Posted on 08/14/2004 4:03:42 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
You hear it every election year. Those 5 little words, strung together to make up the biggest lie in politics: “You’re throwing your vote away.” The media even has a name for the candidates that get the “throw away” votes. They call those candidates “spoilers”. Why? Because it ruins the whole two-party myth. It shows evidence that there are more choices out there than tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum.
The two major parties are beginning to realize this too. No longer can they sit back as the Greens, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and Independent Americans take away a percentage of the votes. They can’t rely on people to automatically disregard these third parties any more as “fringe groups” because the fringe is getting awfully big. Instead they try to scare you into believing that a vote for a third party is a vote for the opposition. For example, when Ralph Nader announced his candidacy for President in 2004, the Democrats began rounding up the troops with threats that support for Nader is really support for Bush in disguise. In their opinions, John Kerry has the only real chance of beating Bush, and therefore is the only candidate worth anyone's support.
It’s not that I defend Ralph Nader, in fact my viewpoint is quite the contrary. My support will go to Michael Peroutka (www.peroutka2004.com), and I’m sure Republican campaign against him will come closer to election day. They’ll scare their big supporters into believing that a vote for Peroutka is a vote for John Kerry.
It’s an age old tactic, do whatever you can to get votes. Run emotionally charged commercials, scare people with trumped up charges and exaggerated claims about the opponent, kiss babies, jump on band wagons, hold whistle stop tours, sign autographs, throw out first pitches at ball games, use every press opportunity as a campaign commercial, do whatever you can to get elected. Unfortunately, in the effort to score as many votes as possible, the two major parties often forget one thing . . . principle. How much do they really believe in their principles if they are willing to sacrifice them so freely for a vote?
For years the two parties have followed the same model of getting elected. They run to the left or right during the primaries, and run to the center in the general election. What we are left with is two candidates essentially saying the same thing, but disagreeing in name only, and occasionally on implementation of the same policies. This year is no different. Bush pushed the Patriot act because he is interested in removing God given rights from Americans. Kerry opposes the Patriot act, but that doesn’t mean he’s not interested in taking away American’s God given rights. He’ll still try to take our second amendment. He’ll still seek to hold “terrorists” without legal aid or trial. He’ll accomplish the same things Bush would, just under a different banner and in different ways. It’s politics. It’s the system. It’s anything but principled.
When you ask people why they vote for a candidate, they give you a few basic answers. For one, they may actually truly believe in the candidate and his policies. This is rare in the two-party system, but it does happen. Another reason many people give is because the candidate is the lesser of two evils. Some say that although they disagree with the candidate on some things “at least he’s not the other guy.” They imply with this thinking that there are no other choices, despite the emergence of viable third parties for both the left and the right.
The lesser of two evils argument frustrates the daylights out of me when I hear it. First of all, it is a flawed argument. As I’ve demonstrated above, in the general election, the parties run to the center. The result of this is that both parties become the big tent party. What has happened in America is that both parties have gotten so good at running to the center that they are almost exactly alike. There is no “lesser” in the lesser of two evils.
Since when is voting for evil a good thing? Does it matter if you drive a car off a cliff at 55 MPH or 80 MPH? Either way, you’re driving off the cliff. A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil, plain and simple. It doesn’t take a master’s degree to figure this out.
How many Americans grumble every year that all politicians are only in office for their own interests? The basis of these feelings is that Government has not progressed in America for nearly 100 years. There have been some victories on both sides of the spectrum, but for the most part, we’ve been in the same rut of one step forward and two steps back. Yet, these same Americans who complain about the hole we’re in, get out their two-party shovels on election day and dig us further in the hole by perpetuating the heart of the problem: The two-party system itself. If you want to change Government, change your vote.
I spent a week really campaigning for my candidate to my circle of conservative friends and acquaintances recently. I got the same response over and over again. “I would vote for Peroutka if I thought he had a chance of winning. However, even though I agree with nearly everything he says, he can’t possibly win, so I would be throwing my vote away, or worse yet, actually voting for John Kerry.” What they didn’t realize is that if they all vote for him, we are all actually that much closer to having someone we actually want in office, instead of someone we barely tolerate.
If someone were to open up the curtain at the voting booth and say to you “I voted for Ralph Nader, so you must vote for him too”, what would you do? I’d punch him in the nose even if I was a Nader supporter. No one has any right to tell you how to vote, let alone control your vote. So then why do we base our votes on what polls say or a candidate’s popularity rating? You wouldn’t let anyone look over your shoulder and tell you what to do when you fill out your ballot, so why let them look over your shoulder and tell you what to do beforehand?
A good percentage of people who voted for Bush and Gore in 2000 didn’t really like the candidate they choose, but felt like they were, at least in a small way, better than the other guy. A portion of those people (dare I say; a majority of those people?) actually liked another third party candidate a lot better, but felt they would be throwing their vote away if they voted for who they really wanted. Look at the big picture. If all of those people actually voted for who they wanted, we would have had a four horse race, most likely George Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, and Howard Phillips. How hard would it have been for any of those candidates to get 25% of the vote if everyone voted for who they believed in, instead of who they were scared or manipulated into voting for?
The two parties don’t care about you. They care about power. They care about winning elections, no matter the cost. They’ve abandoned the American people and their needs. They’ve forgotten that the rights Americans enjoy are to be protected, not manipulated. They don’t care to hold to the constitution’s limitations. This must change, but will not change if we continue to give them our support. If you want government to reflect your principles, vote for candidates and parties that reflect those principles, no exceptions. The only result of holding to principle is government changing for the better, one individual vote at a time. Changing government for the better is not throwing your vote away. Quite the contrary, it is using it properly.
I just send in my Nader petitions, the signers were conservatives. Conservatives understand divide and conquer, which is why I suspect this thread won't last. I could be wrong, I have been before. It's rare but it happens.
