# Election Dilemma



## Spud (Oct 20, 2004)

As my state is locked in Bush's column I'm trying to figure out how to make the most of my limited vote. I'm torn between voting for Kerry or supporting a 3rd party candidate. 

 I am sick of the two parties and their entrenched structures - The party bosses were pushing hard for Kerry over Dean (big mistake IMHO). Plus the way the two parties have bounced the League of Women Voters out of the debates is despicable.

 Dumb question, but do third parties get any benefit from federal campaign funds based upon vote tallies in previous elections? The Libertarians and Greens are attractive, but both have some items in their platforms that I take exception to. I've voted for Nader twice, but his shtick is tired and I believe he would benefit from medication and therapy. 

 Clearly I want Kerry to beat Bush, but - the Electoral College vote will determine the election and my state is spoken for. 

 I dunno, I'm not even asking a coherent question, just looking to kick around ideas.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

I, too, am curious if the 'other' parties benefit from yr vote in the US.

In Canada, the feds dish out a certain (very small) dollar amount per vote the party recieved - provided the party had at least 3% of the popular vote. It's something like $1.90. Kinda weak, but to those tiny parties, it makes a difference.


----------



## someguy (Oct 20, 2004)

I understood what was said but alas I am ignorant.
I think that it will help third parties out to some extent to vote for them.  I'm sure there are people more knowledgeable about this so I'll wait for them to speak.


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

Spud said:
			
		

> Clearly I want Kerry to beat Bush, but - the Electoral College vote will determine the election and my state is spoken for.
> 
> I dunno, I'm not even asking a coherent question, just looking to kick around ideas.



just say no... stay home, don't waste your time, and don't bother voting


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

big mistake not voting. People have died for your right to vote and in order to honor the ultimate gift go out and vote!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 20, 2004)

Voting for a third party does many things.

If enough people do it, a message is sent to those in the "Big 2".

More to the point, if certain thresholds are hit, the party doesn't have to fight for a role on the following years elections.

It can mean obtaining federal election funds which can aid significantly in future campaigns.

Personally, I'm voting for a 3rd party. It is my hope that my vote will help aid a 3rd party in overtaking the huge self-fueled and self-protected lead that both of the 'Big 2" currently have, and someday will allow true democracy to return to this nation.


----------



## Spud (Oct 20, 2004)

Not voting doesn't even come up on my radar. That's a non-starter.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

Amen! Kaith


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 20, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> It can mean obtaining federal election funds which can aid significantly in future campaigns.


Any idea regarding actual numbers, etc.?


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> big mistake not voting. People have died for your right to vote and in order to honor the ultimate gift go out and vote!


wow, maybe they shoulda stayed home too...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 20, 2004)

Right now to be on a ballot you need to gather signatures, and do alot of "proving" and "leg work" to get included.

I'm not sure what the number is, but if you hit a certain total in a previous year, you are (in most cases) automatically included on the ballot, as long as you maintain that minimum.  

I'll do some more digging later and see if I can find out more info on that.


In any event, just get out and vote.  The only real wasted vote, is a vote not cast.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 20, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> wow, maybe they shoulda stayed home too...


If they had, you'd be living under Nazi rule, Pete, or maybe not at all.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 20, 2004)

being a Parent I am tempted go out and get a switch and looks at pete lol!


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Oct 20, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> being a Parent I am tempted go out and get a switch and looks at pete lol!


How about a tomahawk cruise missle...My choice of disciplinary tools :flammad:


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

remind me not to have kids with you, tkang.


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 20, 2004)

A 3rd party nominee needs to receive at least 5% of the popular vote (I think but may be electoral vote) this fall for the party to remain certified by the Federal Election Commission as a national party and be eligible for federal matching funds.


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Oct 20, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> remind me not to have kids with you, tkang.


LOL.  I have a powerful voice. I need no weapons to scare my kids into maintaining discipline


----------



## Spud (Oct 20, 2004)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> A 3rd party nominee needs to receive at least 5% of the popular vote (I think but may be electoral vote) this fall for the party to remain certified by the Federal Election Commission as a national party and be eligible for federal matching funds.


 Seems like an pretty high standard, the reform and constitutional parties have been around for some time, yet they don't grab 5% of the general vote?  

