Election Dilemma

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Thank ye.

 

[michaeledward]

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]

I remember the presidential debates:

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Man, we all have different memories.

I remember it: KerryBush 4 WeThePeople 0

 

[Rich Parsons]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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.

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,