I'm putting this in the Free Thoughts section because I don't really intend this as a political topic, but more of an express yourself, free yourself of the burden type topic. :)

In another thread I posted my voting history, from the first time until the present, and last night I thought it would be interesting to see others. If you would like to unload your voting history on us, please do. If you think this is a private thing, then don't.

Here's mine:

U.S.A.

1988 - George H. W. Bush (I was 18.)
1992 - Ross Perot (I didn't like Clinton, though now I do.)
1996 - Ross Perot
2000 - Ralph Nader (I hated george w. and Gore, so what was I to do?)
2004 - John Kerry

2008 - Not a republican, that's for sure.

Let us here yours.

i don't vote (by choice)

1998-present - no voting by choice
1988-1998 - socialist party

Socialistische partij (http://www.sp.nl/)

92 Clinton
96 Clinton
00 Gore
04 Kerry (although properly, I should have been able to re-elect Gore)

:) Yep.

spurious:

Why no voting? Aren't you just giving up and opting out by not voting?

Your only chance to change anything is to vote, isn't it? (Or to run...)

1988 - Ronald E. Paul (Libertarian Party)
1992 - John Hagelin (Natural Law Party)
1996 - John Hagelin (Natural Law Party)
2000 - John Hagelin (Natural Law and Reform Party)
2004 - Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party)

Natural Law Party (http://www.natural-law.org/) website
Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/) website

spurious:

Why no voting? Aren't you just giving up and opting out by not voting?

Your only chance to change anything is to vote, isn't it? (Or to run...)

After careful analysis I concluded that the middle always wins in the Netherlands. Sometimes they are slightly more left, sometimes slightly more right. But on a grand scale it doesn't matter who wins the elections, because the endresult is always the middle.

Not voting seems to be the only possible vote left besides voting for the middle. If you vote outside the middle or the middle than the middle thinks they have the support of the people. And can claim there are no problems. By not voting (and I hope more and more people will do this) the middle cannot claim everything is well. A disinterest in politics is worrysome to politicians because their authority is based upon it.

Not voting is also voting.

I don't vote and never will, unless to give voice to someone that thinks they can make a difference in this system who is otherwise denied that chance.

I'm waiting for a fuckwit worth voting for. Politicians are the only group of people that should not be allowed to run a damned nation.

spuriousmonkey:

Aren't there any "protest" parties in the Netherlands? Why not make a statement against the "middle" by casting a protest vote?

Yeah, come on, dude. VOTE. People all over the world are dying for this right. Though, I think I am of the opinion that you are probably right in one sense. Voting seems to mean less and less. No matter who is elected, shit stays the same, or so it seems. The seeming non-change is dangerous though.

A disinterest in politics is worrysome to politicians because their authority is based upon it. I have to strongly disagree with this though. They don't care if only 20% of the populous turns out to vote. They still HAVE all the power. YOU are still giving it to them. Inaction by citizens means you are giving up whatever power you do have, while they still have theirs. When you give up your power, theirs grows. This leads to fascism. Surely you remember Hitler? Please vote.

Anyone else feel like posting your voting history?

I don't vote, there is no party in my country which is acceptable to me (i.e., liberal).
Our democratic tradition has not yet matured so much that politicians are really representatives of the people rather than being directly owned by business magnates.

Voting sucks. Damn republic.

Then become a citizen of some country that's not a republic. May I suggest Turkmenistan? It's run by one supreme and mentally ill leader. You'll like there, all non supporters of the regime are in prison or have been forced to become camel herders, etc.

Well, fuck you then, Hapsburg! You're too young yet anyway. :p

I don't vote, there is no party in my country which is acceptable to me (i.e., liberal).Yea, I think you are getting at the root of an issue. This is one of the corruptions of democracies that noone really seems to care about, or know about, or suspect, or fucking care about. Spreading freedom to Iraq? More like free market disguised as freedom, which are too totally different things, imo.
Our democratic tradition has not yet matured so much that politicians are really representatives of the people rather than being directly owned by business magnates.I know what you mean, even here in america the great. Fucking pisses me off!!

