Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Why you should vote for George W. Bush |
| 07.06.04 (10:04 pm) [edit] |
|
I'm serious. Okay, maybe not entirely. But, I do have at least one reason to consider voting for Bush, possibly two. The second possible reason being that John Kerry is a creep. But I'll get to that later. For now, I'd like to address the best reason I can think of to vote for George W. Bush. Consider this- in the upcoming election, you will undoubtedly be voting for the 'lesser of two evils' if you choose to vote for either Bush or Kerry, right? Some extremists of either party may ardently support the actual candidate, but for the most part, I think it would be fair to say that there is little true support for either candidate- rather, the support given is based on party allegiance or a need for change. If Kerry is elected President, there will be a greater likelihood that we will have to deal with unsavory choices for a longer time. If Kerry wins, he will be able to run for re-election in 2008, meaning we'd have one mediocre (at best) candidate for sure. There would only be the opportunity for a decent Republican candidate (and what are the chances of that happening? :wink:). However, if Bush wins re-election this year, there would be the potential for two decent candidates in 2008. So there you go, vote for Bush so we have a clean slate of politicians in 2008. As I said before, the other possible reason to consider voting for the incumbent would be that John Kerry is a creep. He really is. It is very difficult to discern in what ways he differs from Bush on the issues, actually. However, just because Kerry is not the most ideal alternative to Bush, that does not mean that you should vote for Bush. There are quite a few political parties not quite in the mainstream. Though this may mean that it is highly unlikely that these alternate candidates will win the presidency, the increasingly negative opinions of both the major parties imparts the need for new and different leadership. The only way for third parties to rise up to the level of contention is to demonstrate support and determination. This year, consider making a real difference and voting for someone other than Kerry or Bush. Vote for someone who truly represents your views. Vote for a third party, vote for change. |
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (7:12 pm)
Simply calling Kerry a "creep" isn't very bright. You offer no specifics on the reasons that you call Kerry a "creep". Actually Kerry's policies are sane which would be a nice change from crazy Bush's insane policies.
I think you haven't thought things through very carefully.
posted by: PresentMoment (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (7:22 pm)
Who gives a rats who's a creep. Bush is an ignorant moron who should never ever after proving how he is get back into the office. Kerry looks like a ghoul. A lot like a ghoul. Bush has more of that primate look to him but a little animal is less creepy than the undead.
posted by: PatriotActs (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (7:24 pm)
It is not sensible to propose voting for a 3rd party candidate when the stakes are so high. Hoping to clear the decks for 2008 doesn't make sense either, for the catastrophic damage that Bush/Cheney will do with another 4 years in office is unthinkable. WW3 in the Middle East is what we will face with Bush/Cheney. Inflation will skyrocket and poverty rate will continue to rise at the highest rates since the Great Depression. Is that really what you want?
You are wrong about Kerry. Please read his proposals on his website. I think if you will listen closely and study his policies, you will find that he is a smart man and will bring some sanity back to our nation. Sadly, he will be lumbered with cleaning up 4 years of rape, murder, theft, embezzlement, felonies and destruction of our US Constitution by the Bush and Cheney neo-con creeps. So Kerry does not inherit the surplus economy and peace that Bush inherited and recklessly (criminally) squandered.
posted by: PatriotActs (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (7:28 pm)
Reply to: PresentMoment
Yes, but Americans are so obsessed with what someone "looks like" that they seem to forget that if someone is a complete & utter imbecilic dolt, it doesn't matter what they look like. Bush looks like a pig's butt and Cheney looks like a bovine asshole-- but what is worse is that Bush is an idiot dimwitted buffoon who takes orders from the corrupt pathological war criminal, liar, embezzler & felonious traitor Cheney who makes Tony Soprano look like a saint.
The damage inflicted upon us by Dummy-and-Scummy are of tragic proportions.
posted by: PresentMoment (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (7:59 pm)
reply to: patriotacts
ww3 reminds me of kmfdm's new politically charged album rightly named "ww3".
