Everyone's opinion is needed. What are your views on voting? Do you think it is a duty? Should you vote along party lines? Do you subscribe to the philosophy, "If you don't vote, you can't complain"? What if you don't like ANY of the candidates? Should one vote for the "lesser of two evils"? What do YOU think?
May 5, 2008
To vote or not to vote - Let's discuss!
Everyone's opinion is needed. What are your views on voting? Do you think it is a duty? Should you vote along party lines? Do you subscribe to the philosophy, "If you don't vote, you can't complain"? What if you don't like ANY of the candidates? Should one vote for the "lesser of two evils"? What do YOU think?
33 comments:
Great post Linnette! Dad, towards the end of his life, would say, "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil."
But if McCain is "Bush on steriods," it will be hard to refrain from voting for Obama. But I'm keeping an open mind and it will be very interesting to hear what others think.
Some have mentioned writing in Ron Paul's name on the ballot. However, in California, write-ins are only counted for declared write-in candidates, and Ron Paul would have to assent to that form of candidacy and form a slate of electors before a single vote for him is counted.
So .... (to be continued)
Good information, Linnette!
You should vote because you can. There are some countries that have dictators and the people didn't even have a choice. At least, here you have the right to choose. Exercise that right.
Don't tell me, let me guess... Someone posted that last comment in an attempt to get a good debate going.
"You should vote because you can. There are some countries that have dictators and the people didn't even have a choice. At least, here you have the right to choose. Exercise that right."
No one really thinks like that. Do they?
If it's not Ron Paul, I exercise my right not to vote. I don't any responsibility of helping put someone else in the big white house that shouldn't be there.
I like what Jesse Ventura said about the two-party system and how great it is. "It's so great it gives us one more choice than communist Russia."
Some thoughts:
Have you heard this: “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, as long as you vote.” Why doesn’t it matter? I think because as long as you vote, the system will seem valid. It will look as though it is working. It will look as though the winner of the two-party system has the mandate of the people. But, if there is a very low turnout of voters, it would be hard for them to say, “The people have chosen.”
The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Neither of the nominees place any importance on the government staying within the restraints of the Constitution. That oath means nothing to them. So, they are liars. Administration after administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat, the Constitution has been ignored and the size of government has increased.
Anyway, the voters in the U.S. don't vote for president. It doesn't matter what the ballot says. You actually vote for delegates. California has been a blue (Democrat) state since 1992. So, since 1992, ALL the California delegates have gone to the Democratic nominee. So, does it really make any sense to vote? It has been predetermined. Why take the time to do something for which the result is entirely beyond your control?
So, unless there is truly a candidate that I can believe in, that I feel good about voting for, I choose not to perpetuate the system by voting for the lesser of two evils. Besides, who would that be?
Yeah Tave, someone once said, we'll give them Democrats and Republicans. That way, the'll at least "think they have a choice".
Truth is though, there usually IS NO choice. It's like choosing between 2 T-bone steaks. They're actually the same and it doens't matter. Once in a great while a Filet Mignon, like Ron Paul, comes along and then I cast my vote with pride and passion.
"...the lesser of two evils. Besides, who would that be?"
LOL! Yeah, I know huh? When it comes down to McCain and Hitlery - They are both so bad I can't make up my mind.
When you vote for "the lesser of two evils", what you're really doing, indirectly, is saying, "I expect to live the next four years with even less freedoms than I have now, but at least I'll have one or two more than if the other guy wins."
So, you might as well explain to people what you expect to happen as a result of your voting: "I don't mind....
being told I need a piece of paper to officially exist or cease to exist;
needing a government number to perform many essential tasks;
being limited in the goods and services I'm allowed to purchase;
being told how much the approved goods and services should cost;
waiting to be an approved age to purchase certain goods or services;
choosing from a certain set of colors to paint a house or fence;
being spied on and reported as I conduct various state-approved financial transactions;
getting government permission to build on my land, or change an existing building;
having my property taken because a "law enforcement officer" decides I committed a crime;
being told what kinds of romantic relationships are acceptable;
needing a piece of paper in order to hold a certain job;
wondering whether something he or she says is a "hate crime";
being told who it's acceptable to vote for;
needing a piece of paper to be able to drive, or travel in general;
being told what pets are acceptable to own;
needing a permission slip from a state-approved health care provider to buy most medicines;
being told how he or she should rule when serving on a jury;
getting a piece of paper to be able to carry his or her preferred self-defense tool;
giving a substantial portion of the money he or she earns to someone else to give to others;
and of course, paying for the pieces of paper and other "services" related to all the above.
I agree with anonymous that we should exercise our Constitutional right to vote; that is, IF we indeed have a choice. Too often there isn't really a choice. Many say we have become a one party system.
Saw this post this morning at a forum by someone voting in a primary back East. Couldn't resist returning to this thread to share it:
It's primary day for me, and I'm leaving right now to vote for Ron Paul. I have been a liberal Democrat, but I changed to unaffiliated so I can vote in the Republican primary.
I'm voting for Paul because he is the most clear-headed, principled candidate. With the other three, it's business as usual.
America is a debtor empire nation. It needs to stop the spending and stop the empire building. I'm voting for Ron Paul.
If our government were scrupulously faithful to the Constitution, we would not need to be especially concerned when a person who represents a philosophy different from our own takes political office.
- Ron Paul, The Revolution A Manifesto pg. 66
There is an occasional phenomenon I have heard discussed. When one enters a new classroom, or starts a new job, at first there may not be any one other person in attendance that is particularly attractive to you. But after a few days/weeks at least ONE will start looking good. Or at least tolerable relative to the rest of the group.
