Third Party & Independents Archives

What a fallacy. Comparing having to vote for a party you aren’t affiliated with to disease?

Go ahead, don’t vote. If the numbers are high enough it just makes the US look worse than it already does.

Choosing not to exercise your vote is like taking your ball and going home because you don’t like the rules.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 11, 2006 05:12 AM

Depends on the cancer, Richard. Some are worse than others. And the life expectancy for AIDS patients has increased dramatically.

I’d think in most cases there would be a candidate to vote against if not for.

Posted by: Trent at December 11, 2006 07:49 AM

Don’t vote, do you think that will help. Maybe if there is a good third party person running, then maybe they will get enough votes to make others think that the 2 main parties are not the way to go.
Now to me, if you don’t vote, then you don’t care what happens and you are satified with whoever gets into office, and what they do.

Posted by: KT at December 11, 2006 09:10 AM

The problem with you comparison is that choosing neither you are still going to end up with something, abstainance in poilitics means you allow others to choose for you, and the only thing you can say in return is “well I didn’t vote for ….” it would be far better to vote for the leser of two evils or even better to vote for who you belive in regardless of if they win or not, the third parties have been picking up a bit as the years have gone on, would make no sence to just not show up to the big game, I would think that would give a big backpeddle to the progress they have been making.

Posted by: Rhancheck at December 11, 2006 10:15 AM

There are a growing number Independent organizations out there, join them, support them, work with them. As they grow, they will interact and create a national independent party capable of proferring Independent candidates for President.

Also, do not stop voting Republocrats out of office. Never forget that the Democratic and Republican parties are the ones who deny the American people choices on the ballots, and deny all but the wealthiest candidates access to the airwaves at election time.

If independents continue to vote out incumbents from the Democratic and Republican parties, the day will come when ballot and airwave access will open up to viable third and independent candidates.

Third party and independent voters now constitute a larger voting segment of the population than either the Democrats or the Republicans. The potential political power of that fact is astounding in its implications. It is possible to restore democracy and the people’s voice through a diversity of candidates for office.

But, as always, it is up to you, the voter to exercise your power at the ballot box by voting out the incumbents who preserve the broken system as it is.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2006 11:13 AM

womanmarine, you are absolutely right. See my comment just above.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2006 11:14 AM

If you are planning not to vote, Richard, perhaps Watchblog isn’t the site for you. If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s non-voters who complain about the government that they refuse to participate in. And BTW, discussing politics on the internet is not participating in government.

You say my attitude supports the major parties. That is incorrect. My attitude simply encourages people to get involved. For any party or candidate they want to. Your attitude encourages just the opposite. You think you are on a moral high ground by not supporting a party, but at least those who do are getting involved.

There were plenty of third party presidential candidates in ‘04 (Green, Libertarian, Constitution, etc). If none of them were on the ballot in your state, it is because you didn’t do your part.

So here are your choices:
A. Vote for someone on the ballot
B. Work to see that someone you like gets on as a third party/independent
C. Write someone in
D. Do nothing

If you chose D, why should the rest of us care about what you have to say on the subject of politics? If you refuse to back up what you say by participating in the process why should I care what you have to say?

I voted last month. Not everyone I voted for won, but I sure as hell got my point across.
So… Are you going to participate? Or are you going to let the people you think you are superior to make all the choices?

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 11, 2006 11:35 AM

Choose somebody- that’s my advice. As long as you don’t choose, your part of the public discourse cannot make itself felt officially.

If government were an ecosystem, elections would be the equivalent of natural selection. If you refuse to make distinctions between candidates and what they believe, and pick one of those candidates, guess what you get? You get Bush. Bush got elected because people cared less and less who was president.

We can see the past few years that such an attitude is fundamentally dangerous. The Presidency has real power. Chose who will be president, and choose wisely, or you will see more presidents like Bush.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 11, 2006 11:45 AM

Richard Rhodes,

Here is a BETTER idea:

If you have two bad choices, do NOT reward the irresponsible incumbent by re-electing that person.

Please consider the many PROs and CONs for that logic.

If you dislike BOTH equally, then the truly logical best thing to do is vote for the NON-incumbent, because they are then less powerful (as freshmen politicians).

Also, we should NEVER reward irresponsible incumbent politicians by re-electing them.

Your strategy is valid ONLY if the ONLY choice is the existing incumbent or unopposed challenger (who you don’t like). In that case, you are right. Don’t vote for that office at all. It makes no sense to vote for someone you don’t like when they are unopposed.

Try to ignore party affiliations as much as possible. Look at individual candidates as much as possible. Don’t pull the party-lever. That is exactly what parties want you to do. They don’t want you to think for yourself. They are tapping into your laziness, and tricking you into take the lazy way. Study (as much as possible) all of the candidates. Then, also Congress as a whole. Ask yourself:
“How many are truly responsible?”
“What have they accomplished?”
“What have they done wrong?”

There are some offices where one choice is much better (or much worse) that the other, and it may (not) be YOUR favorite party.

So, the disease analogy was flawed.
It applies if there is only ONE bad choice (in that case, don’t vote).

If you have two bad choices, don’t reward the incumbent by re-electing that person.

In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount!

Voters need to understand these basic fundamentals.

Education is the ONLY way we will speed up progress.
At the current rate (2.000 steps forward, 1.999 steps backward), we could mess around an see a steady, unavoidable decline of the nation.
We are not invincible.
Education is needed.
We will get it one way or another, but sooner would be much better than later.
If we fail to educate the majority of the electorate, we will learn the hard way.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2006 11:45 AM

This was the whole argument when people were saying that it just didn’t matter if Gore or Bush won, because they were exactly the same. Voting matters.

Posted by: Max at December 11, 2006 12:28 PM

Congratulations, Richard, on a provocative piece! I agree with David Remmer when he says “There are a growing number Independent organizations out there, join them, support them, work with them. As they grow, they will interact and create a national independent party capable of proferring Independent candidates for President….”

And another option to staying away from the polls in November 2008 is to start NOW reaching all your independent friends and contacts to see what THEY think should be done. Independents are organizing on the ground in every state. It’s organization that will close the gap between our numbers, which are growing, and our lack of political influence, which the country needs. -NH

Posted by: Nancy Hanks at December 11, 2006 01:48 PM

Dan-
Incumbency itself is not the problem. The problem is just mindlessly re-electing somebody without paying attention to what they’re doing. Pay attention to what they are doing. If they don’t act in compliance with your standards, chunk them.

But it’s got to go beyond that. People need viable alternatives. Chunking the bad apples does you no good if you don’t have a good apple to enjoy. Any good movement against mindless incumbency ought to include the push for better alternative candidates within the party. We can’t merely punish bad behavior; we have to encourage good behavior.

There are no simple answers, but there is a simple question we can ask: are the people we sent to Washington or wherever else doing their jobs, and if not, who do we send in their place?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 11, 2006 01:57 PM

wow richard. you most certainly struck a bipartisan nerve! just listen to all this duopolistic propaganda!

“Go ahead, don’t vote. If the numbers are high enough it just makes the US look worse than it already does.”

no. it doesn’t make the us look worse - it *shows* how lacking in representation american elections actually are. you can’t blame a voter for abstaining fro voting, when you have given them no one to vote for!

sorry! if you want someone’s vote, EARN IT. don’t give us this “lesser of two evils” b.s. *anymore*. a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for *evil*.

“If you have two bad choices, do NOT reward the irresponsible incumbent by re-electing that person.”
“Also, do not stop voting Republocrats out of office.”

agreed. but there will be no incumbent in the ‘08 presidential.

“If you are planning not to vote, Richard, perhaps Watchblog isn’t the site for you. If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s non-voters who complain about the government that they refuse to participate in.”

of course you can’t stand it. it makes your party look bad, and the whole system look as illegitimate and corrupt as it in fact is.

“As long as you don’t choose, your part of the public discourse cannot make itself felt officially.”

i’m sorry, this isn’t true. (i have heard it argued that republicans want to suppress the overall number of voters - but i don’t buy it.) neither party looks good when no one shows up. without a significant number of votes, it is impossible to legitimately claim that anyone won… these past few elections have been exceptions - actuated by fear. the overall trend is *downward* - in general, a smaller percentage of the electorate votes each cycle.

the trend favors richard! the question is not what he will do, because he is just one of a large and growing number who are disillusioned and discontent. the question is what are *you* going to do?

“Now to me, if you don’t vote, then you don’t care what happens and you are satified with whoever gets into office, and what they do.”

well, that’s to you - and it figures. to us, we care enough not to lend artificial, undeserved legitimacy to a system that consistently fails to even attempt to represent us.

