Posted on 05/21/2008 10:01:44 AM PDT by mukraker
My ballot is my voice. What you're saying is that my voice only actually registers if I cry out the name of the frontrunner I hate the least for fear of the one I hate the most. I take it then that you do not believe that third party candidates should even be allowed on the ballot since they're an "unrealistic choice?" After all, it would be better if all Americans chose only between the ones with a "realistic chance of winning" so that their ballots will actually have "value."
So very, very sad that you've bought into the lie these politicians have sold you.
“What you have isn’t realism...it’s pragmatism (which is really just absence of clear principle).”
It sounds as if you think being ‘pragmatic’ is a bad thing. Well, pragmatism does reject the dogmatic adherence to rigid principle and it does reject the unpractical ideal. But, let me ask you this: why would you want to follow ‘prinicples’ if those principles lead you to misfortune? Should you not seek other ‘principles’ that provide more beneficial results? Now, also, let me ask this: exactly what benefit do you get from voting third party? Do you have a say in who becomes president? Or, do you only get a nice fuzzy feeling that you are somehow a special person who values principle more than results?
“My ballot is my voice. What you’re saying is that my voice only actually registers if I cry out the name of the frontrunner I hate the least for fear of the one I hate the most.”
You seem to have placed a very high value on your ‘voice’. Do you really think that either party really cares about fringe third party believers? Elections are won or lost by those who can seize and control the center. That’s where the votes are.
“I take it then that you do not believe that third party candidates should even be allowed on the ballot since they’re an “unrealistic choice?” After all, it would be better if all Americans chose only between the ones with a “realistic chance of winning” so that their ballots will actually have “value.””
You really shouldn’t try to put words in other peoples mouths. I have no issue with third parties being on ballots. My issue is with those who actually think that voting third party accomplishes any thing useful. Look at it this way “Voting third party is like peeing in your pants while wearing a dark suit. It gives you a nice warm feeling but nobody notices.”
“So very, very sad that you’ve bought into the lie these politicians have sold you.”
Oh, my FreeperFriend, I’ve bought into nothing sold by any politician. I think the best of them are only slightly better than used car salesmen or shyster lawyers. Since I think none of them are particularly ‘principled’ or ‘trustworthy’ I totally reject the idea that voting for any of them is anything else but choosing between the ‘lesser of two evils’. All politicians are ‘evil’. You have absolutely no other choice but to choose between lesser shades of evil.
Which brings us to my original point. Which of the two policians that will be running will cause the least amount of difficulties should they be elected? Voting for who ever you think will cause that least amount of trouble is really the only way your ‘voice’ will be heard.
A 'principle' is not something chosen based on beneficial outcomes. It's based on belief in truth. To reduce principles to matters of expediency and convenience as you are is to be no better than the unprincipled and untrustworthy politicians between which you are choosing.
Now, also, let me ask this: exactly what benefit do you get from voting third party? Do you have a say in who becomes president? Or, do you only get a nice fuzzy feeling that you are somehow a special person who values principle more than results?
Your question belies your entrapment in a self-fulfilling pessimism. My principle is not to vote third party no matter what...my principle is to vote for whomever I think best for the job. This time around it happens to be a third party candidate. It seems inconceivable to you that a candidate from a party other than the Democrat or Republican parties could possibly win, and therefore you consider it a waste of a vote. In fact, such a position guarantees they will never win because votes are the essential factor.
Every person who casts a vote has a say in who becomes president. You seem however to believe that only those who voted for a winner really had a say. Whether the losing candidate I vote for lost by 45% of the vote or the candidate you vote for lost by 5%, the fact remains that either we both "had a say" or neither of us did because neither of us brought about the election of the winner.
You really shouldn’t try to put words in other peoples mouths. I have no issue with third parties being on ballots. My issue is with those who actually think that voting third party accomplishes any thing useful.
