you don’t get the most votes, you lose. This creates the incentive to compromise and work with others. Nobody gets everything he wants, but everybody gets something. Under a system of proportional representation, small parties are encouraged because you don’t have to control a majority. This sounds good, but it has the effect of empowering the small and uncooperative. We complain that the major parties play to their narrow minded bases, but with small parties the bases are even narrower. A party that gets 10% of the vote need never compromise. In fact compromise might well cost it its 10%.

I would refer the record. The U.S. is the second oldest government in the world. In the same time period France has gone through five Republics, not to mention a reign of terror and a couple of revolutions. Most countries have done even worse. Only the U.S. and the UK are still standing after more than 200 years. Let me give you a prosaic illustration of the fantastic stability of the U.S. system. Every coin ever issued by the U.S. Federal Government is still legal tender. You would be foolish to exchange a quarter from 1814 for a piece of gum, but you could legally do that. We pay a price for this stability, and that price the two party system, but all-in-all it is worth it. Recall that the only time we had a serious breakdown was after the multiparty election of 1860.

This kind of thing leaves me brooding for the rest of the day.
“Are the voters stupid? It is not considered politically correct to point out that an awful lot of voters don’t have a clue what they are talking about. A recent poll from Middle Tennessee State University sheds some light on the subject. For example, when asked which candidate wants to roll back the tax cuts for people making over $200,000 a year, a quarter thought it was Bush and a quarter didn’t know. And it goes down hill from there. When asked which candidate supports specific positions on various issues, the results were no better than chance…”
That’s from www.electoral-vote.com today. The link to the poll has already been removed. But it leaves me with a vivid picture of a roomful of monkeys. Divide the room in half. Those monkeys don’t vote. Divide the remaining half again. One portion is for Kerry, the other for Bush. I guess there’s no such thing as an Independent monkey.
Time to spend a few months in a remote mountain cabin, muttering…

Sorry, but just because isn’t sufficient to be repeated in our history. Yes, we shouldn’t splinter. We need a Centrist type party. We really need to get rid of the heavy influences of the ultra extreme sides of both parties. Some of you would have to know what awful effects specific Gerrymandering practices have done to the country(as well as to state legislatures). Congr gets re-elected at @ 100% rate.

Guys? How can I start my own Topic Line? What is the Procedure?

Aldous.

kctim, get serious. “I’m big and mean and I rule the world” isn’t really an argument. Yes, Brazil is a very lousy country, and USA is far better. It doesn’t mean you guys can’t learn a couple of things from us (bearing in mind we could learn a thousand of things from you).

jack, I hear you: yes, strategic voting doesn’t go away if we use the two-round voting system, and yes, minor parties can win more power that way. But let’s talk about France: the left had to choose between a bad option and an awful one, but they had to do it because they didn’t have a way of putting their man in charge. And that’s how it works. Chirac is widely impopular, but that’s because he’s a scumbag, not because of the voting system. The thing about popular voting is, if people vote for an idiot, we have ourselves an idiotic president. (By the way, that happens in Brazil, France or, yes, USA, kctim.)

As for powerful small parties - well, that’s the idea. Small parties must be there to ensure that every group of people, small as they might be, have somebody to speak for them. I think that’s nice. And that’s also an incentive for multipartisan debating and decision-making.

I’m all for two strong parties - in Brazil we have to live with a handful of different parties making promiscuous alliances to get what they want, but now two of them (PSDB, of former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Lula’s PT) are growing out of this mess. And that’s the way around every democratic country, I think - even France (let’s hope Le Pen was an anomaly). But small parties should be there, they should have their place. That way everybody, from the extreme left to the extreme righ, gets to have their ideas represented.

Oh, and I’d much rather live in Europe.

Lucas
“I’m big and mean and I rule the world” was not the point of my post.
My point was that our form of govt has stood the test of time, better than any other form of govt. in the entire world.
So, if our form of govt have proven to be the best, by making us the most successful country in the world, why would we need to become a democracy?

kctim, now you’re talking. but, technically, we’re not a democracy either. Those were the greeks. We’re a republic as well,with some different rules. I wouldn’t like to live in a pure democracy, with the constant fear of majority tiranny (that’s the expression in portuguese directly translated to english, but you get the jist, right?).