“So here are your choices:
A. Vote for someone on the ballot
B. Work to see that someone you like gets on as a third party/independent
C. Write someone in
D. Do nothing”

vote for someone, if you feel they represent you. work to see that someone you like gets on the ballot as a 3rd… but don’t expect that you’ll actually be able to achieve this under the current duopoly. write someone in, if the option is available to you. Do Something - lacking any other option, vote for ‘none of the above,’ by not voting - and make it known that you are *actively* not voting.

the number of independents are growing. the number who vote is declining. i’m not telling you what to do - i’m warning you what’s going to happen (it already is). i’m sorry. you just can’t keep motivating people with fear - vote for me, or you might end up with HIM!

i tell yall what, though. feel free to vent at me, as you have at richard. it will change nothing. it is not i, nor richard, that you must convince. it is the dejected, misrepresented masses to whom you must speak. i sympathize with your plight, but i will not assist you in your (self)deception.

richard, expect to encounter such anger and resentment as some here have shown you. when the game is rigged to ensure that no matter what you do, you lose - it is quite natural to find a different game - and equally as natural for those who work so hard to maintain such a system to be pissed when you refuse to play.

regards.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 11, 2006 01:58 PM

The voting rate in the US already looks apathetic, this would make that look even more apathetic.

Hard to promote democracy in any form if apathy makes ours look like the citizens don’t care.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 11, 2006 02:43 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, Incumbency itself is not the problem.

Agreed. I never said it was, did I? Why do you keep trying to mischaracterize my position? Is that easier than trying to poke holes in a sound argument?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The problem is just mindlessly re-electing somebody without paying attention to what they’re doing. Pay attention to what they are doing. If they don’t act in compliance with your standards, chunk them.

Agreed. I have always advocated that very same thing. Keep the good ones. Don’t re-elect the bad ones.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: People need viable alternatives.

Agreed. That’s why I have and will continue to encourage more third parties and independents to get on all the ballots.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Chunking the bad apples does you no good if you don’t have a good apple to enjoy.

Yes it does. If all the candidates are bad, vote out the incumbent. Why? Because it eliminates the current bad one, and the newcomer will have less power as a freshmen Congressperson. Rewarding a bad incumbent by re-electing them is worse, becuse they become more powerful. So, as I said above, and the logic is irrefutable, when you have no good choices, vote out the incumbent. After all, you already know the incumbent is bad, and the challenger may gleen something from seeing irresponsible incumbents being ousted for being irresponsible.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Any good movement against mindless incumbency

First of all, there can be no movement that is good if its goal is “mindless anti-incumbency” If you are again trying to characterize the advice to “not re-elect irresponsible incumbents” (especially when all candidates are bad) as a mindless anti-incumbency, then that is inaccurate.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: … ought to include the push for better alternative candidates within the party.

Agreed. More choices and candidates is a good thing. Never said it wasn’t.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: There are no simple answers, but there is a simple question we can ask: are the people we sent to Washington or wherever else doing their jobs, and if not, who do we send in their place?

But, don’t reward irresponsible incumbents by re-electing them. Keep the good ones. Replace the bad ones. It’s that simple. You seem to disagree? So, do you know any good ones? Can you list 10, 20, 50, 100, 150, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible, not bought-and-paid-for, don’t peddle influence, embrace campaign finance reform, and don’t look-the-other-way ? If there aren’t even 268 (half of 535), what can you conclude about Congress (as a whole)?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We can’t merely punish bad behavior; we have to encourage good behavior.

Agreed. Bad behavior should be punished and we should never reward irresponsible incumbents by re-electing them.

Unfortunately bad behavior, often, isn’t punised.
There is a lack of accountability, despite many hypocrites running around saying “I am accountable”.

The worst punishment is often only resignation and still collect their cu$hy multi-million dollar pension.

And, for many, even if ever convicted, they might get a presidential pardon (like the 546 criminals pardoned by Bill Clinton; 140 pardoned on his last day in office).

Who says crime doesn’t pay? Especially political crime.

But we should never reward irresponsible incumbents by re-electing them.
What part of the logic do you disagree with?
Are you trying to argue against the logic of voting out the incumbent when BOTH candidates are bad?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2006 02:48 PM

Diogenes,

of course you can’t stand it. it makes your party look bad, and the whole system look as illegitimate and corrupt as it in fact is.

I don’t have a party. But I do do my part to participate in government, small though it may be. If you don’t like the candidates, write someone in. That is literally the least you can do. If someone does nothing, why should I care what they have to say about politics or the government?

vote for someone, if you feel they represent you. work to see that someone you like gets on the ballot as a 3rd… but don’t expect that you’ll actually be able to achieve this under the current duopoly.

I voted for a few third party candidates last month. None of them won, but I’m proud to say I voted against the big parties. People who refused to vote didn’t have their say. They only pretend they did.

Do Something - lacking any other option, vote for ‘none of the above,’ by not voting - and make it known that you are *actively* not voting.

There’s no such thing as “actively” not doing something. Either you have your say, or you don’t. If someone stays home because they don’t like the parties, and I go to the polls and vote against them, who actually acomplished something?

Oh, and by the way, it’s attitudes like yours and Richards that keep hold third parites and independent candidates back. Encourage people to vote for 3P&I’s. Encouraging people not to vote at all only helps the D’s and R’s.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 11, 2006 03:45 PM

If you think there is no difference between the parties, you haven’t been paying attention. Sure, there are similarities, and they all play the same games to get (re)elected, including fundraising and pandering. But if you think the Clinton years bear any resemblance to the Bush II years, I want some of what you’re smokin’, baby, cause it’s powerful stuff.

Like the previous poster said, it’s worth voting even if for the lesser of two evils. And although it may feel good to vote for your no-hoper that inspires you, you may be better off voting for the lesser of two evils rather than end up with the most evil option of all. I certainly put W in that last category, as well as some of the other Pleistocene-era thinkers in the extreme right corner of the Republican party. There are a few Democrats I feel that way about, but there is no chance they will get the nomination.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at December 11, 2006 05:03 PM

traveler,

“I don’t have a party.”

apologies. an improvident assumption, on my part.

“If you don’t like the candidates, write someone in. That is literally the least you can do.”

all depending on the state in which you live. i believe something like five states do not allow any presidential write-ins, whatsoever. others, such as mine, require that the write-in collect a certain number of signatures beforehand - or the votes will not be counted (and even then the candidate is not allotted a place on the ballot).

“People who refused to vote didn’t have their say.”

hmm… really?

“The voting rate in the US already looks apathetic, this would make that look even more apathetic.

Hard to promote democracy in any form if apathy makes ours look like the citizens don’t care.”

emphasis mine, obviously. strange how ‘nothing was said,’ and yet a message has clearly been delivered.

and i would retort, it’s also hard to promote democracy in any form when your own is a sham - the people ‘don’t care’ because the two parties have advanced no view we consider worth caring about.

if you want someone to vote *for* you, rather than be given their vote by default - inspire them (and do so without using coercive fear tactics).

“There’s no such thing as “actively” not doing something.”

do you believe that? you’re mistaken. if there is no good option for your vote (no possibility for a representative 3rd or write-in) - don’t vote. to do otherwise is to quite arguably be a part of the problem.

however, if you merely refrain from voting, you’re missing a good opportunity to be proactive. make sure you tell others *why* you didn’t vote - cuz they’ll assume you’re just lazy or apathetic, as many here have. call this what you will, it is what i would suggest people in this situation do. argue semantics all you wish.

womanmarine,

consider what you say. you seem to be suggesting that the image (of democracy) is more important than the reality it shrouds. in order to achieve positive change, one must first recognize and confront the reality…

if you recognize no fundamental problem with the reality, then it is little wonder that you wish to gloss it over with a shining, democratic mirage.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 11, 2006 05:10 PM

Like the previous poster said, it’s worth voting even if for the lesser of two evils. And although it may feel good to vote for your no-hoper that inspires you, you may be better off voting for the lesser of two evils rather than end up with the most evil option of all.

Yes, vote. If you don’t like any of the candidates, vote for the challenger. That’s better than rewarding the incumbent by re-electing them, allowing them to grow more powerful. At least a freshmen Congress person is less likely to do as much damage.

That this discussion proves is that there ARE some definite guidelines that voters should seriously consider.

One of the major problems is that too many voters are seduced (and I used to be one of them) into the powerfully seductive:

circular, distracting, divisive, petty partisan warfare

VOTING GUIDELINES:

• (1) Research the candidates. Look at their voting records.


• (2) If there are no good candidates, vote for the non-incumbent. It’s better to vote for a challenger than reward the irresponsible incumbent by re-electing them, and allowing them to grow more powerful. We were never supposed to re-elect irresponsible incumbents. Unfortunately, that happens often, merely because of blind party loyalty. That merely allows both main parties to keep taking turns being irresponsible, and keeps the incumbency rates high (e.g. 90%), essentially telling Congress they can keep being irresponsible, FOR-SALE, and corrupt. Parties encourage straight-ticket voting, but that is the lazy way. That is how parties tap-into your laziness to get you to pull the party lever, instead of doing your own thinking for yourself (undoubtedly, this will anger some blind party loyalists).


• (3) If there is a good candidate, vote for that candidate. But, don’t rely on party alone. Study the candidates’ voting records, philosophies, and/or platform. That person, who may be a member of your party, may not even remotely represent your beliefs.


• (4) If there is no good candidate and the only candidate is running unopposed, don’t register a vote for that office. If a write-in is allowed, do that instead.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2006 06:19 PM

Dan-

Agreed. I never said it was, did I? Why do you keep trying to mischaracterize my position? Is that easier than trying to poke holes in a sound argument?