Interesting. Do you not think that the candidacy of H. Ross Perot in 1992 had any effect whatsoever in the outcome of that election? Do you not think that the candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000 had any effect on one of the closest elections in history?
Third party candidates do make a difference, and they are indeed noticed. That's not mere opinion...it's historically demonstrable fact, friend.
“A ‘principle’ is not something chosen based on beneficial outcomes. It’s based on belief in truth.”
Really? You expect a ‘pragmatist’ to agree with that? Something that does not produce beneficial results will be quickly abandoned.
“To reduce principles to matters of expediency and convenience as you are is to be no better than the unprincipled and untrustworthy politicians between which you are choosing.”
Those ‘unprincipled and untrustworthy politicians’ are human. You act as if they should behave as angels. The only way to avoid disappointment is to base your actions on this one principle - a politician will always act in his own best interest.
“my principle is to vote for whomever I think best for the job.”
Even if that person has no chance of winning? I balance the chance of winning with my perception of which politician will do the least harm. It’s a trade-off obviously.
“You seem however to believe that only those who voted for a winner really had a say.”
Not really. I believe that there is no reason to cast a ballot for someone who does not stand a reasonable chance of winning.
“Do you not think that the candidacy of H. Ross Perot in 1992 had any effect whatsoever in the outcome of that election? Do you not think that the candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000 had any effect on one of the closest elections in history?”
You seem to be confusing having an effect with accomplishing something useful. Perot’s candidacy accomplished nothing useful. (Unless one is a democrat.)
Now, Nader did accomplish something useful. He helped put Bush into office but I doubt that was the intention of those who voted for him. But, that is a perfect example of the futility of voting third party. The only result is often detrimental to those who vote third party. But, then, you don’t care about benefits, do you?
Well, no. It's one thing to speak of pragmatism as a concept, but clearly as a 'pragmatist' you HAVE no principles (except, of course, that of pragmatism itself). Underlying your view of course is the notion that the only result that could be considered "beneficial" is that of being on the winning side of the election at hand. I disagree completely.
The only way to avoid disappointment is to base your actions on this one principle - a politician will always act in his own best interest.
That's amuzing, coming from a pragmatist. :) What happens when adherence to that 'principle' is shown to produce undesired results?
Even if that person has no chance of winning? I balance the chance of winning with my perception of which politician will do the least harm. It’s a trade-off obviously.
Well, I'm glad you can sleep at night. Not everybody can sear their conscience like that.
Not really. I believe that there is no reason to cast a ballot for someone who does not stand a reasonable chance of winning.
There are plenty of reasons to do so, not the least of which is a clear conscience. Again, your position is self-reinforcing and essentially guarantees that neither of the two parties will do anything other than what's required to maintain power by playing on the politics of fear. They don't need to convince you of the good they may do...only of the bad the other guy will do that they supposedly won't.
You seem to be confusing having an effect with accomplishing something useful. Perot’s candidacy accomplished nothing useful. (Unless one is a democrat.)
So, you have a problem with people who think that voting third party will accomplish what YOU want. It's clear and irrefutable that third party candidacies have a direct effect on presidential elections...but you're opposed to the notion of voting for them because it never works out in your favor.
Boo hoo.
Now, Nader did accomplish something useful. He helped put Bush into office but I doubt that was the intention of those who voted for him.
On the contrary, most of the people I know who voted for Nader did so because they could not in good conscience vote for Al Gore (who was running much closer to the center than they wanted) and felt the long term benefit of the results, should Bush win, were worth it. Guess what...they got EXACTLY what they wanted. They now have two of the most liberal Democrats in the Congress running on a liberal platform.
But, that is a perfect example of the futility of voting third party.
WRONG. It is the perfect example of the long term BENEFIT that voting third party can bring.
The only result is often detrimental to those who vote third party.
And as I said before, such comments belie a clearly myopic view devoid of any overall guiding principle (other than the aforementioned pragmatism).
But, then, you don’t care about benefits, do you?