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (8:01 pm)
I agree with you in principle, that neither candidate represents what I would like to see in the white house now, or ever. And, I agree also that idealogically, voting 3rd party is the way to go, because at least most of them are not whores to corporate masters. However, I'm a realist... and voting for a 3rd party at this point in history would be a wasted vote. At least with a democrat, I can be reasonably assured that the government isn't going to take over what I do with my body or what I do in my bedroom.
posted by: lawngnome (reply)
post date: 07.06.04 (9:06 pm)
Indeed. While voting for a third party candidate might make you feel better about yourself, you really aren't making a damn bit if difference at this point. Its just a wasted vote.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (6:23 am)
Reply to: PatriotActs
"It is not sensible to propose voting for a 3rd party candidate when the stakes are so high."
Before you make this assumption, what state do you live in? If you live in a battleground state and there is some mysterious issue that Kerry differs greatly from Bush on, then maybe you should vote for the Democrats. But if you are like most Americans, you live in a state where the election is already decided, and any vote is a "wasted vote," so you might as well influence future strategy by casting a protest ballot for a 3rd party, like the anti-war pro-liberty Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (6:23 am)
Reply to: juniperflux
"However, I'm a realist... and voting for a 3rd party at this point in history would be a wasted vote."
Before you make this assumption, what state do you live in? If you live in a battleground state and there is some mysterious issue that Kerry differs greatly from Bush on, then maybe you should vote for the Democrats. But if you are like most Americans, you live in a state where the election is already decided, and any vote is a "wasted vote," so you might as well influence future strategy by casting a protest ballot for a 3rd party, like the anti-war pro-liberty Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (6:24 am)
Reply to: lawngnome
"you really aren't making a damn bit if difference at this point. Its just a wasted vote."
Before you make this assumption, what state do you live in? If you live in a battleground state and there is some mysterious issue that Kerry differs greatly from Bush on, then maybe you should vote for the Democrats. But if you are like most Americans, you live in a state where the election is already decided, and any vote is a "wasted vote," so you might as well influence future strategy by casting a protest ballot for a 3rd party, like the anti-war pro-liberty Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party.
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (9:53 am)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
To be blunt, I find that approach to be pretty naive. The days when anyone in the political spectrum understood or even cared what the American electorate thought are long gone, my friend. I agree in principle with what you have said here... and I wish I felt the same way. Unfortunately, I'm just playing the game that most Americans are playing... "let's pick the lesser of two evils."
Thanks for the comment, though.
j
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (10:17 am)
I don't think Kerry is a creep. He has not said anything or taken a political stance that I find offensive. The people who are turned off by him tend to live in parts of the country that get political ads, and I can't say that they have an objective picture of him.
As far as third party candidates, the only way for them to rise is to change the election system from a plurality wins system to one that shows the wishes of the majority, such as a built-in run-off system. That way, people can vote for the third party candidate of their choice, but if that person does not get a majority and nobody else does, then their vote still gets to help decide among the top candidates.
There is nothing in our constitution that says how our elections are to be run, and it's time that we ditch the current system in favor of one that tells us who people actually want, and still lets their vote count if their choice is not in the top tier.
posted by: jbfs (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (2:47 pm)
Reply to: mblog
"There is nothing in our constitution that says how our elections are to be run"
I'm a little confused, because Article II section 1 and Amendment XII both seem to address how our elections are run (as far as the votes of the electoral college are concerned). How do you propose that we allow the minority's voice be heard in the electoral college? It sounds to me like you want to bias the polls towards the minorities, which doesn't exactly sound like a particularly good idea to me. Could you expound upon this some more?