Also, success may be one variable to measure a form of government’s efficiency, but it shouldn’t be the only one. The romans were pretty successful under a dictatorship for some time, but that doesn’t make dictatorship a desirable form of government. Besides, maybe it wasn’t the form of government who made US the great kahuna. Maybe the form of government was even an obstacle. But now I’m just behaving like a child.

My point is, your form of government was set up when the United States of America were in fact a bunch of states getting together. You’re not that anymore. You’re a country, the most successful one in the world, as you put it. I think your system to elect the president should reflect that. I know I have no business telling you what you should do, but hey, isn’t America about freedom of speach?

Lucas
Your point is well taken. Here is where you are mistaken though:
Yes, we are a country. But we are a country of independent states that are supposed to have the power to keep the federal govt. in check with our Constitution. (I know, they fail more and more each day to do that)
Our election process reflects this and thereby helps ensure that a majority rules form of govt. does not happen.
As is evident in America today, democracy has to many flaws and does not work.

And if your an American living in Brazil, it is your business to state your opinion and give your support on such issues.

Lucas

I like my government a little inefficient and I like jurisdictions to overlap. This is not rational, but I think it better reflect what human societies need. We want to have room for experiment and mistakes. States are laboratories. Presumably the good ideas spread and the bad ones are limited to one state. In order to make this happen, states need independent powers of taxation and the authority to make many of their own laws. The U.S. has fifty states and thousands of autonomous jurisdictions where people can try out their ideas and learn leadership by doing it. If we rationalize the system, we would lose this. The American system produces leaders that are rarely heroic and maybe not the “best” people, but they are reasonably competent and there is a lot of depth in the leadership group because many people have had experience making decisions. Over time, any competent group overcomes the most heroic individuals.

People might say, as you imply, that the U.S. is successful despite this disorder. I think we are successful because of it. Just as the messy and seemingly inefficient free market always wins out over centrally planned, expertly run state systems, the messy mixed American system wins out over its “better organized” alternatives. Don’t ask me how the free market works. Nobody knows, but it does. The same goes for our politics.

In 2000 many people decried the breakdown of the U.S. system. But what really happened? We had a very close election - a statistical tie. Millions of votes were cast; a few thousand were disputed. We chose a winner within the unusual time limit and within the framework of our constitutional process. There was no revolution, no violence or retributions. No troops were needed to enforce the new order. The new leader was sworn in on the previously appointed day and now he is running for reelection, giving the people another chance to vote. This was the worst election problem we had since 1888 (we also had problems in 1876, 1824 and 1800) and it wasn’t really very bad at all by any historical or world standard. We Americans are just spoiled, so we complain about things like this.

> Actually, not everyone’s votes would count, just win
> LA, Chicago and NY and Bob’s your uncle! Who cares
> about those ‘fly over states’ anymore…

Rhinehold, would you care to explain the mathematics behind that bizarre argument? Between LA, NY, and Chicago metro areas there are probably 50 million voters. The whole midwest is probably 50 million people. I’d call that pretty even.

I guess you think that the votes of 100,000 Oklahomans are worth the same as 19 million New Yorkers?

-Cf

I like what Cobb had to say in response to the “wasted vote” question. He said, “I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it, than vote for something I don’t want and still get worse.” That about sums up my beliefs on voting, but I should add that I sympathize with typical 3rd party voters in swing states. It’s an awesome (as in huge) responsibility they have.

Whoah, wait a minute… the test of time!
You sound like a product of a country that is the equivalent of a toddler in comparison to… oh ..all of time. We repeat our own mistakes as well as the mistakes made by nearly any country ever. We are ritch… but do we understand what it means to share…ever tried to explain “sharing” to a toddler? Wouldn’t you agree that the reason we are so ritch is that we don’t know how to share. Or did you think that God only blessed america? Sorry, all happens to be interconnected! About every other second one of your own “blessed american babies” dies due to starvation/malnutrition. What can we do to prevent this? I don’t know ………..maybe we should SHARE with the less moniterily fortunate.
I know that might be hard for some spoiled american brats to swallow. (jonathan Smith,in A Modest Proposal, was pointing out a problem…he wasn’t seriously suggesting that we should eat the poor childern.)
You seem so proud to be a part of a democratic - Republic,yet, your judges, NOT YOU, decided our president in 2000. Maybe, brazil is on to something there.
By the by, there is no where you can run and hide from injustice…not brazil,france,no where on earth is perfect. So…Vote! Vote! Vote! Thats my new motto! Maybe if some of the people who felt the way I did in 2000 (myself included) would have voted, our “blessed country” wouldn’t be up a creek right now! …and if you are offended by that statement maybe you should get out more often. When you do you will see that not every one thinks it’s cool that the american government treats it’s people about as crappily as they treat everyone in the worlds people. They don’t care if we american’s die or them evil terrorists die …aslong as they make more than 50% of the profit.