Of course I do. I'm simply not locked into a myopic, fear-induced paralysis like you appear to be. If the choices were only between McCain and Obama, I would prefer McCain as the "lesser evil." But those aren't the only two choices, and I'm willing to accept the short term risk of an Obama presidency for the sake of clear conscience and potential long term benefit.
You are indeed the best friend of these mainstream politicians. People like you keep them in power despite their constant deriliction of duty.
“It’s clear and irrefutable that third party candidacies have a direct effect on presidential elections...”
So, exactly what effect on this presidential election are you trying to achieve?
Sure, if you like bad comedy.
-PJ
These slicksters sucked me into donating to them when I was more idealistic but my eyes were opened when I heard their radio ads during the 2000 and 2004 elections that they ran against Bush--not Gore or Kerry.
These people are just as flawed as those in the Republican party and if everyone worked together, Republicans can actully get elected and have a positive effect.
Well, in the primary I voted for Ron Paul (even though, according to you, I was still wasting my vote since he had no chance of winning the state). My reasons were that I thought he was the best suited to the presidency, I couldn't in good conscience vote for McCain, and my hope that a strong showing for Paul would encourage the nominee to pick a more conservative running mate.
The effect I'm trying to achieve by voting third party in the general election is the same as the Nader voters in 2000. I do not believe the Republican nominee to be a true conservative, and I am prepared to live with the short term consequences of an Obama presidency for the sake of the long term goal of restoring the Republican Party to true conservatism. I am neither voting against McCain nor voting for Obama. I am voting for conservatism, both in the nominee I select on my ballot and the larger picture of the potential consequences.
As any worthwhile parent can tell you, when you allow bad behavior to continue without consequence you only encourage more bad behavior. The further you let it go, the more difficult and more painful the correction.
A vote according to one's conscience is NEVER a wasted vote.
“I couldn’t in good conscience vote for McCain, and my hope that a strong showing for Paul would encourage the nominee to pick a more conservative running mate.”
While I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, would it be fair to say that you chose to vote for Paul in order to send a message to McCain as to the characteristics you considered appropriate for a VP?
“The effect I’m trying to achieve by voting third party in the general election is the same as the Nader voters in 2000.”
It would it be fair to say then that your purpose in voting is to do all you can to defeat McCain (the GOP)? If you really wanted to send a message in the strongest possible terms, why not just vote for Obama?
“I do not believe the Republican nominee to be a true conservative, and I am prepared to live with the short term consequences of an Obama presidency for the sake of the long term goal of restoring the Republican Party to true conservatism.”
What purpose would it serve to ‘restore the GOP’, if the net result is to ensure continued GOP defeats? It would seem that your real opponent is not the GOP but the fact that most of the electorate would not vote for the type of candidate your propose for the GOP nominee.
“As any worthwhile parent can tell you, when you allow bad behavior to continue without consequence you only encourage more bad behavior.”
So, who manifests the ‘bad behavior’, the GOP or the electorate? Are you saying then that you’d like to teach the electorate a lesson through an Obama presidency?
BTW, please don’t construe my questions as attacks but as an honest attempt to understand your positions.
No, he isn’t a good alternative.
I like Barr, but the Libertarian Party went moonbat on us. Their position on the war violates libertarian principles.
The first duty of government is to protect its citizens from the aggressive use of force. Islamofascism has been aggressively using force to enforce its will on the American people for decades. The LP should have been the first to call for the US government to act. Instead, they’ve traded principle for political calculation.
Until the LP returns to being “the party of principle”, I will not vote for any LP candidate.
The point is to move/return the Republican Party to conservatism by any means possible and necessary. For McCain to pick a clearly conservative nominee indicates a recognition that there is a need to address the concerns of the conservative Republicans in the party and the electorate. Recognition of the problem is a good first step.
It would it be fair to say then that your purpose in voting is to do all you can to defeat McCain (the GOP)? If you really wanted to send a message in the strongest possible terms, why not just vote for Obama?