 When Pat Buchanan ran on the Reform party platform in 2000 they obtained FEC funds.

 An interesting link to FEC showing all the parties fielding candidates in 2000
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 20, 2004)

IMO, there are NO states locked for Bush.

Here are 2 suggestions on what to do with your vote:

1.  Take James Taylors' suggestion:  Look at the two candidates real closely, and then vote for the one who's SMART.

2.  Give me your vote...I'll be happy to cast it for you.


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

i thought that along with the right to do something, also comes the right not  to. hmmm.... ain't that a message too.  people talk about choice, well... 

oh, i see, maybe its better to throw a vote to encourage that wacko nader, or maybe gus hall, or pat paulsen, oh i know what about joe walsh... does he still run?  

boy if i did know that you guys knew better, i'd look at some of these posts as physical threats... 

peace,
pete


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm voting for a 3rd party. It is my hope that my vote will help aid a 3rd party in overtaking the huge self-fueled and self-protected lead that both of the 'Big 2" currently have, and someday will allow true democracy to return to this nation.



Thank you, Kaith.  I feel the same way and I will be voting similarly.


----------



## GAB (Oct 20, 2004)

Hi All, 

Good advice, take it and go to the polls, vote with what you have in your heart and head, read up on what they have done and said and make a good choice in your opinion...

Don't tell anyone who you voted for, that way you won't have to tell a fib...

Regards, Gary


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Oct 20, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> i thought that along with the right to do something, also comes the right not to. hmmm.... ain't that a message too. people talk about choice, well...


If you choose to be apathetic, just remember that the consequence is that you can't b*tch about your non-choice later.



> oh, i see, maybe its better to throw a vote to encourage that wacko nader, or maybe gus hall, or pat paulsen, oh i know what about joe walsh... does he still run?


Or maybe you could vote "None of the above"



> boy if i did know that you guys knew better, i'd look at some of these posts as physical threats...


Yeah, I'm sure your shaking in your shoes about the thought of being switched or tomahawked...


----------



## Xequat (Oct 20, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> 1. Take James Taylors' suggestion: Look at the two candidates real closely, and then vote for the one who's SMART


They're both smart...both Ivy Leaguers and I've heard on one of the cable news shows (although I obviously haven't seen their report cards) that Bush even got higher grades. Regardless of grades, Bush can't communicate very well, so if you want to vote for the better campaigner/speaker, then by all means vote for him, but remember that they're both smart. I think it's childish and ignorant to say otherwise and nothing personal, I don't mean to start getting off topic here, I'm just tired of people saying they're voting for Kerry simply because "Bush is an idiot" and laughing about it as if any of us really knows for sure and that it's a commonly known fact.

Personally, I'd vote for the third party that stands the highest in the polls if I were you for the reasons mentioned above. The big 2 are run by extremists. For example, I like both Lieberman and Giuliani, but they might never get a nomination because in order to win a primary, you have to cater to the religios right or the extremist left because that is the largest voting group within each party. A third party candidate might send the message that we are more moderate as a whole. Personally, I think Bush is too far to the right and Kerry is too far to the left, but I think you might ahve the solution. 

Isn't the former porn star Marilyn Chambers running for VP on some ticket? That'd be a good vote if enough people did it, but that might actually be a wasted vote.


----------



## Tkang_TKD (Oct 20, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Isn't the former porn star Marilyn Chambers running for VP on some ticket? That'd be a good vote if enough people did it, but that might actually be a wasted vote.


I'm not sure if it was Marilyn Chambers, but some porn star did run in the recall election that resulted in the Governator


----------



## Xequat (Oct 20, 2004)

That's excellent.  


Ya know, I think there's some other fringe candidate this year from the Breatheairian Party I guess that's how you spell it), who believe that there is a world shortage of food and has therefore figured out a way to sustain yourself only by breathing, but not eating or drinking because there are plenty of nutrients in the air.  Wow.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 20, 2004)

Gentlebeings, just a reminder to keep it on a friendlier tone.  

Thank ye.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

Buchanan got matching funds because Perot was a Reform candidate in 1996.

Vote for whom you believe in, regardless of the party affiliation. It all speaks volumes.

But, I remind you that one way to review the two major party candidates is to review a couple of threads on this board.