We can mutually accuse each other of misunderstanding each other’s position. I don’t think this is largely voluntary, though. I think we’re talking past each other.

My argument, essentially, is as given in my first paragraph. The trick is, and what you have to understand, is that people are going to have different standards which they expect people to comply with, even if they take a more active role in looking after their politicians.

This is one aspect that makes any one simple idea an impossible means of complete redemption. Some people are happy with more, some with less. If we want to raise standards generally, it’s not sufficient simply to vote people in and out.

As for viable alternatives, I don’t merely mean the alternatives of a third party, though I don’t object to those. I also mean that people within the big two should provide themselves with additional candidates during the primaries, even with an incumbent in place. There needs to be pressure, even in politically safe districts, upon the candidates. Competition and feedback are critical to keeping our candidates rooted to what the communities want out of them.

My line about the futility of chunking bad apples without the good available relates to a real question in ousting incumbents; that is, motivation. If organizations seeking to fight mindless incumbency do not find ways to recruit and offer positive alternatives to the incompetents and the corrupt, then they encourage mindless incumbency, because people would rather deal with the devil they know than the devil they don’t. Half of the success of the 2006 election was in recruitment.

We put out there folks that the voters could see as a positive alternative to their rivals, a positive magnetic pole to contrast with the negative of the other candidate. When learning about conflict during my training as a writer, one of the lessons was that a conflict is not a confrontation of good and bad, but different goods, and a choice between two evils. With the first confrontation, the choice is obvious: good over evil. With the second, people will be conflicted over the choice, or just not feel like making it We need to make people feel like there is no choice, but to vote for the challenger. hence, replace bad apples with good.

As for your challenge on whether I can list the good ones, I’m goin to turn that around on you: can you list the bad? Can you single them out, relate their relative good or bad points? Incumbents are defeated one candidate at a time, by people who have come to know the dark side of their candidate enough to despise them. You can’t vote for them; you have to give them the motivation, and generalized attributes will not work towards that end.

And if we don’t have the ideal? We vote for the better. It makes no sense to put an idiot in charge, just because he happens to be a challenger. The lesser of the two evils is the only responsible choice. The key is to not let things come to that. Improve things ahead of time, and come to the election with good candidates.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 11, 2006 06:34 PM

“The lesser of the two evils is the only responsible choice.”

i must strongly disagree with your assertion here, for the reason i previously stated. many believe that those who failed to vote in the elections involving bush facilitated his win - or they did so by voting for a 3rd party candidate.

you believe that they should have voted for the “lesser of two evils.” what i think you fail to recognize is that some believed that they *were* voting for the lesser of two evils when they voted *for* bush (i cannot fathom how, but i’ve heard it from many)…

to suggest that voting for the lesser of two evils can produce good is not only counterintuitive, but also, (i believe) very false. it simply resigns us to accept one of two bad choices, time after time. this will not lead to change for the better, but quite the opposite.

“The key is to not let things come to that. Improve things ahead of time, and come to the election with good candidates.”

this, however, is absolutely correct.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 11, 2006 07:02 PM

Right now, the number of people who vote hovers around 50%. If a boycott reduced that number to say 40%, one of the two major parties would still win and if they won 55% of the 40% that voted, they would still claim a great victory and a mandate from the people.

That other group of people, the ones who never vote are the key to breaking the two party system. Some of them are totally disinterested in politics, it doesnt’t affect their lives one way or the other. Many of them, mostly the poor, think that their vote doesn’t count and that neither party is going to do anything that will significantly improve their lives.

Any third party movement that could convince even a third of those who don’t vote that their vote will count and that their lives will be improved by their participation in the voting process, can break the two party system.

Posted by: jlw at December 11, 2006 07:14 PM

KT said: “Maybe if there is a good third party person running, then maybe they will get enough votes to make others think that the 2 main parties are not the way to go.
Now to me, if you don’t vote, then you don’t care what happens and you are satified with whoever gets into office, and what they do.”

KT- There will be a good third party candidate, maybe two, that is not my point at all. The point is that because of ballot restrictions put on third parties by the two party duopoly even if there are good third party candidates not everyone will be able to vote for them, because in some states there will be no third party candidates who make the ballot.

David Remer stated: “There are a growing number Independent organizations out there, join them, support them, work with them. As they grow, they will interact and create a national independent party capable of proferring Independent candidates for President.”

David: This is true and I agree with this, but again no matter how hard the third parties try there will be some states where there are no third party options on the ballot. These are the people who I am targeting the people who come November 2008 will see absolutely no option on their ballot. And because Bush is a lame duck President there will be no anti-incumbent vote either, because neither major party candidate will be a incumbent.

The Traveler: Yes I plan to vote and yes I plan to work to help the Green Party get on the ballot in Virginia. I was simply throwing up a possible option for independents who have no option in their state. Because now what do you think would happen in the following situation:

A state has no third party candidates for President in 2008. Independents, at least a segment of them lets say ten thousand, in that state go to vote and vote for every office besides President leaving that blank. It would be abundantly clear that these independents went and voted but were so upset with the two parties they saw on their ballot, and many of them worked to get third parties on the ballot but unfortunately were unsuccessful, that they purposely left the Presidential race blank. This would undoubtedly get media coverage if a large segment in a state did as such. I am not advocating this I am just merely throwing it out as something for people to think about.

d.a.n. stated: “Here is a BETTER idea:

If you have two bad choices, do NOT reward the irresponsible incumbent by re-electing that person.”

Well d.a.n. there will be no incumbent in the 2008 Presidential election so an anti-incumbent vote is impossible.

All: My overall point is that no matter how hard third parties work there will be at least a few states where none of them make the ballot for various reasons, primarily ballot restrictions. These people who live in states where no third party makes the ballot, despite their best efforts to put one on the ballot, are ignored consistently every election. When is the last time you have heard anyone speak of these people outside of this thread? No one speaks of these people they are just ignored and told to shut up and vote for the lesser of two evils, or to work harder against the heavily stacked deck that they have been working against and likely will continue to work against the next time around. But the fact is that if they worked hard and no third party candidate made the ballot what are they to do to shut up and vote for a major party candidate who represents the duopoly which put those ballot restrictions in place and will continue to try to make it harder for them to make it on the ballot, that would make no sense.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at December 11, 2006 07:17 PM

P.S.
To all who advocate some form of the following argument:

That if you don’t vote you have no right to talk about politics and that your voice is not important that you are not American etc., etc.

This is the biggest scam. The reason this is a scam is because it puts people into a situation where they are duped into voting for a major party. Here is how it works:
1. They are told that supposedly they can’t talk about politics and become unimportant if they don’t vote.
2. And well they don’t want that so they go to the polls and vote.
3. Upon getting to the polls they see only two names, the names of the two major party candidates (remember this whole thread is based on people in states where there are no third party options so thus that is the situation here, moreover this thread only deals with the Presidential office and not other races).
4. So they think about it, thinking that well I don’t want to vote for either one of these people. I can’t stand either one of them. But if I don’t vote for one of them than somehow I am not American, or I have no right to talk politics, or that I don’t care.
5. So they give in and vote for one of the two major parties.
6. The people who told you all of those things about being not American and not caring and all that just laugh and laugh and laugh because they duped you into voting for a major party candidate again, thus upholding the two party duopoly. And the best part is they know they can do it to you again next time probably, or if a third party appears next time in your state they know that there will be some state with no third party candidates where their buddies can dupe other people with this same guilt trip.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at December 11, 2006 07:35 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Some people are happy with more, some with less. If we want to raise standards generally, it’s not sufficient simply to vote people in and out.

Right. You have to vote out the bad ones and keep the good ones. That shouldn’t be difficult, but it is elusive because voters are brainwashed. Only education will change it, and voters’ will get their education, one way or another.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I also mean that people within the big two should provide themselves with additional candidates during the primaries, even with an incumbent in place.

Eh? That’s highly unlikely.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: There needs to be pressure, even in politically safe districts, upon the candidates. Competition and feedback are critical to keeping our candidates rooted to what the communities want out of them.

Agreed. That’s why third parties are important.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: My line about the futility of chunking bad apples without the good available relates to a real question in ousting incumbents; that is, motivation. If organizations seeking to fight mindless incumbency do not find ways to recruit and offer positive alternatives to the incompetents and the corrupt, then they encourage mindless incumbency, because people would rather deal with the devil they know than the devil they don’t. Half of the success of the 2006 election was in recruitment.

And, other organizations will encourage anti-incumbency. I don’t encourage mindless anti-incumbency. However, I think there was some of that in the Nov-2006 election, where people merely picked non-incumbents of the OTHER party.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We put out there folks that the voters could see as a positive alternative to their rivals …

Stephen Daugherty wrote:
As for your challenge on whether I can list the good ones, I’m goin to turn that around on you: can you list the bad?

Yes, I can.
But it would be a much easier and a much shorter list to provide the ones that are OK (maybe), and already did that once on this blog on 7-Nov-2006. After all, none of them (aside from some newcomers) haven’t voted on some pork-barrel, peddled influence, or looked the other way. Some are outright crooks. Some are not only worthless, but dangerous.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Can you single them out, relate their relative good or bad points?

