Posted on 11/01/2004 9:16:28 AM PST by SeasideSparrow
Dear third-party voter,
A tragedy is about to occur.
I am not talking about the tragedy, the unthinkable calamity that will befall America should John Kerry be elected president of the United States. That a person with a history of actual treason should become commander in chief of America's armed forces during wartime is more bizarre and terrifying than any "Manchurian Candidate" scenario Hollywood could concoct.
No, I'm referring to a different tragedy. The tragedy that idealistic, patriotic, constitutionally minded Christian Americans very possibly will be the ones that actually turn over this nation to Kerry – a man who opposes, and is intent on destroying, every one of their most cherished values.
How could this be?
By most accounts, the presidential race is a dead heat. The fact is, several swing states in the 2000 election were settled by just a few thousand votes. This time around the race looks every bit as close – so every single vote counts.
My friends, the hour is late and the stakes high, so let me just say it straight:
A vote for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, or for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik – regardless of whatever personal virtues they possess, or those of their party's platform – amounts to a vote for Kerry. After all the high-sounding words have been spoken in justification of voting for either one, this is the undeniable fact that remains. It's the most basic mathematics possible, so I won't insult anyone by explaining it.
Furthermore, the "lesser of two evils" argument that I've heard 1,000 times – usually stated as "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil" – is shallow and unworthy of those good folks who hold the Constitution and Judeo-Christian heritage so dear. This view, with its emphasis on personally choosing not to support any evil whatsoever, is held largely by religious people, mostly Christians.
But every Christian also knows he or she is a sinner – in a word, evil. Not totally evil, of course, but every human being – including you, me, Bush, Kerry, Peroutka, Badnarik and everyone else – has got a problem with evil. It's only the degree that is different from person to person.
If Bush is truly "the lesser of two evils" – which, put another way, means he is the greater good – then it's indefensible to vote for anyone else than Bush, since that would unquestionably help Kerry – the greater evil.
Let me restate this: If the object of your vote is to avoid supporting evil – and yet by your vote you end of electing the worst possible choice as president when you had it easily within your power to choose a better man – then you have indeed supported evil.
One of the many people who responded to my column on "Voting your conscience" informed me that by voting for Bush instead of Peroutka, I was operating from fear and not faith. We should just vote our consciences, he said (in this case, he was suggesting a vote for the Constitution Party candidate), and leave the outcome to God.
This is a mis-applied principle. Yes, we're meant to live righteously and not be overly concerned with the result. That means we're meant to speak the truth even if it makes us unpopular. We're meant to do the right thing, even if we lose a seeming advantage, even if it hurts, even if we lose our job. This is living from faith and leaving the outcome to God.
But when we have a clear choice between a better option and a worse option, and millions of lives will be affected by our choice, God doesn't require that we do the impossible and make a third option win out. Getting Peroutka or Badnarik elected president is impossible.
What God does hold us responsible for is to do the right thing, to act with wisdom. If America can have a safer nation with a more decent president – or be more endangered with an unprincipled, ambitious sociopath as president – and if we, you and I, are the ones who choose that president tomorrow, then we have a responsibility to choose the better man.
Not to do so will be a tragedy we will remember for the rest of our lives.
This is not an ordinary election. We are at war. That's not a metaphor, as Kerry's campaign says, but rather a real war. Millions of lives are at stake. America's security is at stake. The Supreme Court, America's sovereignty as an independent nation, the lives of the unborn, the sanctity of marriage, freedom of the press – all are at stake in this election.
As we reported in our special "REVOLT ON THE RIGHT" edition of Whistleblower magazine, there have been many times in American history when a robust third-party bid for the presidency has had a powerful and meaningful effect on the course of the nation. But tomorrow is not one of those times. Tomorrow is a time for good people to come together to stop a major evil from descending on this country.
In the last few days, Patrick Buchanan, who ran against Bush four years ago on a third-party ticket, urged Americans to vote this time for Bush. Why?
Likewise, WND's founder and CEO Joseph Farah – who did not support Bush in 2000, who has said for years he would be unable to support Bush in 2004, and who has been very favorable toward third parties – recently changed his mind and endorsed Bush over Kerry. Why?
Even Dr. John Hospers, America's first Libertarian Party presidential candidate, has urged Libertarians not to vote for their own party's candidate, but rather to vote for Bush. Why?
I'll tell you why. Because they realize what is truly at stake in this election. Do you?
Sincerely,
David Kupelian
Who were you before you got kicked off the last time?
That's why we should work from the bottom up on the third parties. Get more of them into congress and the senate. I am voting Libertarian against John McCain.
Because it is an absolute certainty that your party will lose, and that one of the two parties is going to win. The fact that you do not consent is frankly irrelevant.
This is not an "approval poll", this is an ELECTION. Which means that the results of this election have genuine consequences. Therefore, every vote has an impact on the winner of that election.
I have picked a side and it's opposing the policies of the two-faced government party.
No. You have picked the side of supporting the winner of the election, no matter who it is.
