Wasting our Vote

[mrjarrell]

That is not my point. I hate the offerings we are given. The point I hope to make is that just electing a 3rd party president is not the answer. The entire body politic has to be house cleaned.

So...all or nothing? In this election there are plenty of 3rd party options to vote for that would make progress towards that house cleaning you're talking about. Right here in Indiana you have the presidential, gubernatorial, a senate seat and at least one house seat (with a great candidate that's leagues beyond what the other two are offering) and more. Will you vote the status quo or vote to clean house?

 

[hornadylnl]

So...all or nothing? In this election there are plenty of 3rd party options to vote for that would make progress towards that house cleaning you're talking about. Right here in Indiana you have the presidential, gubernatorial, a senate seat and at least one house seat (with a great candidate that's leagues beyond what the other two are offering) and more. Will you vote the status quo or vote to clean house?

But the third party guys can't win.

 

[mrjarrell]

But the third party guys can't win.

I wonder how many Whigs said the same of the republicans?

 

[ATM]

Okay, when is that? And given the happenstances across the Pond, what makes you think it will happen at all?

It became impossible for me to ignore 4 years ago. The denial is stronger in others, so it's hard to say.

Sooner? There are only two reasons they don't, and nothing you're offering is significant enough to change that. How could you make it sooner?

By working to wake up Americans to change their priorities and accept their responsibilities.

And it will arguably have even less impact--relative to the direction you are wishing to go--this time around based on your reported intended vote.

It couldn't possibly have less impact than the results of what I did last time.

And why is using a different set of principles a wasted vote? I get really tired of the holier-than-thou arrogance in the implication that not voting third party--and specifically YOUR third party (though understand the "YOU" means anybody taking your stance)--isn't a principled vote. In my mind, I'd prefer to have some say in the achievable results rather than a protest vote that has yet to be registered with the people who need to see/hear it the most.

My vote was mine to consider wasted. The holier than though principle crap is obviously in reference to to some other posts, not mine. Your thoughts and preferences are your own, but don't get indignant when you bring them up and I don't agree. We don't have to agree.

Not that I don't understand your rationale. I do. I even agree with it. Except that when I weigh the PRACTICAL RESULTS, I feel my vote has more value in voting for/against one of the two main parties rather than a fringe party that has little to no chance of winning.

The PRACTICAL RESULTS we give weight to are different. I'm not simply weighing an election victory or loss. The current election winner will not interest me one bit.

You say that like you don't believe it's true. Then let me ask you: if my vote for one of the two parties that WILL win doesn't have any control, then how does a vote for a third party that can't/won't win have any more?

I'm attempting to influence the nation, not merely have a say in this election winner. Different goal perspective demands different strategy.

Absolutely. And without the implications that voters with different priorities are scum of the earth.

Project much?

Defining, defending and explaining your principles and priorities isn't as much fun as feigning indignation, but it would be far more valuable to the readers.

 

[churchmouse]

So...all or nothing? In this election there are plenty of 3rd party options to vote for that would make progress towards that house cleaning you're talking about. Right here in Indiana you have the presidential, gubernatorial, a senate seat and at least one house seat (with a great candidate that's leagues beyond what the other two are offering) and more. Will you vote the status quo or vote to clean house?

Not so silly as to think a swoop of the broom will fix this. As stated, a simple example to a far deeper issue.
I am considering my options. Not so much the Pres. but am looking into the others you mentioned. 4 more years of Obummer scares the hell out of me. This is a big house and it is very dirty. Much to do.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Not so silly as to think a swoop of the broom will fix this. As stated, a simple example to a far deeper issue.
I am considering my options. Not so much the Pres. but am looking into the others you mentioned. 4 more years of Obummer scares the hell out of me. This is a big house and it is very dirty. Much to do.

Realistically, what's needed is to move the national capitol to the geographic center of the nation - and to not let any of its current occupants move to the new capital; not the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists, the staffers, nobody.

 

[88GT]

When you have 2nd Amendment supporting, Republican voters speaking about principles, I laugh as I see their words mean nothing. How can you support the 2nd Amendment and ignore it while voting for Romney who has a terrible history on gun issues.
How can one speak of principle, then ignore it? It looks hypocritical to me.