Yes, I can, and have time and time again. I’ve probably looked at more politicians’ voting records and behavior than most (if not everyone) here. I’ve also run countless searches and queries to find politicians with specific philosophies. After doing it, there are were NONE that I agreed with more than 60% on all issues. Also, there is a big difference between what they say and how they vote. That’s why it is better to look at how they vote. Citizens Against Government Waste is a good resource to see what pork-barrel they have voted on. Sometimes the pork-barrel is questionable, but most of the time, it is simply absurd. For more tips, see this.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Incumbents are defeated one candidate at a time, by people who have come to know the dark side of their candidate enough to despise them. You can’t vote for them; you have to give them the motivation, and generalized attributes will not work towards that end.

Yep. That’s the strategy. The best disinfectant for Congress is the light of day. Some voters are so blinded by their blind party loyalty, their Congress person could be taking bribes, or guilty of manslaughter, and they would still keep re-electing those same incumbents. But, mindless dimwits like that are not the target anyway. The fence-sitters, swing voters (and their numbers are growing), and former main-party voters are those that will listen. All that is required is a few percent of all eligible voters. Third party voters and swing voters decide elections. Not the hard-core main-party loyalists. They are more like constants, and can be ignored. No amount of logic and reason works on them. In 2004, 59 million voters voted for Kerry, 62 million voted for Bush, and part of those were swing voters, and 78 million eligible voters didn’t vote. So, there are millions of potential voters to help educate (not brainwash).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: And if we don’t have the ideal? We vote for the better. It makes no sense to put an idiot in charge, just because he happens to be a challenger.

If both are idiots, then the challenger idiot is better than the incumbent idiot. If you do not like any of the candidates, then do not reward the incumbent by re-electing them. Vote for a challenger. That is the best thing to do, because rewarding the existing incumbent by re-electing them allows them to grow more powerful. Instead, choose a challenger, and that will reduce the power of that position, because newcomers (freshmen) to Congress will have less power and can do less damage. It will also send a message to the newcomer (if elected).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The lesser of the two evils is the only responsible choice.

No. Not if they are both bad. If both choices are equally (or about equally) bad, choose the challenger.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The key is to not let things come to that.

Too late. Too many in Congress are already too irresponsible, corrupt, and arrogant.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Improve things ahead of time, and come to the election with good candidates.

Yes, by all means. More choices is always good. Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2006 08:12 PM

Richard Rhodes wrote: Well d.a.n. there will be no incumbent in the 2008 Presidential election so an anti-incumbent vote is impossible.

Well Richard Rhodes, ; )
since presidential elections ALWAYS have MANY candidates, the odds of NO one person being acceptable is virtually impossible.
So, refusing to vote for someone makes no sense.

But, theoretically, if in any election for president or any other office, there are NO incumbents and NO acceptable candidates, then it would make sense to not register a vote for that office. But, as stated above, in a presidential election, that is extremely unlikely, so it’s a non-issue. There will be MANY candidates to choose from that are running for president.

Nevertheless, to update the GUIDELINES … :

VOTING GUIDELINES:

• (1) Research the candidates. Look at their voting records.


• (2) If it’s a presidential election or any other office in which there are NO good candidates and NO incumbent, then don’t register a vote for that office. It is perfectly acceptable to refuse to give your vote to any candidate if you believe none are acceptable. However, those that don’t care enough to vote or research their choices, are doing themselves and the nation a disservice.


• (3) If there are no good candidates, vote for the non-incumbent. It’s better to vote for a challenger than reward the irresponsible incumbent by re-electing them, and allowing them to grow more powerful. We were never supposed to re-elect irresponsible incumbents. Unfortunately, that happens often, merely because of blind party loyalty. That merely allows both main parties to keep taking turns being irresponsible, and keeps the incumbency rates high (e.g. 90%), essentially telling Congress they can keep being irresponsible, FOR-SALE, and corrupt. Parties encourage straight-ticket voting, but that is the lazy way. That is how parties tap-into your laziness to get you to pull the party lever, instead of doing your own thinking for yourself (undoubtedly, this will anger some blind party loyalists).


• (4) If there is a good candidate, vote for that candidate. But, don’t rely on party alone. Study the candidates’ voting records, philosophies, and/or platform. That person, who may be a member of your party, may not even remotely represent your beliefs.


• (5) If there is no good candidate and the only candidate is running unopposed, don’t register a vote for that office. If a write-in is allowed, do that instead.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2006 09:53 PM

“If you had the choice between Aids, cancer, or neither, which would you choose?”

I would choose ‘neither.’

When voting between Democrat or Republican, I would often also like ‘neither’ to be elected. Unfortunately, abstaining from voting does not prevent candidates from winning. As such, I would rather the lesser of two evils win since one or the other is guaranteed to take power.

You also have a few other logical fallacies such as:

“Most people will tell you that well you don’t have any third party candidate to vote for and well you don’t have any candidate who represents your views at all but you still have to vote, because if you don’t vote you have no right to talk of politics. […] The whole essence of this argument is to hurt third parties in two ways”

Irrelevant. Whether or not it is meant to hurt third parties does not make the point any less true. You refused to take a side and ergo you took no responsibility. I probably would not go so far as to say you have no right to talk of politics, but it certainly is a poor decision to make in my view.

“As long as the two major parties can make it where we have no option at all besides them in these states we will supposedly have no option but to boost their numbers.”

Their is natural strength in numbers. Each party tries to get as many votes as it can and the largest party wins. Even if you feel like you have been purposefully marginalized you need to understand that a concentration of power is simply more effective than trying to cater to everyone’s views with smaller parties. I am not saying this is a perfect system, but you certainly have not offered a better alternative nor have I ever thought/heard of one myself.

Posted by: Zeek at December 11, 2006 09:54 PM

d.a.n. stated: “Well Richard Rhodes, ; )
since presidential elections ALWAYS have MANY candidates, the odds of NO one person being acceptable is virtually impossible.
So, refusing to vote for someone makes no sense.”

d.a.n: The whole premise of this post revolves around states in which there will be no third party candidates, thus in these states there will not be many candidates. What you are missing is that yes there will be many candidates in 2008 for President, but not all of them will be on the ballot in all states. Moreover some states will only have the two major parties on their ballot. This situation of only having the two major parties candidates on the ballot is my primary focus, and thus what people in these states should do.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at December 11, 2006 10:00 PM

Diogenes-
1)We’re never presented with ideal choices. Waiting for them means letting other people make choices for, which will still affect us, regardless of our alienation.

2)The question is not simply a superficial examination of the good and bad, but a much deeper one. The Republicans should have red-flagged Bush as a poor candidate based on his multiple business failures, his inability to follow through on his duties in the Texas and Alabama Air National Guards.

3)We should not accept bad choices without a fight, but if handed them, we should try to make the best of them, and then let them know when they come into offices what we think of what they do. Voting is a natural selection environment. Mutations are bound to develop. Select for the ones that work, take out the ones that don’t, rinse, lather, repeat.

Richard Rhodes-
Opening up the country further for third parties is a good goal, but take a cue from what we Democrats did in 2006: don’t give up. You can’t win the battles that aren’t fought. Your fight has to be about something wider than just a political party. Think of all those people who voted for Nader in 2000. How did it benefit us to get Bush on that account? How does that in turn sell third parties to the American people. A third party president will not be seen in this country until we have a sufficient congressional base to support them. Americans will not put a third party candidate in the presidency until they understand the deal they’re getting with them and want to sign on to it. Creating a new major party is no small task. Rome wasn’t built in a day, but neither where the two parties opposing you.

Dan-
First, don’t call people brainwashed. If somebody called you brainwashed, you’d rightly think they were insulting your intelligence. Education starts with the willingness to learn, and few people are willing to take lessons from somebody who doesn’t respect them or their opinions.

Concerning the unlikelihood of getting challenger candidates into primaries, I’m not talking about leaving things to chance.

Concerning the role of third parties in competition and feedback, I’m talking both inside and outside the party. You forget here that my goals are the redemption of my own party as well. Also, though, the third parties need to build up their strength, if their goal is to keep people on their toes, such that they can win elections. Being spoilers only ensures being fringe.

Concerning my challenge: This is about knowing your adversaries, and being able to tell people why they’re undesirable. It’s almost a joke that politicians are supposed to be corrupt. Simply saying they’re bought and paid for isn’t going to make people care. It’s relating how this is a bad thing for them that brings it home. Maybe they voted for a bill that pollutes a favorite waterway. If you can quantify the damage, people can better estimate how much they have to lose by sticking with the incumbent.

If you remain vague and generalized about it, you leave yourself with little ammunition. If you can name names, make connection, tell stories, then you’ve got a dynamic you can create, a tale to educate with. When I talk about the Iraq War, I can tell people how the different parts of the complex mess relate, and how one mistake lead to another.

The way to break blind party loyalty is get under people’s skin, and relate to them a picture of the world that bypasses their sensibilities as a partisan, and goes straight to their instincts and understandings as a human being.

