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
| The 'lesser of two evils' syndrome |
| 08.05.04 (10:09 pm) [edit] |
|
Chatting with my good friend, [url=http://redtigress.tblog.com]RedTigress[/url], I decided to take it upon myself to convince the nation to overcome the syndrome that has plagued our political natures for so long- the 'lesser of two evils' syndrome. Forgive me for not having any official statistics, but I have no doubt that the majority of Americans have apathetically submitted to the view of politics, particularly when it comes to presidential politics, as necessarily about selecting the lesser of two evils. In this year's election, most see it as choosing between President Bush or John Kerry, despite the fact that neither may be considered desirable. Those who favor Kerry tend to operate under the 'anyone but Bush' mentality, not caring how much actual support they have for John Kerry as president. As long as he is not George W. Bush, he'll do, seems to be the opinion. Conversely, many of those supporting Bush for re-election actually have very negative opinions of the current Administration, but feel that John Kerry's platform is unacceptable. Generally, there is the view that casting a vote for a third party candidate is wasting your vote. Depending on your viewpoint, this is true. It can also be true depending on your location. But in many ways, it is the most significant vote you can cast. Consider, for example, a state such as Idaho. Bush has a clear majority lead throughout the state. This means that, in all likelihood, all of Idaho's electoral votes will go to President Bush. Any vote cast in the state of Idaho for [b]any[/b] candidate other than Bush could be considered a wasted vote, in the sense that these votes would, in the end, not be counted toward electing the next president. However, this does not urge Democratic voters in Idaho to give in and vote for Bush. The reason for this is that these votes against Bush act as protest votes. They may not have any tangible effectiveness, but they are symbolic of disapproval of the state's chosen candidate. They also prevent the winning candidate from having as great a mandate. As I said, these votes include any candidate other than Bush; it is, in essence, equivocal to vote for John Kerry or Michael Badnarik or Ralph Nader or a tree. The difference lies in the significance for the future. Votes for the Democratic candidate in a state that will undoubtedly go to the Republican mean very little (just as votes for a Republican in a predominantly Democratic state are effectively meaningless). They demonstrate that the Republican does not have a complete mandate, but do little else. On the other hand, votes for third party candidates can create a new political future, one where perhaps the phrase 'lesser of two evils' need not be uttered. A vote for a third party candidate is symbolic. It is a protest vote, a demand for change. The fewer third party votes cast, the lesser the chance of this call for change being heard. However, the more votes a third party candidate gets, the more likely attention will be given to the party, and, in time, the party can be granted an equal footing with the major parties. The only way for the message of liberty, freedom, non-coercion, and individual rights can be made into reality is for parties such as the [url=http://lp.org]Libertarian Party[/url] to gain enough support so that they can effectively contend in national politics. Rise above the 'lesser of two evils' mentality and embrace the cause of liberty. Don't waste your vote, support change in America. |
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:17 pm)
You're wrong. Alot of us support Kerry enthusiastically.
But for those who don't and don't like Bush either-- to cast a symbolic vote that is simply a vote for Bush in reality, is a cop-out, irresponsible and destructive with so much at stake, in my opinion.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:20 pm)
Reply to: newbie
I didn't say no one supports Kerry or Bush enthusiastically. I said most would prefer better choices. And how is it that if the vote isn't for Kerry it's for Bush? That may be the case in swing states, but not in those where there is a clear majority lead by either of the candidates. And we'll just have to disagree, because I find it to be more destructive to our nation's future to constantly settle for the lesser of two evils. :)
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:25 pm)
Reply to: newbie
If Kerry is so great, why don't you share as to why he is so great please? I havn't heard someone lay it out for me yet. You may convince me to vote for him if you do a good enough job. However, whining like this won't convince anyone.
Also, what's wrong with people choosing the person they WANT for president as opposed to choosing someone who isn't Bush?
You know, Saddam Hussein isn't Bush. I bet you'd love him as pres, wouldn't you?
Tell me I'm wring if not and then tell my why John Kerry is so much better.
I'd greatly appriciate that.
Thanks.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:29 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
That should read "Tell me I'm wrong"
"i" and "o" are very close to one another on a keyboard, especially when you're typing quickly. Did you know that?
posted by: SpyMaster (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:34 pm)
Reply to: RedTigress
You aren't very bright. You are known to be a fascist who lies about the atrocities commited by the IDF against innocent Palestinians.