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (4:25 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
Reply to: lawngnome
I suppose it all depends on what you consider to be a 'wasted vote.' To me, voting for anyone other than the candidate you honestly feel would be the best for the job and would best represent your views is wasting your vote. Though I agree that the stakes are high in this election- I do not feel that George Bush should be left in office (or have ever entered office)- I have stronger feelings for working towards creating a better political future. This requires placing votes for third parties so that they gain recognition and can participate (eventually, with enough support) effectively in future elections. If I were to vote for Kerry simply out of a disdain for Bush, I would be wasting my vote. I would also be doing nothing to alter the current system. Granted, my little vote may not make that big a difference, but, to me, it certainly isn't wasted.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (4:31 pm)
Reply to: mblog
Both Kerry and Bush are undesirable candidates to me. I disagree with both on quite a few issues. And I definitely think Kerry is a creep. :P
I agree that we can only truly replace the current two-party system by changing the way our elections are conducted (though I'm not convinced your suggested way would be the best), but that is not likely to happen any time soon. The best course of action is to support third parties so that they gain recognition.
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (4:48 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
Again, I agree on principle, but find the reality of the world to be prohibitive to standing on such ideals. I voted 3rd party last time, as did many others, and in the opinion of many pundits, we contributed to W's rise to power. No thanks. I don't care to go down that road again... at least not until there is a viable 3rd party option.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.07.04 (5:21 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
But there can't be a viable third party option until we create it. Settling for the lesser of two evils election after election does nothing but allow 'evil' to prevail and continue.
posted by: lawngnome (reply)
post date: 07.08.04 (9:19 pm)
Well, with such a tight electorate, I see it as a lesser of two evils thing. I know... its unfortunate to think that way... but thats the reality. I dont think I could live with myself if I voted for a third party candidate if the guy I didnt like won by a thin margin.
Perhaps in a year where the electorate wasn't so divided, or where the stakes weren't so high. Then maybe I can see voting third party.
posted by: LarryConley (reply)
post date: 07.09.04 (3:39 pm)
I was thinking something similiar. If Bush wins in 2008 we could see
Clinton
Juliani
Ventura
Nader
that would be different.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.09.04 (5:28 pm)
Reply to: jbfs
The constitutional requirement for the electoral college is not a specification for elections. That part is left up to the states. It says what to do after the electors are picked. States can send electors proportionally, or on an "all or none" basis, and how electors are picked is still up to the states. It's up to the state legislatures to come up with any system they see fit.
Everything from where polling places are to what form and format of ballot is used is up to the states. They could, in theory, have people win in a county by county basis and go by the majority of counties should they wish. I don't think that's a good idea, but the right to do it is there. Just about the only thing they can't pick is the date of the election.
As for alternate systems, my preference is for what is now called a "built in run-off." (That's partly because I thought up the idea myself a few decades ago, but it's now one that is highly touted by others -- no thanks to me.) There are also several other better alternatives to the current system. Scientific American had an article about them recently, but you can't get it on line without paying. You might want to check your library, or you can pay to download it, I think.
Essentially, a built in run-off lets you pick your candidate of choice, and your second choice, and possibly more depending on the implementation. Suppose that Nader and Bush and Kerry were running and I wanted Nader, but didn't think he had a chance. I could vote for Nader, and picked Kerry as my second choice. The first step after the election would be to tally all the votes. If Bush came in with 50.3% and Kerry got 32% and Nader got 17.7%, then the vote would be final. If nobody got a majority, then the bottom candidate would be out of the running, and his voters' votes would be recast to their next choice. So in the case that nobody got a majority, we would find out which of the top candidates all voters would have picked in a two person race, but it does not discourage them from voting for the candidate of their choice. It also means that if I prefer Nader in the above example, but I want Bush as my second choice, even though I might be causing him to get less than a majority, I am not really hurting him if Nader ends up at the bottom. Since I no longer have to feel that I am wasting my vote with Nader, we get a true feel for how many people would really want to see Nader as president, rather than a count that does not reflect the "I like him but won't vote for him because he does not have a chance" crowd. This ends up helping people like Nader, since it gives a true reflection of who supports him. It helps the main candidates too since it keeps them from losing an election even when most voters prefer them. If we had this system the last time around, we'd have a different president now.
The problem is that some will say that it's political since it would not help Bush. But in the past, we had Republicans accusing Perot of draining their votes (it was not really true, but they complained throughout the Clinton years that he won on a plurality.) The Republicans also projected that Gore might win the electoral vote without the popular vote and were prepared to attack him for his whole presidency over it. So you never can tell in the long run which party will be helped, but it will be good for the voters.