I often say things like “the key is not to let it come to that.” or other things that seem like they’re just idealistic, but what I think is that our reach ought to exceed our grasp. The key is to keep on fighting, keep on struggling, keep on learning. The problems of corruption, incompetence, and error are chronic throughout all history. All we can do is fight the good fight, and push them back where we’re able. The more we do that, the easier it gets. It’s like exercizing a muscle: The more you stand up for yourself, the more strongly you can manage it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 11, 2006 10:24 PM

Richard Rhodes,

OK, I get your point.
However, I still disagree that voters shouldn’t consider other candidates merely because there are no third party candidates.
But, I do agree that (if there are no good candidates and no incumbent), it is then very much like the choice between two fatal diseases.

But, I do thank you for bringing up this subject.
It brought up some issues reqarding voter guidelines that had not been thoroughly examined before.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2006 10:32 PM

d.a.n. said: “OK, I get your point.
However, I still disagree that voters shouldn’t consider other candidates merely because there are no third party candidates.”

d.a.n: I never said that if you look towards the beginning of this post I say, “If one of the candidates in the major parties represent your views than you should vote for that candidate.”

Thus I don’t count out voting a major party candidate, I only count it out if no major party candidates represent your views.

For example: If the Greens don’t make it on the ballot in Virginia and no other third party candidate I like makes it on the ballot in Virginia, I would be left with Dems and Reps. Now if the Dems run Feingold I would vote for Feingold . However if they run Hillary or John Kerry I would never vote for either one of them, and the Republicans well I don’t think I could consider them. Do you see what I mean now?

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at December 11, 2006 10:42 PM

“Irrelevant. Whether or not it is meant to hurt third parties does not make the point any less true.”

no. the argument is untrue, prima facie, and regardless of its intent.

“Unfortunately, abstaining from voting does not prevent candidates from winning.”

it prevents them from garnering undue legitimacy. if they continue to marginalize the majority of americans, the number who vote will continue to trend down more each cycle.

now, sure, they can claim that they were elected by a majority of voters, and therefore have a mandate - but when that mandate consists of, say, twenty percent of the voting age population, even they won’t be able to go on believing this. certainly, no one else will. at this point, if reform doesn’t occur, the people will force it.

stephen,

as i have been saying, an abstention from voting is not ‘letting others decide for you,’ per se. it is following and fostering a natural and growing trend - natural in that this is exactly what one would expect a person to do when they feel they have nothing to gain by voting.

richard has merely outlined the circumstances in which it might be wise for an active and informed voter to follow this natural trend.

“We should not accept bad choices without a fight, but if handed them, we should try to make the best of them, and then let them know when they come into offices what we think of what they do.”

i assure you that i will let them know what i think of what they do, whether or not i vote… as is my right… whether or not i vote.

i will grant you that bush was a particularly harsh price to pay… but then, i voted… and in those particular instances, would do it again with no regrets.

“The question is not simply a superficial examination of the good and bad, but a much deeper one. The Republicans should have red-flagged Bush as a poor candidate based on his multiple business failures…”

this is what happens when everyone is devoted to “the lesser of two evils.” you neglect to question whether voting for the lesser of the two really will yield any desirable result, or might instead perpetuate the problem…

my point; keep voting for the “lesser of two evils” and this (bush) *will* happen again.

in any case, the statistics speak for themselves. fewer and fewer turn out to vote —with the exception of the last two presidential elections, and this past mid-term — and these high turnouts were clearly fear-induced, and thus anomalous. fear will only get you so far.

i suggest you address your concerns to a larger crowd than merely richard and i, and i’d also suggest you develop a more inspiring message. vote or else! - is clearly losing its efficacy. the major parties ignore the signs at their own peril.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 11, 2006 11:05 PM

Richard Rhodes,
OK. Point taken. I agree. If there are NO acceptable candidates or incubment, then don’t register a vote for that office, or write-in a name if that is allowed. However, in MOST races, there is one candidate that is better than the other. Especially for Congress (even if all choices stink, choose a challenger before re-electing an incumbent … No?). Seldom is there no incumbent. Usually, the scenario you portray is most likely at the state or local level.
If I understand, we agree on these voting guidelines ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, First, don’t call people brainwashed.

Why not? Especially if it is true. I used to be one of them. Truth hurts, but sometimes it needs to be said. Besides, there’s this thing called free speech. If I believe too many voters are brain washed and wallowing in the petty partisan warfare, then I can say so.

You yourself said (above) you don’t like to sugar-coat things.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If somebody called you brainwashed, you’d rightly think they were insulting your intelligence.

Maybe, but if it is true, then it is tough.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Education starts with the willingness to learn, and few people are willing to take lessons from somebody who doesn’t respect them or their opinions.

I respect their right to their opinions, but not their opinions.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Concerning the unlikelihood of getting challenger candidates into primaries, I’m not talking about leaving things to chance.

And, guess who is blocking access for third parties and independents to the ballots. The two main parties.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Concerning the role of third parties in competition and feedback, I’m talking both inside and outside the party. You forget here that my goals are the redemption of my own party as well.

Good luck.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Also, though, the third parties need to build up their strength, if their goal is to keep people on their toes, such that they can win elections. Being spoilers only ensures being fringe.

Agreed.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Being spoilers only ensures being fringe.

False. Third parties and swing voters decide elections. Of course, the two main parties don’t want to admit that. But it is true, and that is why the main party loyalists get so upset at third party candidates.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Concerning my challenge: This is about knowing your adversaries, and being able to tell people why they’re undesirable. It’s almost a joke that politicians are supposed to be corrupt.

It’s no joke. We (voters) are programming them to be corrupt by rewardying them by repeatedly re-electing them.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Simply saying they’re bought and paid for isn’t going to make people care.

On the contrary. Showing people what their politicians are doing makes them wonder. Only the hard-core brainwashed, blind party loyalists don’t care.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It’s relating how this is a bad thing for them that brings it home. Maybe they voted for a bill that pollutes a favorite waterway. If you can quantify the damage, people can better estimate how much they have to lose by sticking with the incumbent.

Haven’t you seen the countless times I’ve posted voting records for many dozens of politicians? Have you not visited any of the pages that do these many things you describe? It’s not just about complaining, but providing solutions too.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you remain vague and generalized about it, you leave yourself with little ammunition.

Me general? The fact that you come up with these totally false conclusions is fascinating, since, of all people here, I’m one of the least general (if not most) and least ambiguous. Above, you stated I didn’t offer Review my writings and web pages and you’ll see the vast many things you say aren’t present.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you can name names, make connection, tell stories, then you’ve got a dynamic you can create, a tale to educate with. When I talk about the Iraq War, I can tell people how the different parts of the complex mess relate, and how one mistake lead to another.

Well, that’s debatable. Sometimes people don’t want to wade through a long tale.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The way to break blind party loyalty is get under people’s skin, …

I know, and I must be doing a good job today, eh?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I often say things like “the key is not to let it come to that.” or other things that seem like they’re just idealistic, but what I think is that our reach ought to exceed our grasp. The key is to keep on fighting, keep on struggling, keep on learning. The problems of corruption, incompetence, and error are chronic throughout all history. All we can do is fight the good fight, and push them back where we’re able. The more we do that, the easier it gets. It’s like exercizing a muscle: The more you stand up for yourself, the more strongly you can manage it.

Well, you got your style and I got mine.
I prefer to present the issue, as much evidence as possible, data, facts, charts, tables, links, diagrams, visuals, etc. to support it, the conclusion, and the solution.
Not a lot of prolific, circular, flowery prose.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2006 11:22 PM

Richard Rhodes,
Yes, Absolutely, election reform is badly-needed to address the way access to ballots for third parties and independents are having blocked by the two main parties.
Gerrymandering is a problem too.
Unfair incumbent advantages are a problem.
There are a number of problems.
But, none will be adequately addressed as long as we keep rewarding those politicians by repeatedly re-electing them, despite their refusal to address these problems, growing in nubmer and severity.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 11, 2006 11:43 PM

As I see it not voting for a President is saying you don’t care who’s in office. It’s just the same as not voting at at all.
If at all possible, vote for a third party or independent candidate. But in any case vote. If for the lesser of the evils. That’s about what I’ve been doing for the last several Presidential elections.
The mainstream politicians would be in hog heaven if folks quit voting just because they didn’t like who’s running. It’d give them free hand to do exactly as they please.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 11, 2006 11:51 PM

I gotta say I just love how people say that you gotta vote even if there is no viable option. How you gotta just suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils. It’s like if the Republicans ran Bert (from Sesame Street) and the Democrats ran Ernie (again from Sesame Street) they would be out there saying how your options are Bert or Ernie, and you just have to choose one.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at December 11, 2006 11:59 PM

Ron Brown,
Yes, there are usually lots of choices for President. Unless they all are equally bad, a choice for one is recommended.

However if they run Hillary or John Kerry I would never vote for either one of them,

Me neither. If they run either of those (Hillary Clinton or John Kerry), I’ll vote for just about anyone else running against them. Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2006 12:04 AM

Richard Rhodes,

Voting (or not) is everyones’ right.
If ALL the choices are equally (or about) bad, it doesn’t really make any sense to vote for any candidates since they are all bad.

Like you said, it’s like a choice between two fatal diseases.