If you don't know about Kerry, it is because you don't want to know. You don't want to know anything that doesn't fit into your insane neo-con ideology.
To be so full of hate and ignorance at such a young age is truly pathetic.
You are a racist RedTigress and I pity you. You've learnt nothing from the Holocaust and appear to be like the Nazis you condemn.
posted by: SpyMaster (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:37 pm)
Voting is always a question of choices. We have limited choices in any race. I couldn't disagree with you more. To vote for the candidate that you think will do the best job is the sane way of voting.
For someone who is a Libertarian to vote for Bush is analagous to a Jew voting for a Nazi pig. It simply is stupid-- just plain stupid!
P.S. I'm not saying you are stupid DragonBait22. You write a very interesting and thought-provoking blog that I just happen to disagree with. Well said.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:41 pm)
Reply to: SpyMaster
"Bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla Bla bla bla bla bla bla ..." (and so on)
Please tell me something new, k?
Again (and I repeat):
What's wrong with people choosing the person they WANT for president as opposed to choosing someone who isn't Bush?
You know, Saddam Hussein isn't Bush....
Tell me I'm wring if not and then tell my why John Kerry is so much better.
I'd greatly appriciate that.
Thanks.
And by the way, thanks for posting as one of your usernames this time instead of "newbie" like at the top of this comments section.
Also, if you are unable to take the true challenge of answering my questions, you're unable to debate rationally.
Just to clarify, I have made no ad-hominim attacks in my response to you, though you are unable (as it seems thus far) to be civil in less i'm all for killing all the Jews in Israel.
Please think about my questions and I await your calculated, reasoned, and rational response.
I hope asking you to be rational isn't too hard for you.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:42 pm)
Reply to: SpyMaster
Firstly, I don't appreciate the type of comment you left in response to RedTigress. Criticize all you want, but do so in a mature fashion or I'll have to delete your comments.
Secondly, I never said a thing about libertarians voting for Bush. I am advocating voting for third party candidates, such as the Libertarian candidate. I agree that it would be stupid for a person who does not agree with or support Bush (or Kerry or Badnarik) to vote for him. But that's not at all what I was saying.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:43 pm)
Reply to: SpyMaster
I'm confused. You say that a Libertarian shouldn't vote for Bush, and that we should vote for who we think is best qualified, but you also say you couldn't disagree with DragonBait more?
And yes, RedTigress is a conservative, but I don't remember her being racist, aside from some bantering about the Frenchies.
posted by: RedTigress (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (7:45 pm)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
hehe, yea. and the french aren't even a race (though they like to think so) ;P
posted by: UsefulIdiot (reply)
post date: 08.05.04 (8:00 pm)
I'm voting for John F. Kerry and think he will be a great President!!!!
posted by: CheckItOut (reply)
post date: 08.06.04 (6:09 am)
I don't adhere to your philosophy although I respect your blog very much. Casting a vote involves making a responsible choice and taking into account all of the factors that lead to the best possible choice for the nation.
I intend to vote for John F. Kerry who will make an outstanding president. I was for Howard Dean. For me to vote for Ralph Nader for example would be foolish because practically speaking it would be giving a vote to Bush who is a disaster.
To make a responsible decision involves taking reality into account. This is why the GOP is backing Nader because cynically they hope that in getting people to cast votes his way (knowing he doesn't have a chance), they know that Bush will benefit.
We cannot afford another four years of the Bush/Cheney dictatorship and disastrous bungling of our economy and the heinous atrocities abroad in wars based upon lies.
I think it would be highly irresponsible and downright dumb to vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning at a time when the stakes are so high.
If one stands for the cause of liberty-- then one fights with vigor although the road is long and hard-- instead of living in a fantasy world that brings a disastrous outcome.
Thank you.
posted by: CheckItOut (reply)
post date: 08.06.04 (6:11 am)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
Dear therealspartacus007,
Because I respect you enormously, I want you to know that I don't agree with you regarding RT-- but that's for another day.