Dont blame me, I voted for Kodo.
Peroutka has released a point paper, which I read, that called the Iraq war "immoral" and "unconstitutional."
That's where he and the CP lost my vote this year. That paper proved the CP isn't a serious option for November.
I realized then that this was an ego trip for Philips. These guys know they don't have a prayer of winning. They're all a bunch of kooks. If they really wanted to impact change, they would give us the opportunity to vote for them in a Republican primary.
Vote for me as UNQUESTIONED OVERLORD of the DARKNESS, and I shall CRUSH the HUMANS and elevate feline kind to their RIGHTFUL PLACE!
What?
You mean this is a forum of humans and NOT the High Alien Overlord Council?
Oops..
Nevermind then.
1. Is there any harm in voting third party in states that are not in play?
2. Is there any harm in going on the Internet and bashing President Bush?
Well, it's just my opinion, but I think anyone who uses the excuse that because he lives in a non-battleground state that he is free to bash Bush on the Internet is a scumbag. That's just my humble opinion.
the guy in the pic, on the website, looks like Art Bell... fitting isnt it...
nothing more needs to be said...
From a post on my article in the smoky backroom titled
Are Libertarians and other third parties futile?:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1191613/posts
I ask why waste a protest vote? When you vote away from Republicans, they go left to attract voters. Democrats go center-right, at least rhetorically, as in Clinton. At least when you have a place at the table you can be heard, a little.
I just don't believe 3rd parties will ever make much of a difference until one of the mainline parties splits or implodes.
The US is moving rightward and shows no sign of correcting the course. The democrats, rather than adopt their opposition's issues as their own and thus keep a hand in the game, are increasingly sidelined while Bush adopts their issues and governs like a deficit addicted free spending democrat. The democrats react by entrenching in their leftist ideology, even though the country increasingly disavows the welfare state. As a result, a breach is opening up where a moderate left party should be.
The Constitution party isn't able to squeeze into this slot because they are to the right of the Republicans and, if the rightward trend continues, stand to be overtaken and assimilated.
Libertarians are the likely party to expand into the developing left-of-center vacuum. However, the party planks of open borders in an era of unchecked illegal immigration and isolationism when fighting a global enemy are deal breakers. The Republican Liberty Caucus is merely a sop from the RNC to naive libertarians who think they are having any influence in setting policy while giving up their votes. As it is now, conservative libertarians are as blacks are to democrats -- taken for granted and ignored. Inasmuch as Republicans show no interest in incorporating LP policies into government, there is no point in the LP being their vote pool. Small 'l' libertarianism is the nascent replacement for the Democratic party. If the next election results in continued Republican dominance of federal and state power, the desperate demos may begin a slow motion implosion.
The US is moving rightward and shows no sign of correcting the course.
What indications do you see that convince you this is true as a permanent trend?
Bush adopts their issues and governs like a deficit addicted free spending democrat.
But doesn't having the party leadership do this tend to move the Republicans leftward?
As a result, a breach is opening up where a moderate left party should be.
What about RINOs, are they misplaced moderate leftists, and wouldn't they jump ship to a more influential moderate left party making 'Pubs weaker as a result?
Small 'l' libertarianism is the nascent replacement for the Democratic party.
Well it would be better than Green Party-lite which is what it is now. I wonder if a Scoop Jackson wing could ever reform in a libertarian Democrat party. It would be nice to have loyal hawkish center-right opposition, rather than McGovernized socialists.
As a continuing trend, see the FCC's terrorizing of broadcast media, Bush's pressure for religious funding, the move towards charter schools, in-home schooling becoming more popular, the locking in of low tax rates, Ashcroft's ability to traduce the Tenth Amendment at will with little public outcry, and the continued freefall of organized labor. Not to mention loosening of gun laws such as concealed carry spreading, and the outright open carry in Virginia.
The phenomenon of Fox News with more viewers than other cable news networks combined is part of cable's draining of viewers from the liberal broadcast networks into botique channels of narrow interest that is not necessarily as leftist as the big 3.
Liberal print media is losing its gateway to the internet, where news is out before it can be massaged and spun. Circulation of the NYT is dropping by the amount it is going up at the conservative New York Post and the Daily News, and if the experience of Newsday and the Chicago Tribune (?) are any indication, the liberal circulation figures are inflated as it is, meaning they are losing more readers than they will admit.
The experience of CBS being forced by viewers to dump the Ronald Reagan smear job alongside the humiliation of the Dixie Chicks, Linda Ronstadt, and Don Henley is an indication that the silent majority is no longer silent, and is making itself felt. This does not seem to be a temporary condition.
But doesn't having the party leadership do this tend to move the Republicans leftward?
Not necessarily. It means they no longer feel the need to be fiscally responsible which means there are no qualms in running up deficits while enacting their agenda. The agenda hasn't moved leftward, with notable exceptions such as funding the NEH and the CPB. The constraints are off in achieving their goals, even if it means mortgaging the future to buy the silence of the squeaky wheels.
What about RINOs, are they misplaced moderate leftists, and wouldn't they jump ship to a more influential moderate left party making 'Pubs weaker as a result?
Yup. There aren't enough libertarians to do it alone, and there's only one Ron Paul. But there are lots of itchy Rinos willing to abandon an intrusive socially conservative republican party.
I wonder if a Scoop Jackson wing could ever reform in a libertarian Democrat party.
Yes. Fiscal conservatives sufficiently agitated by federal intrusion into schools and construing the commerce clause to regulate every aspect of our lives can be counted on to support a replacement for the Democrats.
Wow! Here's to the future it should prove interesting if you are right.
And that ain't necessarily a good thing(?)
This is the first time that I've heard that 3% is "awfully big."
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.