So, did you disagree with any of those voting guidelines ?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2006 12:09 AM

Just a couple of thoughts:

How many of the people who don’t vote now are affiliated with third parties and don’t vote for that reason? If it’s not the majority of them, then doesn’t that dilute the message you would try to send by not voting?

Voting may be a right, but as an American who loves this democracy, I also consider it a responsibility that I gladly take on.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2006 01:00 AM

the percentage of the voting age population which chooses to align themselves with one of the two parties is declining. the number of voters who actually vote is declining. the message is clear… you don’t represent us. we’d rather stay home than waste a day on you… (not you, personally, womanmarine).

in my own case, i am highly likely to vote for one of the two parties, given any decent candidate on either side who can espouse, and convince me of their sincerity regarding, even one important issue which currently faces us. such is the nature of the times. i am not yet to the point where i would rather see the whole system go down than waste one more vote on an unresponsive party. i still have hope.

“Voting may be a right, but as an American who loves this democracy, I also consider it a responsibility that I gladly take on.”

as do i. i would not shirk this duty without just cause. if you feel that your party (assuming you are loyal to one) represents you, then i commend you for your loyality… as i commend you for encouraging others to vote for them.

i take exception to the near-threats issued by many party loyalists that one *must* vote, and particularly for one of theirs, or one is unpatriotic and has no right to speak, nor be heard.

what my posts here are mainly meant to remonstrate is the notion that it is always better to vote than refrain, as well as the fact that such party loyalists are essentially blaming those who find no cause to vote, for their own (the party’s) failure to persuade them that they are worthy of it.

lastly, (and i promise i’ll drop this) when you encourage (or rather, coerce) someone to vote (especially against their desire to do so), consider that you do not know who they will vote for. an uninformed electorate is as likely a reason as any that bush achieved his electoral victories.

game politics. you really don’t care about the politician - you just know they’re on your ‘team,’ you voted for them, and that *you* want to win.

enough ‘get out the vote.’
let’s try a renewed emphasis on ‘get out the message.’

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 01:41 AM

Diogenes,

I agree with all of that 100%.
Especially the “get out the message” versus “get out the vote”.
There’s a lot of mindless voting going on, which is actually worse than those that don’t vote at all.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2006 09:04 AM

I really thought I had read somewhere that one of the reasons people who don’t vote gave is that they felt their vote wouldn’t count. This doesn’t mean they affiliate with third parties.

One of the things I fear is our political system becoming dysfunctional. While we have much to improve, it would be to our detriment to see our system fail in any significant way. Especially if our aim is to encourage democracy in the world. I would think we need to be very careful about this.

Surely there must be other ways. I do think it’s wrong that every presidential candidate is not on the ballot in every state. This should be a federal issue that states can’t arbitrarily decide. On this we agree.

So, lobby your politicians, not necessarily as a member of a third party, but as an American who insists that any person eligible to be on the ballot for President should be on ALL ballots for President, regardless of state.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2006 10:57 AM

Diogenes

You wrote:

a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for *evil*.

Imagine if all the independents had decided to not vote during this past mid term election. We’d have the same ol’ cronies with the same ol’ corruption doing the same ol’ TERRIBLE job. This administration with it’s “screw the constitution, we’ll do what we want” attitude would become even worse (if you can imagine it) than they already were.

Now, I am not suggesting the democrats are much better. What I am saying is thanks to the independents and the republicans who decided they’d had enough and voted democrat or independent sent a clear message to ALL politicians. That message was, WE ARE WATCHING AND WE DEMAND CHANGE! WE DEMAND BETTER!

If you don’t vote, you will keep getting stuck with the status quo, no matter which party it might be.

sassyliberal

Posted by: sassyliberal at December 12, 2006 11:48 AM

Dan: the Democrats have announced that they will begin working on all the appropriations bills that the Tepublicans left undone by removing billions of dollars of pork barrel spending. Some reps. and sens. are very upset by this announcement.

Posted by: jlw at December 12, 2006 12:41 PM

jlw,

I hope Congress does cut the pork-barrel.

But I wouldn’t bet one mea$ley dollar that they will cut nearly enough (if any at all). In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the pork-barrel spending increase, as it has for the past ten years (or more):

Year Pork-Barrel
1991 $3 billion
1992 $3 billion
1993 $7 billion
1994 $8 billion
1995 $10 billion
1996 $13 billion
1997 $15 billion
1998 $13 billion
1999 $12 billion
2000 $18 billion
2001 $19 billion
2002 $20 billion
2003 $23 billion
2004 $23 billion
2005 $27 billion
2006 $29 billion

When it comes to pork-barrel, Democrats are far, far worse than Republicans (source: Citizens Against Government Waste: cagw.org).

In 2005, Democrats got an average grade of 18% and Republicans got an average grade of 68% (the higher the score, the better).

No Democrat scored above 47%.
Some Republicans scored 100%.

Of course, that didn’t include one unnecessary war (costing about $350 billion so far).
If you count that, it’s worse (NOTE: many Democrats and Republicans voted to invade Iraq).

I’m not cheerleading for either party, and belong to neither.
Those are just the facts.

Also, a lot of people think Bill Clinton’s administration balanced the budget, and he almost did by year 1999. However, what is not know is how he did it. The Fed and government printed a WHOLE lot of money. M3 Money Supply grew by 2.5 trillion, but that wasn’t all growth. A LOT of it was new money printed. That created a bubble in the stock market that burst in late 1999. Then everyone fled to real-estate. Now, that bubble is bursting. All that money-printing and ever-present inflation causes bubbles, as we all run around frantically looking for some way to stay ahead of the erosion caused inflation.

But, voters keep rewarding incumbent politicians by repeatedly re-electing them. By the time the consequences of doing that catches up with us, it may be too late.

That is why, in a voting nation, an educated electorate is so important. Voters will get their education one way or another, but sooner would be less painful than later.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2006 01:50 PM

i’ll try to be quick (i’ve taken up enough bandwidth with my incoherent rambling). :)

womanmarine - many people do feel their vote won’t count (particularly those who don’t like the major parties and would rather vote for a 3rd… but others as well). this does not diminish my point. the system *is* dysfunctional. it seems that many in the majority parties don’t recognize this as true, or even as a problem… and it may cost them dearly.

sassy - i was attempting to speak for, and defend, the so-called ‘voiceless,’ ‘unpatriotic’ masses, more so than myself. perhaps i didn’t make this sufficiently clear. i agree with much of what you say; however, try to realize that this is also playing into the ‘game’…

the dems are more than happy to bide their time, allow the reps to tank our country (for however long may be necessary)… so that they will be elected the next cycle. better to come in last in a race of two, than dead last in a race of many.

both parties recognize this, and as poorly as they represent the majority of us, they know they would quickly be marginalized in a multi-party system.

i realize it would very likely be much worse if no one had voted in the midterms… however, it won’t take but a handful of elections of that nature before the system fails entirely… things often get much worse before anyone is motivated enough to make them better… but as womanmarine says, ‘surely there must be [better] ways.’

… still, for those who do yet retain some faith in the system (of which i count myself one), i would advise them to follow the voting guidelines of which d.a.n. speaks.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 02:57 PM

Dan: That 18% for Democrats and 68% for Republicans suggests that from 1997 to 2005 when pork went from 15 billion to 29 billion, the Republicans who controlled Congress said here you go Democrats you can have most of the pork. It also seems to suggest that the Republican K-street lobby machine was a wasted endeavor especially when the rule is he who delivers the most pork to the people back home wins.

If we assume that there is $30 billion in pork in the 2007 appropriations. If they cut $5 billion out and promised furthur reductions in the future, would you consider that a start? I’m assuming that at least some of that pork is worthy of doing and that some projects might be vital to a community that could not afford to do it without the help of all of us.

Posted by: jlw at December 12, 2006 04:02 PM

jlw wrote: … the Republicans who controlled Congress said here you go Democrats you can have most of the pork.

Exactly. You are perceptive. It’s bribery of sorts.

There are a number of such dynamics that take place in each party, depending on which is the current IN-Party or OUT-Party.

jlw wrote: If they cut $5 billion out and promised furthur reductions in the future

No, not really. Any reduction would be good, but ZERO pork-barrel should be the goal, because there is already a lot more other spending that is not necessarily considered pork-barrel (military, infrastructure, courts, legal, etc.). Also, the pork-barrel is often nothing but corporate welfare, graft, and kick-backs (e.g. $1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton,NJ , $250,000 for the North Creek Ski Bowl, $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation, $800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley, $107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail , etc.; see cagw.org for MUCH more). So, the pork-barrel should be ZERO.

In addition to the truly ridiculous pork-barrel, there is so much waste , it is simply jaw-dropping.
Pork-barrel and waste are a disservice and abuse of tax-payers.
Especially during a period when troops don’t have body armor and don’t get adequate medical care and promised benefits. That is especially despicable and irresponsible. While our troops don’t have what they need, Congress is voting itself 8 raises since 1997. Their arrogance, greed, and hypocrisy knows no bounds … but we keep rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them ! ?