Who was up against the first bush? Crap I don't remember. Know I didn't vote for Bush though...

EDIT: looked it up, sure didn't vote for dukakis either. weird. I wonder if I even voted? I'm confused. lol. Maybe I didn't vote the first time I could have.

Perot (I wanted to see what that crazy lil bastard would do in charge, shake things up)

Clinton (who ran against him?)

EDIT: Yah Dole, man I didn't like that guy. Clinton's charm and ease won the election easy. I don't respect Clinton much on the whole "ethical politician" front, but damn that guy is still, IMO, an advanced political animal.

Gore (hated bush)

Bush (quit hating bush, hated kerry)

So much hate is not good for your nervous system and the general well being of psyche, wesmorris ;)

Who was up against the first bush? Dukakis? (sp)

Perot (I wanted to see what that crazy lil bastard would do in charge, shake things up)
Me too. I liked that crazy lil bastard. "Now listen here." "You gonna let me speak?!"

Clinton (who ran against him?)Dole?

So much hate is not good for your nervous system and the general well being of psyche, wesmorris ;)

Thanks goodness it only rolls around every four years then eh? Hehe.

I actually DID hate Bush the recent at first. HATE. The thought of him made me cringe. It took me a while to realize I was being a stupid bastard, and shouldn't hate him for being who he is.

Kerry I don't really hate, but the fucker creeps me out and he's obviously (to me) more out of touch with reality than W. Plus I think Kerry's sorta treacherous, with his vietnam horsecrap. I don't blame him for wanting out of there, but I think he's a scumbag for lying about not wanting out of there and taking a purple heart for what he did while, when it became to his political advantage... he denied he took it because he wanted out of there. Dude thought he was going to be president and surely couldn't risk himself more than necessary, which is fine... I wouldn't want to either, but to pretend later "I'm a war hero" is just SICK in my mind. Any "war hero" who would stand there in a suit proclaming to be one, almost surely isn't.

But I'm not trying to stir shit... don't want to argue about it. I just started typing and that's what came out.

yeah, but I thought he could actually use his brain, unlike w.

Well, fuck you then, Hapsburg! You're too young yet anyway. :p
Eh! Meh! :p
Lichtenstein is more my fancy. Near-absolute monarch, but it's a tax haven and it's people have many, many civil liberties. Me likey.

Didn't Heath Ledger, as that pretend Knight, in that hilarious movie about the middle ages (you know the one, with the cool classic rock music), say he was from a place called Lichtenstein? Where is Lichtenstein by the way?

It's a small principality 'tween Austria and Switzerland, near the beginning point of the Rhine river. It's a tax haven, and a constitutional monarchy. Thus, it kicks ass. :D

Sounds good. Before I look into it, is it hard to immigrate to it? Do you know?

Is it between Austria and Switzerland?

The film you are talking about is "Knight's Tale" and the music is from the British band Queen.

Yeah, slipped my mind for some reason. Love that movie. Seen it about 6 times. And of course I love Queen. Wasn't it Lichtenstein he said he was from for the jousting gods?

He did, Sir Ulrich of Lichtenstein if I remember correctly. But this is offtopic ;)

Oh for fuck's sake, do I have to do everything?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ls.html

He did, Sir Ulrich of Lichtenstein if I remember correctly. But this is offtopic ;)

Yeah, you're right, but this is my thread, and I don't really care right now. :)

well during this years election(despite not being able to vote because of the agesint govt):
i campaigned for liberal voters in my electorate to vote for labour(instead of greens, progressives or maori party) in the hopes of toppling the national majority which had split among the 4 capitalist parties

i campaigned to get jim anderton the electorate seat, while having his voters split their vote and give their party vote to labour since the progressives would be unable to make the 5% quorum to gain list seats

and i took part in a number of greens projects and campaigns throughout this and last year(we unfortunalely came 2000 party votes shourt of a 7th seat in parliament.

next year when i am eligable to vote, i will most likely split my vote to give the greens my party vote and labour my electorate vote(unless i am in a strong greens electorate where we might be able to get the seat without coalition.