Whoah, wait a minute… the test of time!
You sound like a product of a country that is the equivalent of a toddler in comparison to… oh ..all of time. We repeat our own mistakes as well as the mistakes made by nearly any country ever. We are ritch… but do we understand what it means to share…ever tried to explain “sharing” to a toddler? Wouldn’t you agree that the reason we are so ritch is that we don’t know how to share. Or did you think that God only blessed america? Sorry, all happens to be interconnected! About every other second one of your own “blessed american babies” dies due to starvation/malnutrition. What can we do to prevent this? I don’t know ………..maybe we should SHARE with the less moniterily fortunate. I know that might be hard for some spoiled american brats to swallow. (jonathan Smith,in A Modest Proposal, was pointing out a problem…he wasn’t seriously suggesting that we should eat the poor childern.)
You seem so proud to be a part of a democratic - Republic,yet, your judges, NOT YOU, decided our president in 2000. Maybe, brazil is on to something there.
By the by, there is no where you can run and hide from injustice…not brazil,france,no where on earth is perfect. So…Vote! Vote! Vote! Thats my new motto! Maybe if some of the people who felt the way I did in 2000 (myself included) would have voted, our “blessed country” wouldn’t be up a creek right now! …and if you are offended by that statement maybe you should get out more often. When you do you will see that not every one thinks it’s cool that the american government treats it’s people about as crappily as they treat everyone in the worlds people. They don’t care if we “blessed american’s” die or “them evil terrorists” die …aslong as they make more than 50% of the profit.

Tina

A country is not mature because it occupies a particular piece of geography or has a name that appeared on maps 1000 years ago. It depends on how long its government and institutions have been in existence. The U.S. has the second oldest government and institutions in the world. Something works. Maybe we should look at ideas from some of the newer guys, but some of these “new” ideas have been tried before. That is why those governments fell apart.

I am not sure what you mean by share. Americans give much more to charity than any other people in the world. Foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation at 22 billion dollars gives more to developing countries than many whole countries in the world. And we have scores of such foundations. The U.S. alone is responsible for 53% of all food aid given in all the world and we supply 33% of the budget for the UN high commission on refugees. I could make a list, but it would be too long. Don’t buy the propaganda that we are not doing our part. People compare particular details to show what they want, but when you are talking about the big picture and real money, the U.S. does its share.

Yes, we are rich so we CAN do more. We are richer because the system works well. The U.S. is blessed with resources, but if you look at the world, resources are not enough to make a country rich. Otherwise places like Congo, Botswana, South Africa, Bolivia and Russia would be calling all the shots and places like Japan, Korea and Switzerland would be basket cases. Politics impacts prosperity. Argentina was on the way to being one of the richest countries in the world. Its GDP per capita exceeded that of the U.S. in 1900. But political mismanagement made the country poor. We can complain about the U.S. system and we should try to improve it, but the track record is good (and by the way, so is our current leadership)

Tina,

The US citizens selected the president in 2000, not the Supreme Court. That argument is one of the most annoying I’ve ever seen, but it does server the purpose of identifying people with little grasp on what really happened and instead follow talking points and hatred of Bush like lemmings off of a cliff.

For the record, the US Supreme Court prevented the Florida Supreme Court from inventing a ruling (based on no precident) that would have violated the 14th amendment rights of millions of Florida citizens. They did not pick anyone. You can agree or disagree with the decision, but it was one they felt needed made.

We also know that the recount, if it HAD been allowed to go through, would have resulted in George Bush winning by a wider margin than he did. The only way that he *could* have lost is if the recount had involved the entire state and if the vote definitions had been reworked a specific way to include many potentially invalid votes to be counted.