There are so many issues, growing in number and severity, but Do-Nothing Congress is busy with what? Voting on pork-barrel?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2006 04:48 PM

jlw,

“I’m assuming that at least some of that pork is worthy of doing and that some projects might be vital to a community that could not afford to do it without the help of all of us.”

if it’s worthy of doing, then it is worthy of its own vote. when they have to slide it in under the radar, it’s obviously something they don’t want everyone knowing about. trim the fat; one subject per bill, zero pork. that’s a start. anything else is just a farce.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 05:05 PM

Dan-
Calling somebody brainwashed shows little respect for their judgment. If you don’t respect them, that will show in your attitudes towards them. Truth hurts, yes, but they’re not going to agree with you and perceive your comments as true.

As for free speech, did I send a hit squad over to convince you not to use such comments? No, of course not. I told you that you shouldn’t do it, and you’re free to agree or not to agree with what I’m telling you to do.

Also, you’re not perfect, so if you come up to a person saying that, and they know facts or have logic that tells them differently from what you’re saying, folks are going to have little respect for you or your points. I don’t sugarcoat things, but I try and stick to giving them tough points that aren’t dependent on subjective points, but rather logic and facts.

I want the person who I’m arguing with to be trapped by their words if they’re arguing counterfactually. I want the people who are audience to this debate to come away from it, even if the other guy doesn’t conceded, convinced by the logic of what I’ve related. If I go in with an ad hominem approach, I’m bound to alienate a number of those people I’m looking to collaterally convince.

On the subject of third parties being spoilers or fringe, I’d say you need to avoid that, because then your parties get blamed for sending things in a lousy direction. How many people curse the green party for George W. Bush getting elected? How many people look at the self-satisfaction some of the members showed, that failure to distinguish the good from the bad, and simply turn away in disgust from the green party? How many on the left look on and shake their heads when they saw Green Party member’s accepting GOP money to run their campaigns in critical districts?

The third parties will not win by being the cause for grief for so many.

You talk about programming leaders. I doesn’t work like that. You talk about showing people what their politicians are doing, but I never see specifics out of you. What are you showing them exactly? What hard, specific facts back your claims? Don’t just excuse yourself by accusing those asking for those facts of being brainwashed idiots. Give the facts.

I am taken seriously here because I bring my premises, my facts, and my logic here. I don’t expect people to jump through hoops to come to agreement with me. And why should I, and why should they have to indulge me as such?

When defining meaning, the founders of information theory defined it as the degree to which the information given saves people the effort of having to seek out more information themselves. Save people some trouble. Don’t expect them to save you any by simply agreeing with you because you think so highly of your own arguments. I think highly of my own, but I don’t expect others to do so without some effort on my part, and some selectiveness as well concerning what I consider a good argument.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 12, 2006 05:29 PM

“The third parties will not win by being the cause for grief for so many.”

in a fair system, voting for a third party would *not* be the cause of so much grief for so many - because it wouldn’t be a wasted vote. i was angry as well, that even i voted against bush… and yet the greens couldn’t be bothered to. but i know now that i was wrong.

would you hold such ire toward a republican who voted for bush? they are more to blame than anyone! but that was their right - as it was the right of those who voted for greens. i think we have the right to be disappointed, to question their judgment - but to allow it to anger you is a misdirection of the blame.

something as simple as a run-off election would have prevented the catastrophe that is bush… ask yourself, why don’t we hold them? who is to blame for *that*?

i realize this wasn’t the topic you probably wanted to address - or at least not with me, right now… so please excuse the intrusion.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 05:58 PM

diogenes,

“no. the argument is untrue, prima facie, and regardless of its intent.”

Ok. Would you like to back this up with reasoning? If you are indeed right, I would like to know why.

“it prevents them from garnering undue legitimacy. if they continue to marginalize the majority of americans, the number who vote will continue to trend down more each cycle.”

If we accept this as true, there would then be advantage in voting for third party candidates. Quite simply put, if so few people are voting for the “main parties” what will prevent third parties from being able to win? I simply do not see the justification of not voting at all.

Posted by: Zeek at December 12, 2006 06:07 PM

Diogenes-
I don’t hold ire towards those who voted for Bush. They have a candidate who they have to take responsibility for now that they’ve elected them. What annoys me somewhat about the Green Party in certain places in recent years is their willingness to accept help and provide help that they know works against their interests. They talk about the head game with Democratic voters taking them seriously and not neglecting their issues, but despite all the words an lovely arguments, their actions have helped the people least likely to help them in return. It’s a self destructive kind of nihilism, which doesn’t bode well for any party.

I think all too many Third parties nowadays try to crack things from the top. It’s FEC you have to worry about, it’s the fact that people know and trust the Democrats and Republicans to an extent they do not know the other parties.

There needs to be a distinct charismatic appeal to a party in order to get past these barriers. The party has to start to become a known quantity, with good practical credentials in governance. People have to be caught up in these movements, not browbeaten by a few people who think rather highly of their own politics.

Scientists have discovered that there is an emotional component to judgment. Memory and recognition also tie into the emotions. In the wild, people did not always have long periods of time to figure out complex situations, and so they decided and still do decide many issues by feelings as much as logic.

Which is to say, its not enough for you to feel that you are right. They must feel that as well. It’s easy to evoke that in a person who’s part of the choir already, and already we see much of that in political parties. But as per my previous posting on this subject, there is a significant need for any political movement to reach beyond those who are already conditioned to agree. So, in short, how people feel about a party is important to how quickly and how effectively that party can reach out within the populace.

Don’t alienate people making gestures. Build up reputations for getting things done, and done right, at a local level. See where your beliefs can appeal to people and start making sensible, respectful arguments as to why your people can do good in the offices in question. Get people to feel you are the right folks for the job, and they will move mountains and change laws for you. Don’t do that, and they will be an obstacle you’ll be hard pressed to overcome.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 12, 2006 06:44 PM

the argument is that you must vote whether or not there is anyone worthy of your vote. this is patently untrue. there is no law stating that you must vote, nor that if you do not vote you cannot speak of politics.

whether a person votes is their choice to make(as is who they vote for), and no one elses.

“If we accept [the trend] as true, there would then be advantage in voting for third party candidates.”

it is true — it is happening. and indeed, you are correct. are you suggesting the problem may solve itself? let’s hope so.

“I simply do not see the justification of not voting at all.”

you don’t see the justification… ok, well building off richards example - in an election between stalin and hitler, who would you vote for?

extreme, i know. but that is the point — the quality and representation of our available electoral choices is on a steep decline… and in the given example, it would be better to vote for neither, and remit the legitimacy your vote would seemingly afford them.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 06:54 PM

Diognes wrote: … i would advise them to follow the voting guidelines …

Thanks. And thanks to Richard Rhodes. This was a very helpful excercise. There are essentially four steps.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2006 07:11 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n, Calling somebody brainwashed shows little respect for their judgment. If you don’t respect them, that will show in your attitudes towards them. Truth hurts, yes, but they’re not going to agree with you and perceive your comments as true.

Stephen, Brainwashing is exactly what it it, and I intend on calling it exactly that. That is exactly why irresponsible incumbent politicians fuel the circular, distracting, divisive, petty partisan warfare. It is extremely effective at seducing voters into the partisan warfare. Some love to wallow in it. It’s the truth. If the truth hurts, tough. Sometimes, that is exactly what is needed.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for free speech, did I send a hit squad over to convince you not to use such comments? No, of course not. I told you that you shouldn’t do it, and you’re free to agree or not to agree with what I’m telling you to do.

Good. I disagree. It is what it is. Life is full of all types of brainwashing. Some of it starts at a very young age. That’s simply the way it is, and there’s no reason to sugar-coat it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Also, you’re not perfect, so if you come up to a person saying that, …

Stephen, Why do you feel so compelled to follow me from one thread to another and tell me to quit using words like “hypocrite” and “brainwashed”? If the shoe fits, wear it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I don’t sugarcoat things, but I try and stick to giving them tough points that aren’t dependent on subjective points, but rather logic and facts.

Stephen, In case you haven’t noticed, I present lots of logic and facts. Just visit my pages and links.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I want the person who I’m arguing with to be trapped by their words if they’re arguing counterfactually.

Huh ? You mean you want to win? : ) Well, why don’t you just say so ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I want the people who are audience to this debate to come away from it, even if the other guy doesn’t conceded, convinced by the logic of what I’ve related. If I go in with an ad hominem approach, I’m bound to alienate a number of those people I’m looking to collaterally convince.

Stephen, only those that suspect they may be one of the brainwashed are likely to be offended. Those fairly comfortable that they stand on firm ground and beliefs are not likely to be offended. Know what I mean ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: On the subject of third parties being spoilers or fringe, I’d say you need to avoid that

Third parties and swing voters decide elections. The main-party loyalists are constants, and they’ll vote the same way from now until they die. The ones to reason with are the third party and independents. And the third party and independents’ numbers are growing, because the two main parties are cuttin’ it. There will most likely be many more independents and third party voters by 2008. I’d never seen so many third party and independents on the ballots this last election. While many didn’t win an office, they had an impact on the elections.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: … because then your parties get blamed for sending things in a lousy direction.

Tough. That’s not the third party’s fault, as you would try to portray it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: How many people curse the green party for George W. Bush getting elected?

Good. That’s a good thing. See? Third parties and independents decide elections.

