Posted on 02/18/2007 9:46:00 AM PST by MARenzulli
The VoteBuddy idea: "You don't vote for that Republican and I won't vote for this Democrat; then we can help build third parties!"
However, at the fore of some minds is the idea that it is foolish to worry about your terminal cancer when an evil SOB has a gun pointed at your head. The great political danger is that conservatives will be faced with voting for a candidate who parlays that fear into a license to ignore or even exacerbate the cancer - especially when facing off against a candidate on the other side of the aisle who wants us to pretend that the evil SOB is not even there, and that cancer is good for us.
Thanks and glad you do. You are right it works best for people in the same state, but it could still be used for people in different states. However, they need to have good relations so, ultimately, if someone is going to Buddy with someone elsewhere, they can fax or e-mail copies of each other's mail in ballots prior to casting them.
During November of last year, a few US cities enacted ranked choice voting for their municipal elections. This is part of what seems to be a growing trend in the US and many countries outside the United States use this method already.
Ranked choice voting is the best way to go, but until it is and for municipalities that still use the 'winner-take-all' method, Vote Buddy is a way people can utilize if they do not want to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'.
Alright if you feel that way, fine. However, there are some people who are sick of voting for the 'lesser of two evils' because, ultimately, the voters still have 'evil'.
With Vote Buddy, people can vote their principles rather than their fears. Like John Quincy Adams said:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
The second time the Dem. votes will cancel the deal.
Not there was anything wrong with the Mexican War....
For such vote trading, the vote has to be legally [i.e. its alienation must be contract enforceable] alienable. The problem of trust would surface anyway, but it can be handled in small groups, where unwritten custom instead of a formal law can with difficulty be enforced. On large scale it is not going to work, for I would not trust anyone, myself included - but I'd trust others even less than that.
Sorry. Not going to happen.
My vote can not be bought, threatened, coerced, cajoled, stolen, adjusted, traded, wagered, or wasted.
If you want it, you EARN it.
If you can't EARN it, you will NEVER get it.
I'm not one who simply follows the herd, that's for sheep and cattle. Oh, and broken glass voters incapable of reason.
"However, there are some people who are sick of voting for the 'lesser of two evils' because, ultimately, the voters still have 'evil'."
Since there is no such thing as the perfect candidate, any vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils. Get used to it.
Won't work... The system is weighted for democrats and republicans and by the way incumbents.. ONLY way to increase 3rd party power is to bite the bullet and be out of power for a time to build gravitas power.. i.e. let the bad guys run the show and hope you don't get a president for life like Papa Doc Duvalier or a Hildebeast..
This idea is estupido.
I think I'd be the perfect candidate, but since I'd only get one vote, I'm not sure I could win.
The liberals through incrementalism, propaganda, and fascist tactics have gotten to the point that an entire political party belongs to them. They don't need thrid parties. That's why they could shun Miller, Lieberman, and others.
THese so called "blue dogs" are just a ruse. If they are true dogs they wouldn't vote for the useless, wussy "we bendover to IRan and Syria" resolution. Nor would they let Piglousy become Speaker. They would prge Reid, Murtha, and Jefferson. Their actions speak volumes about their "conservatism".
We are far from that state and have to fight tooth and nail in every primary to put in conservatives and in every election to put in GOP guys.
How stupid would you have to be to fall for this scam?
See I don't understand that. Are the principles at stake just that you think any 3rd party candidate should have a chance at winning? Because they do have a chance at winning, already, regardless of what propaganda you've been fed that only the person with the big money and party affiliation can win. There just hasn't been a 3rd party candidate in our time that has ignited enough passion in the voters to make them vote for a 3rd party candidate.
I don't understand how making a pact with a person of opposite political leaning, who isn't voting for your 3rd party choice, is going to make any meaningful difference. Are you going to join hands and sing 'Kumbaya', too? Without Vote Buddy people can vote their principles rather than their fears - just go in the voting booth and vote.
That is true in theory but not in principle. However, a change is called for when pluralities rather than majorities elect Presidents. I favor third parties and run-off presidential elections. Without run-off elections, Ralph Nader, or any third party, has little chance.
Imagine Republican candidate Bush, Democrat candidate Kerry, and third party candidate Nader running for president. Excluding Candidate Nader from participating in the presidential debates denies American voters hearing one of the candidates’ points of view. To compound the sanctimony the leading candidates tell the citizens that voting for Nader is a wasted vote.
However, consider the same scenario if no candidate received a majority vote and there were a run-off election between the two candidates receiving the most votes. Ralph Nader may not be one of those two but under these circumstances, all citizens could have truly voted their conscience without fear of wasting their vote.
I think you are missing the point here, slick. There is a Dilbert cartoon, where Dogbert tells Dilbert that they should each stay home from voting, since they each support opposing candidates and their votes would cancel each other out. The day after the election, it dawns on Dilbert that dogs can't vote. "Not directly" is Dogbert's reply.
Well, liberals are extremely gullible. They just want cover so they can vote Nader without feeling guilty for throwing the election like they did with Bush/Gore. Give it to them.
No, I get the point, Sunshine.
This very tactic was use in a previous election if memory serves. I don't know how many suckers actually fell for it, but there had to be some or the dems wouldn't be trying it again.
I may not have approached the heart of the article directly, but my point was clear.
The dems aren't going to steal my vote into their camp and the reps aren't going to fear it into theirs either.
To get it, it will have to be earned. Earning a vote is something that has fallen out of vogue in recent decades, what with the herd mentality that prevails in both camps, but I'm an old fashioned kind of guy.
If he weren't dead, we need John Houseman to run a series of campaign spots. "You win votes the old fashioned way, YOU EARN IT."
So?????
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.