If you somehow see this as ‘the Supreme Court picking the president’ than I’m afraid we’ll just have to disagree on this issue since it is unlikely that we don’t agree on what rational reasoned thought is.

Why I will not vote Nader or Green This Year…

There are two reasons for Greens to vote Kerry. First, by voting for Kerry this year we become more relevant in presidential politics. We become swing voters. Swing voters matter to politicians seeking elected office. Often called moderate voters, swing voters are actually not middle voters but voters on the margins. Marginal voters who will move will be courted. While I see no panacea for the Left from a Kerry victory, I do see benefits in asserting the relevance of the Left - especially this year.

Dean’s rise was a victory for the Left. Gore’s series of speeches on civil liberties and the brazen lies of the Bush administration were remarkable. Kerry meeting with Nader was better than the Democratic shunning of Greens since 2000. These changes do not count as a transformation of society, but given how little power the Left has we are best realistic about how much of role we have at this time. Let’s be swing voters this year and so that others will know that we can help Democrats lose (as in 2000) and we can help Democrats win (as in this year).

But the swing voter argument is not the best reason for Greens vote Kerry. More important relates to why we usually vote Green or independent, which is to send a message about what really matters to us. I voted third party in all of the past presidential elections to send a message to the Democrats. Now I want to send a message to the Republicans.

The message is simple: Go too far and you will lose.

There are limits to how far either party can go. Bush went way beyond these limits. Defeating Bush matters because all politicians need to know that even the radical Left will back a Democrat if things go too far. Bush’s radical agenda goes beyond anything any recent president has done. Not Nixon, not Ford, not Carter, not Reagan, not Bush’s dad, and not Clinton come close to the hugely radical abuse of power and threat to the Republic of this president. That’s why this president must be defeated and why it makes sense for Greens to help do it.

Bush invaded a sovereign state in a war of aggression without even pretense of following international law. Bush lied to the Congress and the American people to take our nation to war. Bush used the September 11th tragedy to restrict civil liberties and to massively expand police powers. Bush used fear of foreigners to push forward a radical domestic agenda. Bush was caught leading a government that tortures and ignores human rights with impunity. Bush suspended habeas corpus, locked citizens in secret jails and challenged the basic tenets on which civil society is based. Bush engaged in massive propaganda, abused the power of the Executive, challenged our Constitutional system, violated international law and pushed an unprecedented militaristic and corporate radical agenda.

Sure, other presidents have engaged in other acts that approach those of Bush - but none have been so bold and brazen as has been Bush. He is dangerous to our Republic and to the world. And we, the far Left, must join with moderates and liberals to send a message to radicals of the radical-Right. We will not tolerate anything that approaches Bush, not now and not ever - even if this means that we’ll pause from building our own Green Party. Join me in sending this message because the right to vote matters and this year we can employ our right to make a real difference for America and for the world.

liberation learning…

Can you please explain to me how the NATO attack by Clinton on a soverign country and capturing of it’s dictator ruler was legal while Bush’s wasn’t?

wow i guess you guys really know your stuff. Argentina didn’t fall apart because of greed(like most others) it was just because they are not a super power. If only they had the foresight to see how futile their effortts were they would have just never even tried to better themselves. I guess you would also tell me that the civil war was more about slavery than states rights. Yes I can, have and do read. So I guess that qualifies me to vote by some standards. So, I will. Probably for the knife in the heart because I think it is slightly more noble to vote for the good of the many and have a chance of effecting positive change in our nation….than to wish I had icecream, tell that to other people I wish I had icecream …and then all get shot in the head.

There’s a major problem with leftists voting for Kerry. Kerry will not adopt any of the positions held by the left. In fact, Kerry is not even pretending to court left voters. The left is left-out.

We are the side that is anti-war, that asks for universal health care, a living wage, and cleaner elections, among other issues.

Senator Kerry voted for the authorization for the iraq war, is committed to increasing the number of troops in the military, and wishes to expand the wasteful military budget. Kerry hasn’t even spoken out against pre-emptive war. The dialogue between both candidates, leaves open the potential for an invasion in Iran. Kerry is not anti-war, nor does he believe in war as a last resort.