No, it wouldn't be fair to say that. My purpose as stated is to promote a return to conservatism in the GOP. As I also stated, I am not voting against McCain but for conservatism.
If a significant number of conservatives vote third party for conservative candidates and McCain still pulls out a narrow victory, it will still be clear to him and to the party leadership that a large number of conservatives disapprove of the direction of the part away from the right.
If a significant number of conservatives vote third party for conservative candidates and McCain loses to Obama, it will be clear to him and to the party leadership that a large number of conservatives disapprove of the direction of the party away from the right (so much so that they would rather see us lose than give their consent to that movement). Again, if you don't think this makes a significant difference, you need only look at what has happened to the Democratic Party in the past eight years; they have moved quite significantly to the left.
Either way, I have the opportunity to vote for a nominee I do believe is a qualified, conservative candidate while at the same time working to return the GOP to conservatism.
My conscience would never allow me to vote for a racist, corrupt socialist like Barrack Hussein Obama, no matter what my intentions. The end does not justify the means.
What purpose would it serve to ‘restore the GOP’, if the net result is to ensure continued GOP defeats?
Continued defeats? Friend, history has shown time and again that when the GOP runs on a conservative platform it wins elections. If the efforts of people like me are successful, I'm confident that we will ultimately be ensuring continued GOP victories.
It would seem that your real opponent is not the GOP but the fact that most of the electorate would not vote for the type of candidate your propose for the GOP nominee.
Well, obviously I disagree with the notion that you abandon principle for the sake of victory. If the GOP as a whole decides to abandon conservatism, I will no longer support them. As it is, I vote along ideological lines, not party lines. Most of the time (especially in the rural area I live) the conservative candidate is also the Republican candidate, but I will not vote for a Republican who is not a conservative.
So, who manifests the ‘bad behavior’, the GOP or the electorate? Are you saying then that you’d like to teach the electorate a lesson through an Obama presidency?
Both. It is the responsibility of the elected officials to represent the interests of their constituents, and it is the responsibility of the electorate to hold them accountable.
Believe me, I would like whatever option involves the least amount of pain while still accomplishing the return of conservatism in the GOP. I hope we can avoid an Obama presidency, but I also know we had to suffer a Carter to get a Reagan.
BTW, please don’t construe my questions as attacks but as an honest attempt to understand your positions.
I hope I have made them clear :)
I don’t think the problem with our selections was the electorate. Personally, I think our problems stemmed from the GOP all along. I don’t think putting up conservatives: Brownback, Hunter, Thompson, Tancredo, Huckabee (religious conservative) was an accident.
“Personally, I think our problems stemmed from the GOP all along. I don’t think putting up conservatives: Brownback, Hunter, Thompson, Tancredo, Huckabee (religious conservative) was an accident.”
I’m not sure I follow you.
Are you saying that the GOP ensured that there were so many conservatives running to split the conservative vote and ensure a moderate (McCain) became the nominee?
Or, are you saying that the GOP made sure that the conservatives running were of such a low caliber as to ensure the nomination of a moderate?
“If a significant number of conservatives vote third party for conservative candidates and McCain loses to Obama, it will be clear to him and to the party leadership that a large number of conservatives disapprove of the direction of the party away from the right (so much so that they would rather see us lose than give their consent to that movement).”
Isn’t this just an example of the ‘end justifying the means’, ie the long term goal of electing a conservative justifies electing a liberal in the short term?
Split vote
Well, how did the GOP ensure there were enough candidates to split the vote? What do you suggest the GOP should have done? Limit the candidates? Force candidates out earlier?
I plan to vote for the most conservative candidate. If that’s Bob Barr, so be it.
Nothing happens in politics accidentally
No. I would recommend a different process.
They must receive 50%+ votes in any state to receive that state’s delegates. Otherwise, the delegates are free delegates and belong to no one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.