As for the electoral college, I don't want to change the way they vote as part of this. The only change I would like to see is to make electoral votes binding rather than having actual electors who are legally free to vote in a way that differs from the way they pledge. I'd prefer to see the Secretary of State for each state file the electoral votes for his/her states and give all of them to the winner no matter what with no legal option to do anything else. I don't see a need for actual electors.
And one more point, since this is DragonBait's blog, is that I didn't much care for California's electoral college filing last time being made "in the year of OUR lord, 2000." They have no right telling me who MY lord or anybody else's lord is.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 07.10.04 (9:42 am)
Reply to: mblog
There is one state (I think its Vermont, but I could be wrong) that actually does use proportional electorates.
And the constitution ends with "in the year of our Lord..." Back then it was standard dating procedure- in today's climate it is unecessary and intentional.
posted by: jbfs (reply)
post date: 07.13.04 (4:03 am)
Reply to: mblog
My problem with the run-off voting is that it acts as multiple votes for some people and single votes for others...
Let's say there are 9 people voting on something with the following votes:
1: a,b
2: a,b
3: b,a
4: b,a
5: b,a
6: c,d
7: c,d
8: c,d
9: c,d
while c has more votes than anyone, he does not have the majority. If 1 and 2 hadn't voted, he would have the majority of votes. But now 1 and 2's votes get swung from a to b. Pushing b up to the majority. So, not only did they at first dilute the pool, but they then added to someone else's vote.
I know, those could have just as easily been a,c. But even then, I still see it as counting someone's vote more times than someone else's. I think the only way something like that would work would be to do something similar to how polls are done: 3 points for a first place vote, 2 for a second place vote, 1 for a third place vote... or something similar. (I'm really just thinking out loud here, so if I'm not making any sense, I apologize.)
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.13.04 (8:46 am)
Reply to: jbfs
In your example, we know from the beginning that a majority of people do not like candidate c. We also know that a majority of people consider candidate b as an acceptable choice, or a as an acceptable choice, but of those people, more prefer b as the top choice. It seems reasonable to me that b should win in that case. More people prefer b, and that was known from the beginning. In the current system, c would win even though most people preferred that b would win (and most people also preferred that a would win for that matter!)
One of the alternative proposed systems was a bit different in that it would have allowed a to win in the case where 6-9 picked a as a second choice since everybody considered a acceptable but I don't agree with that logic.
I don't see how anybody's vote is being counted twice. People are making their preferences clear from the beginning, and the system honors it. If I prefer b over c, even if b is not my top choice, I would still like b to win. As far as giving more weight to a, the system does that for me since a gets counted first and my vote does not switch until a is eliminated.
Currently, many places have run off elections. They are not done at the same time as the main election, but if nobody gets a majority, people get to pick from the top choices to see who most people prefer. This is no different in terms of giving people more votes.
The alternative is for somebody with 25.x% of the vote to be called a winner in a tight four person race when almost 75% of people can't stand him, even if it's known that 70% of people consider one of the other choices preferable.
posted by: jbfs (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (3:25 am)
Reply to: mblog
The alternative (with a winning on second place votes) seems closer to what I think would work. The value of your first vote is only greater than the value of your second vote if your first candidate sucks. If he does suck, then your second place vote becomes as or more valuable than your first. I would much prefer the second vote counting from the start, but counting as less of a vote. give rankings to those sets of votes (3,1) and you have c with 12, b with 11, a with 9, and d with 4. Which represents a little more accurately what happened. More people primarily preferred c than any othe candidate, while many people preferred b, there were a numbe who would rather someone else be in power. etc. Given, that with a tweak of the points system, we could very easily put b in front, but that's neither here nor there.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (1:10 pm)
Reply to: mblog
Reply to: jbfs
Hey, if you guys are REALLY interested in Electoral College reform, I wrote a 15-or-so-page term paper on the subject a few years ago. ;)
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (5:34 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
By all means, post it.