That’s the danger of the 2008 Election, no one looks really attractive. So, will the American people be forced to settle again……?
Lisa: “No one really thinks like that. Do they?”
Is what Anonymous said a rationalization rather than a justification for voting? Here are some reasons to be wary of voting.
1. Isn't there a reason to believe our votes won’t be counted properly anyway? I mean even if we do go through the trouble of showing ID’s and the whole bit won’t Diebold still get it wrong?
2. Question, is the vote counting debacle deliberate or another demonstration of our government’s ineptness? The media certainly helps keep ideas in chaos.
3. There is the psychological conditioning of wanting to be “on the winning side” some of the general public contends with. And the general lack of knowledge about the issues also.
Don’t vote. Exercising a choice that isn’t tallied properly, that isn’t a factor in the end result, and which helps perpetuate a myth that “the people choose” leadership isn’t worth it.
Drew: Your #3 is really something people have said. How idiotic is that? They will vote for the person who is ahead, who is 'winning.' They want to part of the 'winners' circle.' How insecure they must be.
Linnette, or is it a complacency to accept the candidates presented. "Well, I must accept either choice A or B"......? I don’t know if its insecurity as much as its human nature. Maybe it’s a primitive survival instinct to follow the pack? You eat better that way.
If you want an easy life don’t stray too far from the security of the pack.
What is it that prevents the majority from acting (not thinking, but ACTING) outside the box? A lot of people talk the talk, the minority walks the walk.
People talk about voting for the issues, not the candidate, but their actions don’t meet their words. It will take strong wills to turn the tide against the blind majority. It’s a major obstacle in getting a fair vote.
Not to mention the lack of knowledge. It is like fingernails on a chalkboard when I hear, “I’m voting for Hillary because we need a woman in office”.
Or, “I really liked Bill and YOU KNOW he will be on the sidelines, Hillary 2008”!
What about the issues? The media has done an excellent job providing election flotsam and jetsam for the A.D.D. folks out there.
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=f6r7ptl2y4
Elevator (and voting) psychology.
Love reading you, Drew. To borrow a phrase from Tavia, IMO you are the ultimate blogger. You don't just pontificate or state your opinion, you engage and provoke discussion. I really like your phrase "the blind majority."
If I have a decent, good choice, of course I vote proudly and with no apologies, like I did for Ron Paul in the California primary.
But, at the risk of sounding like I didn't hear a word you said, Drew, rightly or wrongly this is an example my voting idiosyncrasy the last 8 years:
I am absolutely a FISCAL conservative, thus would normally never, ever vote for a liberal, yet, perceiving Bush's very dangerous, fascist mind-set, I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry.
On it's face, that may appear so misguided a motivation for voting, but looking at Bush's record, I'm proud that I voted AGAINST him twice. Bush has gone further than I ever imagined (Patriot Act rushed through in the middle of the night, ETC., ETC., ETC., even screaming, "The Constitution's just a goddamned piece of paper!" at one point).
I am very dismayed at the severe erosion of our liberties, thanks to Bush. Would LOVE to see him impeached! They say that McCain is "Bush on steriods" --- THAT in mind, I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat just as I did for Gore and Kerry.
I guess what I'm saying is: this discussion is on, should we vote for the lesser of two evils? I clearly did. Was I wrong to?
Perhaps no one can answer that for another and it's a matter of conscience. But threw it out there in the interest of the discussion here. I boldly took a stand. ha!
This thread is a hit, Linnette. I keep coming back to it. ha. The video that Drew posted could be a thread all by it self. It brings up such an interesting subject, on the degree to which we compromise ourselves and our individuality just to fit in and be accepted.
I honestly don't think I would have conformed as any of the subjects did in that video, nor do I think any of my siblings would have. One reason being, that that situation is just too frontal a demand for compromise. We would instinctively reject conformity that obvious. Our parents really gave us the idea of being individuals and having minds of our own.
But what about compromise and conformity in other ways, more subtle and less obvious, where our capitulation would not be that noticeable? Food for an interesting discussion here, I'd say.
Someone I know, who's the biggest supporter of Hillary, always says, "If you don't vote you can't complain!" That is so like a true-blue Democrat, wanting everything to be available, and wanting everyone to fall into line and do their part to make the system work.
I think people vote for whoever makes the most promises. That's how politicians gain popular support, by convincing the people that government will take care of everyone.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill
Whoa Lisa! Great Winston Churchill
quote! Isn't that the truth? My boss always says he does not believe in Democracy for that exact reason.
A vote for a Republican or Democrat is a vote for the Council on Foreign Relations. Obama, Clinton, McCain are all members of the CFR. Of course, Ron Paul, is not.
Tave, your boss sounds like a neat person to talk to.
Here's another perspective, this comes from Ron Paul: "Those who hold political power would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed.
The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us-- we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion."
Excellent! That Ron Paul sure is a smart guy!
Yes Lisa! That is a good quote there. I think the Libertarian philosophy would make sense to anyone if they just examined it a little. I think most people are Libertarian, they just don't realize it.
Ron Paul is good at explaining it. His new book is really good as Barry Goldwater Jr. said about the book, "The real truth about Liberty. This book takes a wrecking ball to the political establishment."
I like the way he put that.
"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify them, or vilify them. But the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do."
— Jack Kerouac
Hmmm. Makes you think, huh? Serious!
Yeah Tave, that is a neat way to put it: "The real truth about Liberty. This book takes a wrecking ball to the political establishment."
Wrecking ball. Powerful! lol
Ron Paul is a wrecking ball to the two-party system.
Like that? lol
Post a Comment