I'm not ignoring. Just because I prioritize differently, doesn't mean I have no principles.

How many election cycles must we try it your way before it's determined that it doesn't work?

Reagan
Bush
Dole
Bush2
McCain
Romney

I see a trend here. The car is pulling to the left. How many more ever leftward republican nominees must we endure before your strategy is determined not to work?

Hello, McFly? Anybody home? That's the same question I'm asking you. I'm not arguing with your intent. Go for it. Prove me wrong. Please. I'm questioning your claim to superiority based on absolutely no results.

It became impossible for me to ignore 4 years ago. The denial is stronger in others, so it's hard to say.

So you'll keep doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results?

Know that this comment isn't directed at you per se. Just the general notion that it's somehow a better vote despite the lack of success resulting from it. And given the history of the "definition of stupid" claim against those who continue to vote within the two party system, I kinda find it a little bit funny.

By working to wake up Americans to change their priorities and accept their responsibilities.

At least your honest, but under the current voting system, you do realize that's a losing battle, right?

It couldn't possibly have less impact than the results of what I did last time.

But it won't have any better impact. Which is the point I'm trying to make. It's no better than the vote for Romney.

My vote was mine to consider wasted. The holier than though principle crap is obviously in reference to to some other posts, not mine. Your thoughts and preferences are your own, but don't get indignant when you bring them up and I don't agree. We don't have to agree.

Yes, mostly to others, but the implication is just as much in yours even though you have the composition skills to be far less base and critical in the way it's said. I've read your posts long enough to understand that you aren't malicious in your opinion. But others are not as generous. And I will be indignant when someone puts on airs of superiority he can't back up with results. Particularly when he's criticizing me for the same failure.

I'm not interested in agreeing. I would, however, like to see a little bit of honesty in the "My vote is a better vote because I'm not voting for the R" crowd and an acknowledgement that they are no more successful in keeping the car on the road than anybody else. It is my personal opinion that about half of this group just want to be able to claim lack of responsibility by holding up their hands and saying, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."

The PRACTICAL RESULTS we give weight to are different. I'm not simply weighing an election victory or loss. The current election winner will not interest me one bit.

Fair enough.

I'm attempting to influence the nation, not merely have a say in this election winner. Different goal perspective demands different strategy.

Could you repeat that for your brethren? I don't think they understand that principle.

Project much?

Nope, it's just a reflection of the BS tossed my way.

Defining, defending and explaining your principles and priorities isn't as much fun as feigning indignation, but it would be far more valuable to the readers.

Who's feigning? It's not your position. It's the completely asinine bit of logic (or lack thereof) that most with your position use to try to defend it.

Besides, I've explained myself, my priorities, my principles time and again. And again. And again. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

The irony is that I'm not criticizing anybody for voting third party. Never have, never will. I believe every man's vote is his own, to be made according to his own priorities and principles. (I've said that a time or two or ten thousand on this site as well.) And I will never fault a man for voting according to his own interests. To do so would be the ultimate in tyranny. (Put that in your third party pipes, and smoke it. )

What I am doing is pointing out the absurdity of some of the claims being made. Namely, that not voting third party isn't a principled vote. Then there's the one that third party is the solution to the problems, yet there isn't a single victory on the national level that justifies this claim. (Of course it's all true in theory. Nobody is denying that. But the real world isn't theory.)

You and possible a handful of others are smart enough to be able to make the distinction, and rarely do you (collectively) resort to the infantile logic that seems to think pointing out errors in logic is the functional equivalent of opposing the belief system. No, you are really pretty good about that. But I can't say the same for most of the rest.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

ATM -

Quote:
The PRACTICAL RESULTS we give weight to are different. I'm not simply weighing an election victory or loss. The current election winner will not interest me one bit.


This - in a nutshell - is where you and I get to respectfully disagree. And I think that it defines the difference in our approach to this election.

Where we agree:
Both of us want liberty. Both know it ain't gonna happen this time around. (granted there are some around here in denial - but the scoreboard is what it is). And we agree that that's an unfortunate thing.

Where we disagree:
I absolutely care what happens in the next four years! I look at the composition of the Supreme Court and all of the lifetime Federal Bench appointments. I look at the wreckage of the economy. The wreckage of the health care system. I absolutely care.
I know that the effects will last a lot longer and be harder to undo.

