"I'm voting for Nader!"

[furtech]

This is bound to ruffle the feathers of many people. Everyone's all about, "Vote for Kerry because he isn't Bush." I have yet to see any good reasons that Kerry would make a good president.

I won't vote for someone just to vote against someone else: to do so is a perversion of what I see as the spirit of what a democracy is. I need to have a reason to vote *for* someone; not having a good chance to win is poor reason to -not- vote for someone. I could just as easily vote for the Libertarian or Green candidate-- is that just as bad? Our political system is built around *choice*. You can choose to vote for whomever for whatever reason-- but don't denigrate me for exercising my right to choose.

Two further things: the election is almost half a year away and a lot can happen between now and then. Second, I never reveal whom I voted for. I've voted in every single election since I could vote and I vote for the people I believe in. That's more than a lot of people can say.

Comments

[shadowolf.livejournal.com]

I didn't come up with the argument, kaysho said it himself a few weeks ago (though I can't find the specific post right now...)

Essentially let's say you have 3 candidates, A, B, and C (or N, K, and B :) Some folks like A's policies best, and are good with B's, but A is the better fit for them. They do not want C because they don't like the idea of him as a leader.

Ditto for the people who like B. They admire A's stand, but B is more in line with their ideals. Again, C is not an option for them.

The C folks, they don't like B at all, and don't want A either.

Now you can do the math in however you like, but let's say that 40% of the people like C, 35% like B, and 25% like A best of all. C wins the election, even though C is the 3rd choice of the majority of people who voted in the election. You could even make that narrower by saying 49% like C, 48% like B, and only 3% like A. Exact same outcome.

Now if you don't like B or C, and really like A, then by all means, vote for A and be happy with the outcome. Maybe A will get that 5% and be on the ballot next election, too.

However, if the thought of B as your president doesn't turn your stomach, then voting for A, especially if you know A has no true chance of winning, is only going to help C win.


On a different tangent, I am curious about this whole silent-vote process people have. My mom did the same thing, she would never tell someone who she voted for. I don't quite understand it myself, could you elaborate on why?

[furtech.livejournal.com]

I understand the argument (the "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."), and that some wish Bush out at any cost. I just don't agree with this method. The whole point of our system is based around free choice.

My counter argument to the N-K-B argument is that if K (and his party) had actually done more to mollify the N-supporters, N wouldn't feel the need to run. Without N, or any other candidate, there is no impetus for K and his party to change. Buchanan did the same thing to the Republican party some years ago.

Kerry is quoted as saying, in answer to a question by Nader on energy policy, "Wait and see when I become president." That kind of rhetoric (by Kerry) is exactly what scares me about him.

Regarding the silent vote process: My hat goes off to your mom! The reasoning behind not revealing your vote is exactly why the ballots are anonymous. One should never feel pressure to vote because of peer pressure; the act of voting should be of one's own mind-- one of the few times in our lives we have that privilege.

[shadowolf.livejournal.com]

I'd use your counter-argument as the reason in 1992 that I voted for Perot. I'm a registered Republican, but I do not like the NeoCons and the Hawks. Can't stand their policies, and don't like where they're leading our country.

I dream some days that Kerry picks McCain as his VP, and McCain accepts, but the odds of *that* happening.... I have die-hard Republican friends who are upset that they don't have anyone they feel they can vote for in the upcoming election. I'm moderate enough that I'll deal with Kerry, I don't think he'll be the best president, but he'll be better than Bush.

Good reasoning on the anonymous ballot issue :) I'm willing to entertain a certain degree of discussion about politics, but it's a very heated issue, and rarely can be discussed civilly for so long. Some folks just don't have the time or desire to get into such discussions.

No matter who you finally vote for, so long as you have a good reason to vote for that person, is fine. That you've gone out and voted is enough for me.

Vote! Vote! Vote!

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Regardless of *whom* you choose, the most important thing is to vote! The more people who vote, the better the process works. It's entirely possible that the existence of Nader (and the threat some perceive he represents) will cause more people to participate-- probably better for Kerry than Bush (Dems are notorious for being fair-weather voters).

My feelings about voting were fostered by my parents, who made me understand the right/privilege/importance of a single vote (one's own). Very immigrant-minded.

While I may not care for who is elected, I still support their legitimacy.

Re: Vote! Vote! Vote!

[okojosan.livejournal.com]

I was in Chile in 2000 for their presidential elections. Over 80% of their population votes, and everyone from street vendors to taxi drivers to tour guides knew a lot about the issues and could discuss the candidates really well. I was impressed.

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

*nodnod* As I wrote later in this thread, I wish more people could feel empowered like that, in this society. I'm not sure what it'll take either :|
Don't we average about a 15 to 20 % turnout in most elections.. if that? And even on an LJ post which, in very rare case, I humbly pleaded for responses to a particular entry, just to get a at least a brief comment from everyone, I only got a 30% response *sniffle*.

Marx-ism?

[sk-1.livejournal.com]

Kerry is quoted as saying, in answer to a question by Nader on energy policy, "Wait and see when I become president."

