To: B. A. Conservative
I agree with you 100% and heck I have been doing this already.
There has been no one worth voting for in the past so I withold my vote from anyone.
The only two people i have voted for are our Beloved W and Perot.
(yes, Perot - protest vote as the best of 3)
If it were not for Perot, the balanaced budget would never have been discussed,
and eventually obtained.
Other Perot voters out there -
Don't let anyone tell you you threw away your vote-
the 20% of the popular vote scared people in Washington more than you can possibly imagine.
He also talked about whittling the govt down to size, and most of the above agenda...
# 28 by Mr. K
If those who voted for Ross Perot had simply stayed home,
the Republicans wouldn't have known that the votes they lost were conservative ones.
Statistics showing that voters were unhappy with liberal policies are meaningless;
no one trusts statistics anymore.
The votes for the conservative Ross Perot were solid, provable evidence
of the direction the people wanted to go.
The votes that the Republicans lost to Ross Perot
are directy responsible for the Contract with America,
and the Contract with America is the reason
that the Republicans won their majority in both houses of Congress.
If we don't vote at all, as has been suggested,
Republican's and other socialists will assume
that we won't work to change the direction of our policies.
The only way to send a message to the Republicans
is the way it was done in 1992.
Voting for a third party candidate works.
The Republican Party is not the answer. Its leadership get their marching orders from the same people who control the Demoncrats. Any politicians who make it to the top have already been compromised -- or they wouldn't be there. That includes Dubya.
The only answer I can see is for tens of millions of Americans to understand this. The 2-headed-one-party system and state-controlled media represent a "rigged" game. I also have little confidence in the voting system. It's also rigged and the Republicans aren't trying to correct it. Lots of countries use "voting" to elect their leaders. What makes us think our voting system is any less corrupt than the others.
I realize that most Americans view my ideas as wacko and conspiratorial. So they will continue to go with the flow -- electing compromised or corrupted politicians who are mere puppets for the real powers -- the unseen power structure that we never get to hear or read about. But we can all see down which road that power structure is taking us. Can't we?
And more importantly, this time we are advocating that the voter not enter the polling place thereby withholding their vote in state or local races. Depriving candidates in state and local races will put enormous pressure on the national Republican Party to adopt our Contract with Congress. It multiplies the power of a single vote and our voice with the national party by the number of politicians in state and local races. This is part of the leverage that makes this strategy superior to simply voting for third parties or third party candidates.
Voting for a third party candidate works.
Thanks for that, I think you've finally explained your postition clearly. In 1992 we elected the most vile and disgusting human being ever to wear the mantle of president. In fact, it was that very fact that called so many of us on FR together. It was perhaps one of the worst eight years this country has ever suffered under a president.
Yet you claim that it was "good" because it sent some sort of third party message. I guess it was good for you, as it served your self-interest. For the country, I'd beg to differ.....