We've got folks like rambone et al. running around saying that there's no difference between Romney and Obama... That's most ignorant pile of iguana I can imagine!

It's one thing to say that "I dislike them both/They both suck" or something like that. THAT I could buy. But the argument that they are the same is intellectually void. They absolutely will NOT do the same things! I believe that one is far worse than the other.

I guess it boils down to a question of whether one believes that the ship can be turned around, or if one believes that it must be sunk and rebuilt to make it go the other direction. Call me a Pollyanna if you wish, but I believe that it can be turned.

I believe that Romney's a step in the right direction (FROM WHAT WE HAVE TODAY) - although there are those that I would VASTLY prefer over him. Say what you will about him, but I do not believe that the destruction of our system of government is on his agenda NOR THAT OF THOSE HE SURROUNDS HIMSELF WITH. I do not believe that the same can be said of Mr. Obama with any degree of intellectual honesty.

You have my respect for having a well thought out position.

 

[churchmouse]

I'm not interested in agreeing. I would, however, like to see a little bit of honesty in the "My vote is a better vote because I'm not voting for the R" crowd and an acknowledgement that they are no more successful in keeping the car on the road than anybody else. It is my personal opinion that about half of this group just want to be able to claim lack of responsibility by holding up their hands and saying, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."

Agree with this completely.


Realistically, what's needed is to move the national capitol to the geographic center of the nation - and to not let any of its current occupants move to the new capital; not the Congress, the bureaucracy, the lobbyists, the staffers, nobody.

This may be the only way to accomplish this. The problem is the "Entire" system not just those we elect.

 

[jamil]

You are right, it is part buyer and part seller, except when you look at mainstream Republican candidates, they had major assistance with their selling through the media, whereas Ron Paul and Gary Johnson had to take another approach. As for the buyers, it is sad that only 15% - 20% agree with Ron Paul on principle. What does that tell you about the Republican establishment? It tells me they don't give much thought or concern into principles.

You identify the failings of Ron Paul' selling, but I can't think of anything that could get me to vote for Romney at this point, so what have the Republicans done to lose this sell?

Only 15 - 20% agree because the Republican party is comprised of differing ideals, not just one. That 15 - 20% support only represents the share of Republicans who agree with RP on issues most important to them, much more than they disagree with him on issues less important.

It's like I've said before. Libertarians are much like the Green Party in that they are too narrow in focus to appeal to the masses. Because your ideals don't appeal to the masses you call them "sheeple". Well, they call you "fringe".

You act like not agreeing with Ron Paul on principles is being unprincipled. Remember, thinking people can draw different conclusions based on the same input. Smart people can disagree on politics, religion, even science. Those voting against Obama are indeed voting their principles. Pragmatic voting is a principle. Purely idealistic voting mostly makes you frustrated.

ArmedProgrammer is right. It's short-term vs long-term in principle. But with Libertarians as viable candidates, the long-term is much more dubious because I don't think they could ever gain more than 20% support of all voters.

 

[jamil]

That's not how I see it. It is more like this...
One group says they are willing to overlook some of their principles to vote in a "conservative" Republican...whatever it takes to beat Obama. And, we have another group that sees it doesn't matter which establishment politician you vote for, if you don't vote for principle, you will always get what you've got so far. If enough people held true to their principles, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would win by a landslide. If you give up on principle, what else do you easily give up?

I HAVE to overlook some of any candidate's principles. If I voted for Ron Paul I would have to overlook some of HIS principles.

So you've found the perfect candidate, one in whom you agree on everything. That's great. The problem is, not everyone is the same. That's why Ron Paul didn't win.

If you're fairly young, only voting for candidates who perfectly match your ideals, means you will be frustrated in a lot of elections. Voting all or nothing almost always gets you nothing, unless the masses agree with your all.

 

[dwagner3701]

This is going to be an all or nothing election I'm afraid. If you vote for anything other than Romney...and I'm not a Romney fan, the country will be lost!!! I firmly believe that if Odumbass gets reelected we will be turned into a dictatorship just like Venezuela. Voting for any other party is a vote lost to the Libs. and progressives. Romney can be a single term pres. if you can get a viable candidate for the next election. At least if Romney gets elected there will be another election. If Odumbass does, I don't believe there will be.