Heh, that sounds a lot like Grouch Marx as Rufus T. Firefly in "Duck Soup"...

o/~
The last man nearly ruined this place
He didn't know what to do with it
If you think this country's bad enough now
Just wait 'til I get through with it!
o/~

Drop me a note off LJ if you can, I try to keep my political viewpoints away from this forum as much as possible, bud I'd like to give you my thoughts on this matter privately. That is, if you don't mind.

[chrissawyer.livejournal.com]

As much as I think Kerry is a dork, I think it is important to remove dubya asap.

Can you imagine if he's reelected? I'm sure he's been restraining himself somewhat due to reelection aspirations. :o

It irks me that Kerry is the best that the Dems can come up with.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

So you're going to vote for a guy who has virtually identical views on Gay rights as Bush? Personally, I would find it difficult to support a candidate that I morally opposed, but (obviously) your mileage may differ! I'm still skeptical that he'll risk ex-communication over pro-choice issues.

My problem is with the party system: in recent years we seem doomed to nominate candidates that best represent the extreme views of that party. I'm a rabid moderate...and it's been a long time since a moderate has been elected (Nixon, surprisingly).

Frick vs Frack

[chuck-melville.livejournal.com]

So you're going to vote for a guy who has virtually identical views on Gay rights as Bush? Personally, I would find it difficult to support a candidate that I morally opposed, but (obviously) your mileage may differ! I'm still skeptical that he'll risk ex-communication over pro-choice issues.

Even so, Kerry is still preferred over W. As bad as Kerry might be, he'll seem like a freaking picnic compared to another four years of W. It really does comes down to a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, like it or not, and if that's the sort of choice we have, then something was dreadfully wrong with the primary system, that such unsavory choices were ever made to begin with. (Me, I was pushing for Clark; Kerry is even more wooden and uninspiring than Gore.) After what happened in Florida during the 2000 elections, I sure as hell will make sure I put my vote where it will do the most good in unseating W, even if it puts in a candidate who is only better in comparison to the incumbent; and I don't want to risk allowing W to win because I abstained and withheld my vote altogether.

My problem is with the party system: in recent years we seem doomed to nominate candidates that best represent the extreme views of that party. I'm a rabid moderate...and it's been a long time since a moderate has been elected (Nixon, surprisingly).

Even then, Kerry isn't really that extreme a view, unless you're a conservative Republican. He's just not near enough Liberal to be enticing, and certainly not enough to be a proper 'mirror' image to W's conservatism. Like Clinton, he sees a better chance of getting elected by appealing to the center and conservative Dems, and frankly, I don't think there's enough there to give him the election; I think he'd stand a far better chance, to gauge the response of audience reaction to "Farenheit 9/11", by appealing to the Liberals and damn the conservative rhetoric.

To be honest, I'd favor a Nader presidency -- I respect his integrity and views, and think it would make for an interesting four years. But I won't vote for him so long as he's a third party candidate. Not so much because of any distaste or disagreement with the Greens as for the fact that -- IF he gets elected -- he'd have no support mechanism. There is no way in hell any significant number of Green candidates would ever get elected to have any weighty presence in either House or Senate to support any bills he might want pushed through. He would be an impotent president, there, but unable to do anything but fight with the Congress. Hence, I'm not about to piss away my vote on him. Not unless the Green stage some sort of miraculous revolution of voter interest between now and Election Day.

[was1.livejournal.com]

As people have mentioned before, this is the problem with a two-party system. Voting for an independant is essentially throwing your vote away, but we'll never change the system if people don't vote more for the independants.

It's a catch-22 and individuals need to decide what's more important, keeping Bush out of the white house for another term, or sending a message to try and change the system down the road. Personally, I think keeping Bush out is a much more pressing concern.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with what you said, especially regarding the two-party system and independents.

Unfortunately, that catch-22 is complex and has multiple facets: the best time (IMO) to vote for the independents is *exactly* when they can affect an election. If they were a non-factor, who would listen to them? This is the time when the indies actually have a chance to gain influence, in actual offices they can be elected to (as happened in Germany with the Green Party and recently in Japan with the Socialists). On the other hand, if the party they most threaten makes some fundamental changes before the election, maybe people might return to support them. I'm more of a "believe it when I see it" guy: they've had four years to make or push for changes and virtually nothing was accomplished. I won't fall for that, "If you vote for me now, this time it will be different," BS.

[shadowolf.livejournal.com]

I have to thank Cargo for the link, and it's appropriate to the discussion. A story about Republicans in Oregon pushing to get Nader on the ballot:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20040625/ap_on_el_pr/nader_convention

I'm pretty sure the Democrats would be doing the same if it were a moderate Republican, too.

Excellent points... all

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

Look how long (some 60 years) it took to get the prevaling party out of power in Mexico... and we've got TWO prevailing ones here... but it *can* be done.... if fewer people we're voting as disappointed followers, and more as the kind who realize *we* the voters should be the government.

[dustmeat.livejournal.com]

THere is a term in Texas called "Yellow Dog Democrat"
It means someone who will vote Democrat in an election even if a yellow dog is running for office

I'd never heard that expression...

[furtech.livejournal.com]

Bwah-haha! Thank you for that! I'm sure there's an equivalent Republican expression...!

Re: I'd never heard that expression...

[sk-1.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there's an equivalent Republican expression (for "Yellow Dog Democrat")

I think the term, at least according to most media outlets, is "closed-minded fascist" :)