With all of the nonsense that is going on again. I am not voting again because the politicians are a bunch of idiots. Liars and scam artists. I think that they rip you off. No hard feelings towards them. I just cannot believe that these idiots think that I am that stupid as to believe their nonsense. Instead I am going to have a sandwich.
If the majority takes up your attitude, democracy will utterly fail everywhere, and you can enjoy a nice rat sandwich with me in prison camp.
I'm tempted to go the same route, but I would prefer to go an alternate route and look into the option of a third candidate. People say a vote for anyone other than one of the two party candidates is a wasted vote. I totally disagree. If you vote for someone just because he's either a Dem or Rep just because "that's what you're supposed to do" even though you don't agree with anything they stand on, THEN your vote is truly wasted. If you consider that it's likely none of the other candidates besides Bush or Kerry will have a remote chance of winning, why not just pick an alternate and vote for him? Since you hate all politicians, it will be OK because your man won't win anyway, but, at best, you will help to send a message that a 2 party system is ridiculous and that the Reps and Dems better shape up because more and more of their voting base can and will be eroded if more people go against the mainstream and vote outside of traditional party lines. Basically, to YOU, the result will be the same: You didn't give your endorsement to anyone that would have a chance to win, but to the general political arena, you made a statement. I guess you could argue that the statement wasn't truly YOURS so it was still a wasted vote, but I personally consider it to be akin to "taking one for the team." Hype is right. It's very important to exercise your right to vote. So few people do anymore, it's getting scary. It's really scary that so many people have problems with how things are going and have complaints about the government, yet so few vote. It's funny to me that we as a democratic society so abhor the notion of a dictatorial government with only one choice for a leader, yet many go apeshit over the notion of more than 2 choices.
I gotta disagree hype Just a hypothetical.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What would happen if the next election (US or UK) had a less than 10% turnout? What would 90%+ of the population know. What would the Government do? What Government? Democracy is already dead. What did Henry Ford say.. "Any colour you want.. as long as it's black" Not voting should not automatically be taken as an abdication of social responsibility. Perhaps, as a UK citizen, it is an easier position to make as our Political culture has, at least some expectation of honourable conduct. But yeah maybe your right. In the US the prez would probably still hold a 'victory' party... Two names on the ballot, Hitler and Pol Pot Who gets your vote? Dee Cee
With only those two choices, I would vote with my feet, or possibly fight, depending on my situation. Now if the only choices were Pol Pot and George W. Bush, I would certainly participate, and cast my vote for Bush, with similar logic to what I am applying in this election, when I will be casting my vote for Kerry. Kerry is not the anti-Bush, and does not have a platform to right all wrongs of the Bush Administration, but he is the lesser of two weevils to me. As Chunky pointed out, there are alternative candidates, and it would say far more to vote for a write-in, than non-participation would say. Here is a directory of American political parties, and most states allow write-in voting. You can check your state for write-ins, and who was written in last time with these 2000 election results. Here is a list of 2004 candidates. Project Vote Smart is a great site in general to find out about the US Presidential election.
Dont some places have a "none of the above" option? It forces the election to be rerun with different candidates. I think it would be a help, but of course forcing such legislation through our electoral dictatorship here would be tricky. here in the UK a labour party committee is suggesting letting as young as 16 year olds vote. Like that'll make any different.
I didn't vote last election, but if my state seems like it might be close I probably will this time. I still think that relatively speaking there is no diffference between the republicans and the democrats, but thats not the same things as there being no difference at all. I think real change will not come from anyone within those parties and it is unlikely to come through elections at all. However, in the past it seemed like the democrats worked to keep things pretty much the way they are and the republicans to make things worse and as a result things got worse, but not as fast as the republicans wanted. It certainly seemed at the time of the last election like that would continue regardless of whether Bush or Gore won. 9/11 however has allowed Bush to make things worse at an alarmingly fast rate, so that voting in someone who will still not do any good and probably will not even undo bush's damage but will slow us back to our normal rate of degeneration seems like a good idea to allow time for the forces of real change to regroup and expand their reach.
I've brought this up before, but it's worth repeating. Votes for third parties have an influence far out of proportion to their number. The two conferences of the Republocrat League do not want the USA to turn into one of those countries with multiple parties, so they are always having to form a coalition. Whenever a third party gets strong enough that it looks like it might soon gain power, the Big Two pay attention. The Communist Party never won an important election in this country. Nothing higher than a seat on a small city's council. Yet that was enough to scare the big guys. Now understand that they don't really care about what kind of political and economic system we have here. All they care about is remaining in charge of it. So they began co-opting all of the Communist's principles. By the late 1950's, both parties had adopted the entire Communist Party platform of 1928. It's the Democrats who by tradition and mutual agreement get to wear the "liberal" mask (think Mexican wresting here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), so they get the credit for all of the "leftist" government programs of the past century, and the Republicans dutifully excoriate them for it. Nice wrestling match. Well-scripted, and the fans are about equally divided between the "leftist" and the "conservative" wrestler. Except, if you happened to be there as I was, it turned out that it was Eisenhower, a Republican president, who integrated the schools and established the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Whereas it was Kennedy, a Democrat, who kicked the Cold War into high gear and turned it into a Hot War in Vietnam. And Reagan, another Republican, who added that latest zero to the National Debt. Public education, equal rights for women... I can't quote the entire Communist Party platform, but all I have to do is look around me and I can see it not only having become a reality, but working far more effectively than it ever did under Stalin and his successors and imitators. Seventy years of uninterrupted rule by Democrats and Republicans accomplished that. And where is the U.S. Communist Party today? It's not even on the ballot in California. Check the ballot in your own state, I don't think it exists any more except in some guy's attic with a PC and a fax machine. So if you're like me and want the Constitution restored, please vote Libertarian. If you want the government to micromanage the ecosystem with all the skill and success that it's shown in the economy, vote Green. (Sorry, I'm a Libertarian so it's not easy for me to describe the Green platform as anything except the Reds with a trendy new color. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) If you believe in... well whatever the American Independent Party stands for, vote for them. We don't have to beat the Democrats and Republicans. All we have to do is scare them in order to get them to steal our causes and pretend that they were in favor of them all along. All it takes to make that happen is a very small percentage of the vote, something like two percent. That said, I have to admit that this year I will not be voting for the Libertarian candidate. I will vote for Whoever Is Running Against Bush. And that's exactly what I call him, I don't care what his name is. (I would have voted for Sharpton if he got the nomination, I'm not kidding.) Bush has taken the destruction of the Constitution to a new level. Invading a sovereign nation, overthrowing its government, and leaving it in chaos. The Patriot Act. The Halliburton monopoly. His leadership is qualitatively worse than anyone since Roosevelt. (I'm not picking on FDR, I just wasn't old enough to see him in action.) Four more years of this and America as we know it may not exist any more. It's imperative that Bush be removed from office and it's worth sacrificing my Libertarian principles to achieve a greater goal. I know Kerry is just another politican too. (I really do remember his name.) But he's not the totally selfish, indebted-to-the-corporate-mob, nouveau aristocrat who doesn't give a rat's patootie about the common people, that Bush is. The last election was won by just a few thousand votes. This time you vote could really make a difference. Use it any way you want, but please use it.