Kerry is for healthcare for all children, an admirable position. No child should have to suffer. But his healthcare proposal for adults is a tax credit letting people buy into congress’s healthcare plan. Even with a tax credit, the people most affected by not having healthcare, the poor and working class, will not be able to afford it. He offers no universal health care program, which would relive the burden of the small business sector, or the millions of americans with no health care.

Kerry does support raising the minimum wage to 7.00 an hour. Its a much needed increase, but its not enough. The wage must affect the cost of living increases, and 7.00 still keeps the poor in poverty. You simply cannot live on 7.00 an hour, unless you’re working more than one job. It will also be negated if their is a signifcant cost of living increase, leaving that person where they started from.

Both candidates take huge amounts of money from special interests group. They are against public financing of elections, and tougher bills to limit special interest money from affecting political elections.

The environment? Is he the John Kerry that was at the first earth day or the Kerry who co-authored a nuclear energy bill with joseph lieberman?

He’s against the death penalty, but won’t pass any federal legislation against it. He’s pro-choice, but won’t come out and admit it. He voted for the patriot act to take away our civil liberties, and voted for no child left behind, to hurt out public schools.

But he’s not George Bush, right? Sounds to me like to typical neo-liberalism, support big business and corporations, while neglecting working class and poor people. Support moderate and conservative agenda with republicans, but say nice things about social issues.

I don’t like george bush. hes been a lousy president. hes certainly not a fascist, as ideologues call him. i’d like to see him out of power. but kerry is not a good choice. and when the left demands nothing from the person they endorse, they gain less respect from democrats, and less political influence. if kerry is elected, and if he dosent do a good job, will the left hold him accountable? are will they be too scared of whoever the republicans pick in 2008?

i’m voting for nader, as i did in 2000. i think hes the best choice. and if he wasn’t in the race, i would vote for david cobb of the green party or the socialist candidate. i dont respect a party that turns its back on its so-called ideals, or tries to keep an independent candidate off the ballots.

david

Tina

Argentina’s problem had nothing to do with being a superpower or not. It is a country usually rich in resources by climate and nature. Its people are well educated. It has been far from the world’s most destructive conflicts. It should be prosperous as New Zealand or Australia. Why isn’t it? Politics - of the corporatist variety – is the reason. Evita Peron entertained the people of Argentina, while her husband and his cronies systematically nationalized industries and mismanaged the country. They promised to help the poor, punish the rich and free the country from foreign (British in this case) capitalism. They succeeded in making everyone poorer. Argentina is a lesson of how a country with all the blessing possible can impoverish itself in a single generation.

The Civil War in America was about slavery. Sure, there were other issues involved, but absent slavery the war would not have broken out and the result of the war was to end slavery in the United States. I live in a southern state and am sympathetic to the southern cause. Most of the rank and file confederates were not slave owners, nor were they fighting for slavery, but slavery was the issue that provoked all the unpleasantness in the first place.

Jack,

I’m glad you paid attention in your middle school history class. The Civil War was an economic war waged on the south by the north. The two areas conformed to different development models and required different foriegn policy. The south was a plantation based agricultural economy. It required low trade tarriffs to allow for increased exports to foriegn buyers, as production far outstripped the demands of the domestic market.

The north on the other hand was a developing industrial economy. As such, they demanded high trade tariffs and a protectionist foriegn policy. The low barriers demanded by the south would result in competition from the european manufacturing sector, which at the time, far outstripped our own. (Remember, we wern’t always in charge) The cheap imports would have devastated the north.

In the years leading up to the war, the southern states were aquiring more and more power in congress by exercising bloc voting. The northerners began to feel that the south was weilding power disproportionate to its population. Attacking slavery was an attempt to cripple the south’s short term productivity, and break the southern bid for power. Slavery was a dying institution for some time before the war. In fact, there was great concern in the north as the steadily increasing number of free blacks were competing for jobs with poor whites. It was not a war of morality. It was a war about money and power.

The moral of the story is that people should know their history, beginning with our own. We are not in decline from a previously moral state. We have always been this way.

It should strike a chord that we claim to be spreading democracy, when we are a democratic republic. The distinction between a soveriegn population, and a soveriegn body of elected officials is enormous. The fight for democracy should be starting here.

Go out and vote. Exercise your power. But ask why WE didn’t vote to go to Iraq. Ask why the electoral college still exists. While you’re at it, go look up the moral justifications for why it was created. Think, then act.

Aaron