I will say this. I would wholeheartedly support a change to our Constitution (if necessary) to adopt approval voting, so that people are free to vote both for their truly favorite candidate AND their "lesser of two evils" candidate.
If you keep waiting, maybe some day your ideal candidate will come along. In the mean time you have your crumby excuse to sit on your ass and do nothing except maybe complain
Nothing will happen without God wanting it to happen, for his own purposes.
So when does third-party support make sense, in your mind? When is more choice and competition ok with you?
Candidates have appealing principles and platforms, or they don't.
So why shouldn't conservatives vote for Nader as a protest vote, as a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!
Seriously. I am sick of this "A vote for X is a vote for Y." NO, it's not. If you seriously believe that the two candidates are nearly as bad, you should vote for a better one. I think Bush is sufficiently better than Kerry that you shouldn't vote for him, but if your big issue is a balanced budget, or illegal immigration, or eliminating the IRS you probably should vote for Badnarik or Peroutka.
Sadly, I think it means that I get what you deserve. I voted for Browne and helped Clinton get elected the second time. Don't do as I did. It was a horrible mistake.
Earlier I conceded that in certain states (Texas, Utah, California) a few votes for a third-party candidate won't serve as spoilers. In any states where it is even remotely close, it is strategically flawed to do so.
The higher the office, the less appropriate it ever is to vote for a third party candidate.
The bottom line is that our political system naturally supports a two-party system. That's just the way it is, and without some structural change, third parties will always serve as spoilers. I suggested one such structural change earlier in this thread: a shift to approval voting. This would allow third parties to grow without endangering the outcome of the two two tier candidates---until, of course, that third party gains a critical level of support so that it joins the "top tier" clib itself.
In the meanwhile, the only feasible way to effect significant change is to work within the two parties, or to push third-party candidates at the local level and work your way up. (We have quite a few Greens in office here in California.)
The only reason it's tiresome is because it's NOT true.
Again, if more people voted their comscience instead of being scared by scaremongers saying, (paraphrasing) "If you don't vote for who I want you to vote for it will be your fault if the person who I don't want to win does win and screws our country royally.", maybe we wouldn't have to cast a vote for the, "lesser of two evils".
If your big issue is a balanced budget, or illegal immigration, or eliminating the IRS you probably should vote for Badnarik or Peroutka.
The flaw in this thinking is assuming that this is some opinion poll, and your opinion is actually going to be noiticed. This is simply false. Badnarik and Peroutka have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the policy issues they advocate for. NONE.
None of us believe that Kerry is going to defend this country as strongly as Bush---even though he SAYS so. Likewise, none of us believes that Badnarik and Perotuka will do what they say they want to do, either. Certainly, the reasons are different: with Badnarik and Peroutka, it's because they have no chance of winning; and with Kerry it's because he's a liar. But frankly, the reasons are irrelevant, it's the actual actions that matter.
Give me a break...We're suppose to run to the polls to re-elect a guy who didn't enforce the immigration laws that ended up giving us 9/11, got us into an Unconstitutional war that has taken 1000 American lives,violated civil liberties with the inappropriately titled" Patriot Act" and and expaned government at a rate that Bill Clinton never even did...the GOP can suck an egg...They are NOT conservative and maybe if Bush loses, there will be a war in the GOP to finally clean house from the unconservative vermin that have infested it for so long...
Why can't we choose our toilets freely? Why the hell are we still stuck in Bosnia? Why does the National Endowment for the Arts still exist?
If Bush won't tackle the really easy stuff like that, I don't hold out much hope for him (or the Republican Big Government Party) taking on the hard stuff.
But if I don't line up and blindly vote for him again, I suppose terrorists will come to my door and kill me. It's that kind of well-thought-out argument that really gets me excited about Big Stupid Government.
No, you've got it backwards.
When anyone from the two-faced government party wins, we the people lose.
We lose more money through higher taxation to pay for an ever larger government and we lose freedoms through increasingly invasive laws.
You can rationalize it any way you choose, but the bottom line is that with Republicans and Democrats, we get more government. The only difference is the rate of expansion.
And that's all he cares about - he's got your vote and therefore your implied approval of all the Big Government crap of the last 4 years.
Have any commitments been extracted from Bush this election cycle to turn around any of his crappy policies and tendencies? He may be running scared of losing his job, but not for the right reasons.
We should make a list!
"You can vote whoever you want but since you are engaging in masturbatory behavior, I would appreciate it if you did it in the privacy of your own room and washed your hands after you finish. The rest of us will run the country for you."
Yes, we've seen and experienced how "you" run the country and it's a disgrace. Runaway spending, more government programs, CFR, open borders. Yup, just what everyone wants.
BTW, your tagline would indicate that you oppose Bush.
Then the GOP won't have to worry about listening to them anymore.
Then fight within the parties to change it.
Your party will lose. Period. How is that doing anything to change the status quo? In fact, if it helps throw the election to Kerry, you'll be even further from your ideal. Tell me how that's the least bit productive.
I'm rationalizing nothing. I am voting in a strategic manner.
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.