However, I wanted you to know how I felt about the excellent point that DragonBait22 makes in her thought-provoking blog:--
I don't adhere to your philosophy although I respect your blog very much. Casting a vote involves making a responsible choice and taking into account all of the factors that lead to the best possible choice for the nation.
I intend to vote for John F. Kerry who will make an outstanding president. I was for Howard Dean. For me to vote for Ralph Nader for example would be foolish because practically speaking it would be giving a vote to Bush who is a disaster.
To make a responsible decision involves taking reality into account. This is why the GOP is backing Nader because cynically they hope that in getting people to cast votes his way (knowing he doesn't have a chance), they know that Bush will benefit.
We cannot afford another four years of the Bush/Cheney dictatorship and disastrous bungling of our economy and the heinous atrocities abroad in wars based upon lies.
I think it would be highly irresponsible and downright dumb to vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning at a time when the stakes are so high.
If one stands for the cause of liberty-- then one fights with vigor although the road is long and hard-- instead of living in a fantasy world that brings a disastrous outcome.
Thank you.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 08.06.04 (6:20 am)
Reply to: CheckItOut
Thank you for your reply. If the election in my home state is projected to be within a few hundred votes, I will likely change my mind and vote for John Kerry, since there will be a good chance mine will be the deciding vote. But if mine is just going to be one more vote among thousands, I will be using my vote to send a message to politicians telling them what my values are.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 08.06.04 (9:46 am)
I disagree with this whole concept of "mandate." It's just another political buzzword.
When Clinton was president, there were three candidates in each election who got a significant vote. Clinton won in both cases by a plurality. Yet all the polls showed that Clinton would have won a majority in a two person race and was clearly preferred over his only major competition each time.
Yet the Republicans in congress and on talk radio and in Internet groups kept insisting that Clinton had no mandate.
When Bush became president, he did not get a majority of the popular vote. Most people wanted somebody else, and the same was even true in Florida. Yet we never heard that Bush didn't have a mandate. The whole term was a phony political one from the beginning.
What really counts is what the people think. If your views are out of line with the voters, going against them will not help you in the long run. Sure, there are tricks you can play. If a Republican leader goes by what he wants to do instead of what the people want, you say that it shows strong leadership. If a Democrat does the same thing, you say that he's cold and out of touch, as was the case with Gray Davis. If a Democrat listens to the people to see if his political views are feasible choices for action (which of course is very different from picking a side based on what is popular) then you call him wishy washy and say that he lacks leadership skills. But if a Republican actually finds one of his views popular among the majority, then you tout polls as if it's the greatest thing in the world.
We don't need somebody with a "mandate." We need somebody who recognizes that leadership is moving the country in the right direction by treating its citizens with respect, and doing things that will help the country as a whole, and increase our standing in the world. Leadership is not about divisiveness and name calling.
posted by: AdamSelene (reply)
post date: 08.07.04 (6:35 am)
I don't see the point of voting for a Libertarian candidate (or any candidate). Even if the candidate receives a significant enough number of votes that every American hears of the Libertarians, it will not change the fundamental fact that, on average, the Republicans and Democrats do reflect the spectrum of what Americans are.
I think it is better for those with the same sensibilities to concentrate geographically (e.g., the Free State Project). I don't think a nation as large as the US can ever be Libertarian. I think there is a maximum size a government can be before it takes on a life of its own. When a government is large enough to be a career for many people, it is too late for libertarianism to survive.
We live in an era of big government, where your typical nation is millions of people, and global politics are dominated by a few supernations of hundreds of millions or even billions of victims. We need to somehow move to a world where, regardless of whether big government still exists, minarchism and anarchism can survive, at least in various pockets. I'd prefer a world where no government is any larger than your typical American county.
posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 08.23.04 (4:50 pm)
i've voted libertarian for years and was a member of the LP for several years including serving for a year as the communications director for the local LP group. i intend to vote libertarian again this year (i'm now a registered democrat for local political purposes) for the exact "protest / change the system" reasons you have eloquently outlined.
posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 08.23.04 (4:50 pm)
i've voted libertarian for years and was a member of the LP for several years including serving for a year as the communications director for the local LP group. i intend to vote libertarian again this year (i'm now a registered democrat for local political purposes) for the exact "protest / change the system" reasons you have eloquently outlined.