OHHhhhhh … I see. You want everyone to vote for Demopublicans, eh ?

Stephen Daugherty wrote: How many people look at the self-satisfaction some of the members showed, that failure to distinguish the good from the bad, and simply turn away in disgust from the green party?

What are you talkin’ about. Lots of people like the Green Party. However, the Libertarians are the biggest, fastest growing third party. Above, you talk about encouraging third parties, and now you complain about the way they vote? Well, sorry, but third party and swing voters have the right to vote as they like. If it throws the monkey wrench in the works for the two main parties, good ! Since government is FOR-SALE anyway, that sort of disrupts the plans of those that abuse vast wealth to control elections and government.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: How many on the left look on and shake their heads when they saw Green Party member’s accepting GOP money to run their campaigns in critical districts?

For any of them to criticize the other for campaign finance irregularities is truly ridiculous when most (if not all) are FOR SALE.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The third parties will not win by being the cause for grief for so many.

Gets in your craw don’t it? Third parties decide elections, and their numbers are growing, and I quite frankly see it as a VERY good thing.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You talk about programming leaders. I doesn’t work like that.

Of course it does. If you reward and empower politicians for bad behavior by repeated re-electing them, over and over, you’ll get more bad behavior. Duh! That’s what we have in our Do-Nothing Congress

Stephen Daugherty wrote: You talk about showing people what their politicians are doing, but I never see specifics out of you.

That’s because you obviously haven’t been reading what I write. I’ve listed the voting records of many politicians and the things they voted YES/NO on. Just ask anyone here whose been paying the least amount of attention.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What are you showing them exactly? What hard, specific facts back your claims?

Voting records. Things they do and say. Crimes. Want to hear some more about Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA-2) ? Search the threads and you will find many dozens of posts where I have listed dozens of YES/NO votes of several dozens of politicians (Dems and Repubs; no favorites).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Don’t just excuse yourself by accusing those asking for those facts of being brainwashed idiots. Give the facts.

I have many times. You’d know that if you were paying the least amount of attention. Here are just a few examples of what you have missed: __________________ John Conyers voted on: [NO] Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998) [YES] Supports reparations for slavery. (Aug 2001) [NO] Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) [NO] Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) [NO] Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) [NO] Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001) [NO] Voted NO on eliminating the “marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000) [NO] Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001) [NO] Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999) [YES] Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003) [NO] Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004) [NO] Voted NO on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001) ____________________________ ______ Senator John Warner (R-Va.) __________________________

John Warner Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)

John Warner Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)

John Warner Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)

John Warner Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)

John Warner Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)

John Warner Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997) (How about NONE??? John Warner is one of many in government that have forced states to accommodate illegal aliens, and provide them with education, welfare, Medicaid, healthcare, etc. Thanks a lot John Warner).

John Warner Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction BELOW tax cuts. (Apr 2000) (tax cuts for the rich that is???) John Warner said: Currently, I am focused on national defense, the economy, healthcare, and homeland security issues, (among may others) that are of utmost importance to Virginia and the nation. (Really? Then why vote NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism???)

John Warner Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)

John Warner Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998) (at minimum wage? or nore imported slave labor?)

John Warner Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999) (Really? Look at what has happened since then?) ________ Senator George Allen (R-Va.) ______________________

George Allen Voted NO on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)

George Allen Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)

George Allen Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)

George Allen Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)

George Allen Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)

George Allen Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)

George Allen supports allowing churches to provide welfare services. (Sep 2000) (bad idea)

it is interesting how this sleazy money trail of former Republican mega-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff - he of the Indian gambling scandal, the Tom DeLay scandal, the bank fraud scandal, and much much more — touches so many prominent Virginia Republicans. For instance, wouldn’t you just know that Virginia’s own junior Senator, good ol’ “Cowboy George” Allen, would be caught holding out his hand to the man whom Tom DeLay (also indicted) once called one of his “closest and dearest friends?”

Senator George Allen (R-VA), often mentioned for the Republican Presidential nomination, loaned $470,000 to a Union President with whom he was having an affair. Reports indicate that Senator Allen forgave the loan recently, while toying with the idea of running for Governor of his home state. The same Union has recently endorsed Allen for Governor. Both Allen and the female union President deny any connection between the forgiveness of the loan and the endorsement. ____________________________

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) ?

______________________________ Those are just a few excerpts from previous posts here at watchblog. So, Stephen Daugherty, you obviously, you do NOT have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I am taken seriously here because I bring my premises, my facts, and my logic here. I don’t expect people to jump through hoops to come to agreement with me. And why should I, and why should they have to indulge me as such?

Really? I rarely see you post links, date, charts, or supporting evidence. Funny, but your allegations are so false and bassackwards, it’s laughable.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: When defining meaning, the founders of information theory defined it as the degree to which the information given saves people the effort of having to seek out more information themselves. Save people some trouble. Don’t expect them to save you any by simply agreeing with you because you think so highly of your own arguments.

Stephen Daugherty, Of all the people at Watchblog I have ever run across here over the years, the advice you humbly offer to me (and others) applies to you (yourself) MORE than anyone else. After all, you are the one that told us “I see it through the eyes of somebody who knows all about technology and the limitations of design.”

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I think highly of my own,

Yes, you most certainly do.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: … but I don’t expect others to do so without some effort on my part, and some selectiveness as well concerning what I consider a good argument.

Obviously, you do, since some of your allegations above are clearly the furthest thing from the truth. Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2006 08:09 PM

stephen,

“What annoys me somewhat about the Green Party in certain places in recent years is their willingness to accept help and provide help that they know works against their interests. They talk about the head game with Democratic voters taking them seriously and not neglecting their issues, but despite all the words an lovely arguments, their actions have helped the people least likely to help them in return. It’s a self destructive kind of nihilism, which doesn’t bode well for any party.”

i would suggest that what truly irks you (or at least most democrats) about the green party is that they are ‘stealing’ votes that you clearly perceive as belonging to *you* (or rather, the democrats). those votes belong to no one, save the people who cast them. but perhaps i am mistaken about you…

nevertheless, i assure you that those in the green party are doing what they feel will best advance their interests (since no one else is), and unfortunately for you, this comes at the expense of your own (interests).

you may disagree with the tactics they utilize (top-down), but perhaps their intention is ultimately to reform the democratic party into something which they feel might represent them - by showing you how many people share the very goals which you dismiss(or perhaps only marginalize)… i don’t know… but then neither do you.

what exactly is this concept, anyway, “the least likely to help them in return.” are you suggesting that it is better to assist those who are most likely to help you, even though they haven’t and won’t?

if you feel that no party is representing you, why would you not accept help from anyone willing to give it, in order to finally represent yourself?

you see their goals as coinciding (to some extent) with your own… i’m guessing they don’t. i’m guessing they view the reps and dems as pretty much the same these days (i know i do) - except that the reps are giving them assistance, whereas the dems are demanding assistance *from* them (for nothing in return).

from this perspective, you would have them do exactly what you accuse them of! helping those who are least likely to return the favor (the dems)!

of course this is all speculation, but you are coming from a vantage point where their goal of breaking into the duopoly is a fool’s errand, and would be best addressed at a local level where it causes minimal interference with your own goals. they should take what scraps the democrats so kindly throw them, and be grateful!

they likely see you (the democrats) as part of the problem - part of the impediment preventing them from getting their message out, from breaking into the election and debate.

how many more might vote for them if democrats weren’t calling those very votes ‘wasted,’ ignorant, ill-advised, nihilistic, or the like? you think they are working against their own interests? i tend to disagree.

all that said…you make some good points and i am not entirely in disagreement with your assessment… but i think you fail to consider the matter objectively.

dare i say, i think i perhaps have a better opportunity to see their perspective, as an outsider myself. consider that such an accusation as the one which i have cited is not too far removed from those which you accuse d.a.n. …

“It’s a self destructive kind of nihilism, which doesn’t bode well for any party.”

anyone who would do that must be brainwashed… or stupid.

(…and it ‘boded’ pretty well for the republicans… didnit.)

you want the green vote? represent their interests, and “Don’t alienate people making gestures.”

here i am, telling a democrat how to ‘win’ (what the hell is wrong with me).

;)

anyway, just my take.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2006 09:32 PM

Diogenes,

“the argument is that you must vote whether or not there is anyone worthy of your vote. this is patently untrue. there is no law stating that you must vote, nor that if you do not vote you cannot speak of politics.”

Obviously. I was not saying that you are legally obliged, but rather morally (or perhaps socially is a better term) obligated to do so. You really are diverting attention from the importance of the discussion by bringing up such an inanely obvious fact.

“whether a person votes is their choice to make(as is who they vote for), and no one elses.”

Just like a person can choose to get high on a plethora of drugs. That does not mean they are in the right to choose that particular course of action.

“it is true — it is happening. and indeed, you are correct. are you suggesting the problem may solve itself? let’s hope so.”

Then if you can vote for third party candidates whom you align yourself with why would you not? If the problem is solving itself why not be a part of the solution and vote for the third parties you like?

“in an election between stalin and hitler, who would you vote for?”

Stalin.

“the quality and representation of our available electoral choices is on a steep decline… and in the given example, it would be better to vote for neither, and re