People who can and don't vote irritate me. There is no perfect candidate. There never be anyone you like exclusively, with all of their pros and cons. But voting means that you back the party that nominated him, and support the majority of his/her policies and ideals. You don't have to support everything they stand for, but 80% is a good margin.

People who choose not to vote are the reason we have people like Bush in office in the US. Because you don't care about your country and how it's run, you will have to suffer the laws written, the laws passed and the stupid policies taken up by a candidate you can't support at all just because you were selfish enough to think that if you didn't vote, you couldn't be responsible for what happened. But you are more irresponsible not voting at all and allowing people into office who shouldn't be there and do not support the majority of voters.

spuriousmonkey:

Aren't there any "protest" parties in the Netherlands? Why not make a statement against the "middle" by casting a protest vote?

I used to do that by voting for the SP.

Kotoko:

People who do vote irritate me. That's the reason why bush has been elected.

Voting/not-voting is a two edged sword.

As i explained earlier the explicit non-vote is a protest vote too.

I would never vote for a president anyway. I firmly believe that no single person should have as much power.

People who can and don't vote irritate me. There is no perfect candidate. There never be anyone you like exclusively, with all of their pros and cons. But voting means that you back the party that nominated him, and support the majority of his/her policies and ideals. You don't have to support everything they stand for, but 80% is a good margin.
There is no liberal party in my country. What, should I vote for communists? Or maybe the christian block? Or the one representing local food producers? Or the oil and gas transit mini-dukes? Maybe the Green party that gives no shit about nature and is interested only in exporting our trees and has been more than once responsible for polluting our rivers because it didn't react to sugar factories dumping excessive amounts of chemicals and said that it's too late when one of our largest rivers was almost sterilised of life? And they have the god damn post for the Minister of Environment!! He didn't even step down, but was directly responsible for a huge environmental disaster! Guess what, the factory responsible for that is operating again, because that's too important for the local food producing industry! Ha!

There is no party in this disgusting duck pond that has done at least something to earn my vote. Everything is so corrpted here that voting is useless, just because all the parties are owned by very rich people or big business who care only for their own good, not the good of the country.

And know what's happening? Rampant emigration! Soon this country will be empty and only polititians and pensioners will remain. There are some cities in Ireland where every 5th person is Latvian. This country is going doooooooooooooooown

I always wondered why there can't be a simple voting option that says:

I do not vote for any party (or candidate) because none of them were satisfactory.

Of course I know why. Almost everybody would vote for this option.

i don't vote (by choice)

Not voting is rolling the dice. If you don't like the outcome, then you can only blame yourself, because by not voting for the other person, you have allowed the person you don't like in to office by not voting against them.

I'm waiting for a fuckwit worth voting for. Politicians are the only group of people that should not be allowed to run a damned nation.

Agreed.

What if there is no party to vote for, i.e., all are equally unliked? (In Latvia we don't vote for individual polititians).
You haven't answered that question.

Make a party then. Or find an obscure party and promote it.

Do you think the Natural Law Party or the Libertarian Party in the U.S. gets any recognition at all? No. But I vote for them anyway, because I believe in their politics. I vote for them because it's one less vote for someone I can't stand. I don't care if it makes a difference, but I care that the party gets recognized. The two party system is bunk, and it's crap. No one knows what the parties stand for anymore, and the lines are so wild it's scary. We couldn't vote for one party or the other now, it's too vague. But we can change that by promoting alternate parties and attempting to promote a third and fourth party into the running. I am hoping it will happen in my lifetime. If not, at least I can rest well knowing that I cared and that I tried instead of being lazy.

You are a smart guy, Avatar. If you see something wrong with your country, change it.