 

[Classic Liberal]

Only 15 - 20% agree because the Republican party is comprised of differing ideals, not just one. That 15 - 20% support only represents the share of Republicans who agree with RP on issues most important to them, much more than they disagree with him on issues less important.

You are right, it's because many "conservative" Republicans don't believe in Libertarian principles, which is quite sad. They want to instill their version of righteous living on everyone else. The idea of following the US Constitution has been lost for some time.

It's like I've said before. Libertarians are much like the Green Party in that they are too narrow in focus to appeal to the masses. Because your ideals don't appeal to the masses you call them "sheeple". Well, they call you "fringe".

Actually, it is the "conservative" Republicans whom are narrow minded, in that they have issue with everyone being responsible for their own actions and use control/force to get their way. Libertarians are open minded and believe everyone can do what they want, but must be accountable and responsible for their actions and no one else.

You act like not agreeing with Ron Paul on principles is being unprincipled. Remember, thinking people can draw different conclusions based on the same input. Smart people can disagree on politics, religion, even science. Those voting against Obama are indeed voting their principles. Pragmatic voting is a principle. Purely idealistic voting mostly makes you frustrated.

It's not an issue of agreeing with RP, it's about speaking about how principles mean something to someone, then overlook those principles to vote for Romney, whom does not share those same principes.
If Romney had his opportunity, he'd outlaw all semi-autos, he's on public record making such a statement. Knowing this, how can someone that believes we should never surrender the 2nd Amendment, vote for a man that has that intention? You can rearrange your principles and put them in some kind of order, but regardless of where your 2nd Amendment ends up in that list, One would think that no matter where it fell, it'd be enough not to vote for Romney.

 

[Citizen711]

Actually, it is the "conservative" Republicans whom are narrow minded, in that they have issue with everyone being responsible for their own actions and use control/force to get their way.

False. Completely.

But I'll play. The moon is made of cheese, and why we're not harvesting it to feed the starving peoples of the world is just completely beyond me.

 

[jamil]

You are right, it's because many "conservative" Republicans don't believe in Libertarian principles, which is quite sad. They want to instill their version of righteous living on everyone else. The idea of following the US Constitution has been lost for some time.

I'll agree with you on this point. The evangelicals influenced the GOP in a major way from about the MID 80s through the end of GWB's 2nd term. And yes, I think they tend to want to legislate their morality.

Actually, it is the "conservative" Republicans whom are narrow minded, in that they have issue with everyone being responsible for their own actions and use control/force to get their way. Libertarians are open minded and believe everyone can do what they want, but must be accountable and responsible for their actions and no one else.

Ok, here's where my agreement fades. Social Conservatives are narrow minded. But when I say narrow, I'm not talking about narrow minded, I'm talking about narrow focus. The Libertarian platform seems very idealistic to me, extreme in their views on liberty, very black and white, off and on, all or nothing.

It's not an issue of agreeing with RP, it's about speaking about how principles mean something to someone, then overlook those principles to vote for Romney, whom does not share those same principes.
If Romney had his opportunity, he'd outlaw all semi-autos, he's on public record making such a statement. Knowing this, how can someone that believes we should never surrender the 2nd Amendment, vote for a man that has that intention? You can rearrange your principles and put them in some kind of order, but regardless of where your 2nd Amendment ends up in that list, One would think that no matter where it fell, it'd be enough not to vote for Romney.

See, there's that all-or-nothing thing again. I'm looking at it pragmatically. Neither Romney nor Obama view the 2A as I do, but Obama much less than Romney. Obama is willing to bypass Congress to get what he wants. In a second term when he does not need to hide who he is for reelection, I'm afraid of what he might do. Certainly he will have at least one, possibly two SCOTUS appointees in his second term, and many more federal judges.

THAT's more a threat to 2A rights than anything Romney could do, especially if one or both houses are in GOP control. I'm not ignoring or selling out what I believe about the 2A. I'm voting to deny Obama the opportunity to put more justices like Sotomayor and Kagan on the bench. I'm willing to overlook some of the "all" so that I don't wind up with nothing.