Convince Me - Is a listing of reasons to support candidate George W. Bush

Convince Me, too - Is a listing of reason to support candidate John Kerry.

And, while Bush's grades from Yale have been released, Kerry's transcript has never been made available to anyone. Any one claiming to know Kerry's grades were lower or higher than Bush's is just making it up. I would love to see it, myself.

Don't forget the Presidential Debates
* Kerry 3 - 0 ______ Edwards 1 - 0
* Bush 0 - 3 ______ Cheney 0 - 1
But most importantly .... VOTE !


----------



## Xequat (Oct 20, 2004)

I remember the presidential debates:

Bush 0-1-2, Kerry 1-0-2, Cheney 1-0, and Edwards 0-1.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 20, 2004)

Man, we all have different memories.

I remember it:  KerryBush 4 WeThePeople 0


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 20, 2004)

Spud said:
			
		

> As my state is locked in Bush's column I'm trying to figure out how to make the most of my limited vote. I'm torn between voting for Kerry or supporting a 3rd party candidate.
> 
> I am sick of the two parties and their entrenched structures - The party bosses were pushing hard for Kerry over Dean (big mistake IMHO). Plus the way the two parties have bounced the League of Women Voters out of the debates is despicable.
> 
> ...



No disrespect meant yet, ...

If your state is spoken for then why vote? Go back with all the rest of the Americans and their apathy to blame others for their problem. My vote will not count.  Is the battle cry, yet is their is enough votes in an area then in the future the larger parties will spend the money there to try to win more votes and seats. 

Yet, in my mind the best way is to get more people to vote. Pick them up give them rides, make sure people are registered, and then let them vote. 55% of the population voted last time. What if only a small percentage in each state showed up and voted? The whole process would not have mattered on one state and hanging chads. 

OH, since people do not exercise their right or priviledge to vote, maybe they should think about giving up their right to a speedy and fair trial, as they are not using the right and priviledge, right now either.

If you state had 50,000 votes, and 50% of the people voted. 12,000 votes could go to the winner, and 8,000 to the runner up, and 5,000 to individuals. Now their will be people who cry that the runner up may have lost those votes and thereby the election. Well maybe in the future the runner up party will pay attention to some of the issues and concerns raised by the other parties / candidates. 

Just my thought, go vote, vote who you would like. Do what you think is best. Just Vote though.

Peace


 :asian:


----------



## Spud (Oct 21, 2004)

Simple Hard Numbers Rich - no offense taken. But the truth is in the math and all the wishing and calling on friends and neighbors won't change that. We have one democrate holding statewide office. The legislature is upwards of 75% republican. The state will go for Bush in a big way. That's life. 

 There's some great thoughts out there. Do I understand this correctly - Reform Party fielded Perot (96), Buchanan (00) and Nader (04)? That's pretty diverse. 

 Marilyn Chambers is indeed running:
http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm

 No word on Joe Walsh. 

 Thanks for your thoughts, I'm encouraged.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 21, 2004)

Spud said:
			
		

> Simple Hard Numbers Rich - no offense taken. But the truth is in the math and all the wishing and calling on friends and neighbors won't change that. We have one democrate holding statewide office. The legislature is upwards of 75% republican. The state will go for Bush in a big way. That's life.
> 
> There's some great thoughts out there. Do I understand this correctly - Reform Party fielded Perot (96), Buchanan (00) and Nader (04)? That's pretty diverse.
> 
> ...



I personally think the change from 75% of one part to another, if there is an issue, needs to start with the individual. The encouragement you mentioned is good. Take it and spread it around, who knows, maybe you will get two democrat or non leading party representatives.

You never know unless you try.
 :asian:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 21, 2004)

When I say "vote for the one who's smart," I'm not talking about what college they went to, or their grades. I know lots of people who went to great colleges who aren't that smart. Last I checked Harvard Med school doesn't even use grades.

And while it's true that Bush is inarticulate, I'm not even talking about that. Stephen Hawkings has a problem articulating spoken sentences, too...but he's brilliant.

I think Bush has very limited understanding of complex issues, preferring instead to repeat rehearsed talking points. THAT'S what I mean by "not smart."