If you see something wrong with your country, change it.
The polititians represent our people, their values in life, etc. They are not aliens from another planet - they are our people.
Therefore in order to change any country its' people have to be changed, the society has to. Same applies for the whole world. A party can not do that.
A party is just a manifestation of the interests and goals. There can be no psychologically strong party if the people are psychologically weak.

Therefore the people have to be changed first. And that's not to be done in years, but in decades and centuries.
And I'm contributing to it through works of art and culture and not just for my immediate society. And I intend to do the same for the rest of my life and though there is no end for this road, the journey is what matters.
The worst thing that can happen in a society is the stagnation of it.

Voting is just marking something that has already been achieved. There's no meaning in voting, if nothing progressive has been achieved.

So, in order to vote, either this country has to get out of stagnation, or I have to move to some country with more advanced/developed society.
But in the end our planet is one society too. Humankind.

Some points:

I promoted an obscure party when I was young (SP- a radical socialist party - read communist if you are american). Now they are not obscure anymore. They don't need my protest vote anymore. They are the third biggest party now (when regarding amount of members). I did my thing. They don't need my help at the moment because it is a very active party. All the members are very involved. I sometimes thought about coming a member, but then I kind of know I will never live in the Netherlands again in my life.

There are no other parties that I would think are worthy of my vote.

I cannot make my own political party because I am not living in my country.

I do not want to make a political party because I despise politics.

Be radical and popular enough and you get assassinated (Pim Fortyn). I would be radical. I do not want to die for a hopeless cause.

I cannot be a politician because I'm too honest.

And as I said before: the political middle always wins the election in the Netherlands. That's the nature of the democratic system in that particular country. No single party can rule. No single person can rule. The situation is not the same as in the US. Our political middle is extreme lefty in the US. It's not like a monster like Bush would ever get into power.
EDIT - this kind of could refer back to Avatar's post. I cannot change Dutch society as I am no longer part of it.


What would I do if I were a US citizen? I would emigrate. ( I wouldn't of course, because if I would be a US citizen and lived in the US for my entire life I wouldn't be me. I would be someone else.)

When people have no faith in the youth of it's country, then yes they start not to care. If they don't feel you care, why should they?

Religion is the problem in the United States more so than Politics.
Always has been.

1988 - Ronald E. Paul (Libertarian Party)
1992 - John Hagelin (Natural Law Party)
1996 - John Hagelin (Natural Law Party)
2000 - John Hagelin (Natural Law and Reform Party)
2004 - Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party)

Natural Law Party (http://www.natural-law.org/) website
Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/) website
Wow, you really are a hippy.

politicians and politic is about lying the most and backstabbing, just for that i have always voted blank.

you could always do what my brother did during this election... labour had an 80% majority in his electorate anyway, and he knew labour would go centrist on us and ditch the greens like they always do. so he drew a whale on his voting paper and said "i vote for the whale" and put an arrow to it.

I simply refuse to vote. I'm not going to vote for someone that will lie to me, steal from me and enrich himself / herself at the nations expense. They all do it to some degree.

92 Clinton
96 Clinton
00 Gore
04 Kerry (although properly, I should have been able to re-elect Gore)

This is my voting history as well.

1992: George Bush Sr. the man almost fixed Reagan 8 years of mistake in only four years
1996: Wrote in: Obi-wan Kenobi
2000: George W. Bush
2004: George W. Bush

Sorry for all those Kerry fans out there but I have trouble with a man who fakes a Vietnam picture, lies about being on a swift boat, and throws away his medals. Not to mention he can't seem to form a lasting opinion.

Kerry has some problems so you pick the worst candidate to punish him for it?

Kerry has some problems so you pick the worst candidate to punish him for it?

Actually i picked a man who proved he could do the job. If i was going to punish Kerry I would start a petition to hold him accountable for his acts of treason. But then again letting him realize he is the second most useless human on the planet is good enough for now

Some questions that pop into my mind:

Is doing the job enough. Or would you like your president to do a good job? Is Bush doing the job? Is the job being done for him? Is he doing bad job?

I don't vote.
I was in a septic tank once and shan't do it again.
The more that I learn about politicians and their doin's the uglier it gets. Toxic. And, do you really think that the 'elite' would really leave their power and behavior to the vagaries of the streetwalking voter who needs laws covering every aspect of his life because he is not 'evolved' to the point of running his own life in a responsible and intelligent and ethical manner?? Don't be naive, if you are allowed to 'vote', it obviously doesn't matter anyway! Hahahahaha...
Politicians at that level are all corrupt and voting just encourages them. I dont need them.

Sorry for all those Kerry fans out there but I have trouble with a man who fakes a Vietnam picture, lies about being on a swift boat, and throws away his medals. Not to mention he can't seem to form a lasting opinion.
Three out of four ain't bad.
Someone who never changes his opinion needs a brain enema! Or he's simply dead. A healthy opinion will change as new data is gathered, new understandings accessed... and 'that' hopefully quite often!
Unclench your mind!

Three out of four ain't bad.
Someone who never changes his opinion needs a brain enema! Or he's simply dead. A healthy opinion will change as new data is gathered, new understandings accessed... and 'that' hopefully quite often!
Unclench your mind!

A persons opinion should not change back and forth 5 times in fifteen minutes. Especially if is involving something of signifigance. I watch him do just that four times during that campaign year. Even if he hadn't done the other things that alone was enough to make me doubt his faculties.

A persons opinion should not change back and forth 5 times in fifteen minutes. Especially if is involving something of signifigance. I watch him do just that four times during that campaign year. Even if he hadn't done the other things that alone was enough to make me doubt his faculties.
Here's something even a Republikkkan can understand;
If *God* delivers five sequential revelations to this man, each powerful enough to alter his whole 'world view' within fifteen minutes, I would think that even a Republikkkan <spits in the dust> cannot deny him the grace to change his mind honestly and accordingly. Anything else would be hypocrisy, no?
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
Perhaps it is not the Mind alone that is 'clenched'?
"As above, so below?"
*__-

First of all it was the Republican's that ended slavery and the ancestor party of the Democrats who formed the KKK. Get it straight. Not to mention Nixon fought for civil liberties long before Kennedy. He was just blocked by those idle rich.

As for god giving him revelations, I doubt that god is of two opinions on the same subject. Kerry vacilated his opinion back and forth on Abortion, Gun ownership, Gay marraiges, and War on Terror. All controversial issues that could lose him votes. Either he is spineless or playing games. Either way I don't trust him.

First of all it was the Republican's that ended slavery and the ancestor party of the Democrats who formed the KKK. Get it straight. Not to mention Nixon fought for civil liberties long before Kennedy. He was just blocked by those idle rich.
I can accept a few small exceptions to the rule. Matters not a whit. All politicians are scum, and just because you can pull an alleged rabbit out of your hat diminishes the truth of my statement not at all.

As for god giving him revelations, I doubt that god is of two opinions on the same subject. Kerry vacilated his opinion back and forth on Abortion, Gun ownership, Gay marraiges, and War on Terror. All controversial issues that could lose him votes. Either he is spineless or playing games. Either way I don't trust him.
Kerry means nothing to me. My point was about the healthy altering of world-views as knowledge is gained; and about the fallacy of expecting consistency (unless it agrees with your ideas, that is).

Know what the opposite of 'liberalism' is? Selfishness!

Oh, I agree it is nice to have a open mind, but changing your opinion several times when you are the only person speaking smacks of insanity.

Know was an opposite of Conservatism is? Waste!

Oh, I agree it is nice to have a open mind, but changing your opinion several times when you are the only person speaking smacks of insanity.
Or spontaneity and honesty. Or insanity is a possibility, also.
"To live well one is fain, to live half Mad, half sane."

Know was an opposite of Conservatism is? Waste!
All perspective, I guess. One person's 'charity' and 'social responsibility' and 'generosity' can well be another person's 'waste'. I can see your point.
I'm outta here, happy holidays for you and yours.
Peace!