I'm sorry that some of you are voting for a third party, or "none of the above," in the hope that it will "bring back democracy" some day. Four more years of the current administration will make that goal even more elusive. If you are indifferent about Kerry, but pro-democracy, then first, vote to change regimes. Worry about third parties in 2008.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 21, 2004)

If we don't back the thirds now, they may not have the ability to wage the fight come 2008.

Personally, I can not in good faith vote for Bush.  I also can't vote for Kerry.


----------



## Spud (Oct 21, 2004)

Here's a twist - there are only 4 parties on my state ballot: Repub, Dems, Libertarian and Constitution. 

 There's an option for write-in, but I don't have much faith that a write-in vote will be tallied (mis-spelled, illegible writing, wrong color pen, whatever) still visiting 3rd party websites for info.


----------



## Spud (Oct 21, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry that some of you are voting for a third party, or "none of the above," in the hope that it will "bring back democracy" some day. Four more years of the current administration will make that goal even more elusive. If you are indifferent about Kerry, but pro-democracy, then first, vote to change regimes. Worry about third parties in 2008.


 It all goes back to the electoral college. My state is signed sealed and delivered to Bush. I don't like it, but that's a cold hard fact. I wouldn't even consider a third party *if there was a chance of my state being competitive*. If you can make an argument for how my vote will help defeat Bush I'm all ears. Otherwise I only see my vote as being a strategic vote for alternative parties in '08 or '12

  Before someone suggests it - I'm not interested in vote-swapping websites. However...  http://www.fthevote.com/ may be of interest 
*(first page is safe, the rest is probably NSFW)*


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 21, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> If we don't back the thirds now, they may not have the ability to wage the fight come 2008.


I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.  I honestly feel that our number one priority right now is to oust this greedy, dishonest, repressive, bellicose regime...we can deal with the nuances on 11/3.

If I was, let's say, a Green Party supporter right now, I'd vote for the major party candidate who is closer to my stance--Kerry--vote out the current anti-environmental administration, give my time and money to the Green Party immediately after the election, and start applying pressure to the new administration to be more pro-environment.  I'd be looking toward 2008 immediately.

Why do you feel that they "may not have the ability to wage the fight come 2008"?  There have been third parties for many, many years.

As a matter of fact, I AM kinda green...I grow my own organic vegetables, compost, recycle, drive a very economical car, and I'm in the process of investigating alternative fuel for my home.  But I am NOT voting for Nader...not in this election.


----------



## SMP (Oct 21, 2004)

both bush and kerry are from the same mold.  shoot they both went to yale I vote for a non Ivy leaguer.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 21, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.  I honestly feel that our number one priority right now is to oust this greedy, dishonest, repressive, bellicose regime...we can deal with the nuances on 11/3.
> 
> If I was, let's say, a Green Party supporter right now, I'd vote for the major party candidate who is closer to my stance--Kerry--vote out the current anti-environmental administration, give my time and money to the Green Party immediately after the election, and start applying pressure to the new administration to be more pro-environment.  I'd be looking toward 2008 immediately.
> 
> ...



And with each year more people investigate the other parties, because they get more press and more votes. It is the, "well if they think it is good, maybe I should look syndrome." 

As to getting rid fo those in power, are you also getting rid our your legislation representatives and senators as well? Or are they doing a good job protecting your pork barrel interests and it is everyone else's reps that need to go? Not attacking you per se, just as an example,


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 21, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I'm trying to understand your viewpoint.  I honestly feel that our number one priority right now is to oust this greedy, dishonest, repressive, bellicose regime...we can deal with the nuances on 11/3.



I strongly believe that after all the dust settles, that we will have at least 4 more years of the Bush regime. Call me paranoid, call me nuts, hell, call me anything but late for dinner.   But, I feel it is fixed, and that GW will still be Reich Fuhrer.  It may be through rigged voting machines, miscounts, etc. 

Now, lets say for a moment that I am dead wrong, and Kerry wins, is sworn in, and GW moved outta that lil white house in DC.

So what?

Kerry still will have to face a hostile congress and court.  He lacks the credibility and in my opinion ability to truely dig us out of this mess, and I'll be honest, why would he really want to?

Both the Dems and the Reps are so similar it is scary. They say the same things, just a little bit different.  The debates were rigged, hell there -were- no debates, just memorized responces to questions they knew about well in advance.



> If I was, let's say, a Green Party supporter right now, I'd vote for the major party candidate who is closer to my stance--Kerry--vote out the current anti-environmental administration, give my time and money to the Green Party immediately after the election, and start applying pressure to the new administration to be more pro-environment.  I'd be looking toward 2008 immediately.


 


> Why do you feel that they "may not have the ability to wage the fight come 2008"?  There have been third parties for many, many years.



If they do not maintain X number of votes, they lose the ability to be automatically included on the next ballot. This will require them to do more leg work, spend more money, etc that would be much better used to get their message out.

Why do both the Reps and Dems have war chests of 300 MILLION while the Libs are struggling with less than $100,000? The deck is stacked against the third parties and unless "We The People" throw our voices behind them, they will never be able to overtake and then defeat the "Big 2".



> As a matter of fact, I AM kinda green...I grow my own organic vegetables, compost, recycle, drive a very economical car, and I'm in the process of investigating alternative fuel for my home.  But I am NOT voting for Nader...not in this election.



I'd vote for Cobb before I vote for Nader.  Cobbs on more ballots I believe.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 21, 2004)

> are you also getting rid our your legislation representatives and senators as well? Or are they doing a good job protecting your pork barrel interests


"MY" pork barrel interests?  Excuse me, do you know something about me that I don't know?  To my knowledge, I don't have any "pork barrel" interest.  I'm not necessarily voting for individuals or policies that benefit ME.  

I work in the health care field.  Quite frankly, it'll ALWAYS be a lot easier for ME and MY family to get health services than for a lot of other people.  But I vote for universal health coverage.

I have a job, and it pays CONSIDERABLY more than minimum wage.  And when I owned a business, I paid CONSIDERABLY more than the minimum wage to my workers.  But I favor a minimum wage that is higher than 5 bucks an hour.

At my age, the likelihood of ME having an abortion is nil.  But I will vote for women's choice.

Does a cleaner environment benefit ME PERSONALLY?  No more than it benefits anyone else.

So spare me the "pork barrel" comments.  I'm just not that selfish.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 21, 2004)

Phoenix, I think you missed Rich's qualifier at the end there:



> Not attacking you per se, just as an example,


I don't think he meant anything personally.  Rich ain't that way.

-Dan


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

Someone in this thread suggested the 'Bush Administration must be held accountable'. 

I suggest the only viable accountability available is to cast a vote for John Kerry, the only candidate that has a chance to supplant Bush. Even if your state is firmly in the 'Bush Column' electorally, a popular vote win might cause the Supreme Court to behave differently if presented with a decision this year.

For further consideration, I submit this article from 'The Nation' magazine ... .yeah yeah, I know ... they are almost as evil and unamerican* as Michael Moore.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts

* I listened to an interesting article with Noam Chomsky today. He put forth the theory that to even argue that such a thing as 'unamerican' requires an strong acceptance of a totalitarian government. Think about it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 21, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> "MY" pork barrel interests?  Excuse me, do you know something about me that I don't know?  To my knowledge, I don't have any "pork barrel" interest.  I'm not necessarily voting for individuals or policies that benefit ME.
> 
> I work in the health care field.  Quite frankly, it'll ALWAYS be a lot easier for ME and MY family to get health services than for a lot of other people.  But I vote for universal health coverage.
> 
> ...



Pheonix44,

My comment was not directed to you on purpose, I used your post as a thought starter. 

It was meant for people to think, for I have heard this before, we have to get rid of that guy in this other disctrict or the other state since they voted for a bill that helped their local supporters. What they do not realize is that, almost every legislator ends up with something (s)he can hang their hat on to say they are helping the locals. 

Just commenting, on the general apathy and phrases I hear as excuses on why people do not change or why people do not care to help to change.

Peace
 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2004)

I agree with Rich P. Just Vote...all of the argument, debate etc. thats been goin on here is all well and good. In the end, all that matters is that you vote. In person Ive gotten to the point of just telling people "you vote for who you like, Ill vote for who I like" instead of getting into debates with them. If the guy I dont like wins, fine. Thats the way our system, and life in general, works.

Just vote.


----------

