Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.
The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]
But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There really isn’t a “Left” or a “Right” anymore. Given the absurd amounts of money needed to fuel a campaign, the politicians are bought and paid for well before they reach office and owe significant “favors” to those moneyed interests, not the electorate.
The Dems and the Repubs are now virtually indistinguishable from one another. [/quote]
But what about the question I’m asking. If the above is true, and I’m unhappy with the above, how should I vote? Wouldn’t a vote for either party be a vote to continue the existing situation? Given my alternatives, what’s the best way to vote? If you believe the above, (and I’m gonna assume you do since you wrote it) don’t you find yourself facing the same dilemma?
XBoxBoy
Participantduplicate… sorry about that…
Participantduplicate… sorry about that…
Participantduplicate… sorry about that…
Participantduplicate… sorry about that…
Participantduplicate… sorry about that…
Participant[quote=teacherSD]In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.[/quote]
Teacher, thanks for the thoughtful on topic post!
[quote=teacherSD]I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste.[/quote]
I tend to agree. Seems to me if you don’t vote the message you are sending is I can’t be bothered. But that’s not the message I want to send. I want to send the message, “Damn right I care, I just can’t stand the choices you’re offering and I’m fed up with it.”
[quote=teacherSD]The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot.[/quote]
I think if this was publicized it could be very successful. But in today’s environment, I think it would just be taken as, “Look at this idiot, he’s too stupid to fill out a simple ballot.” If there was an organized movement to turn in blank ballots as a protest, then I’d do that in a heartbeat.
[quote=teacherSD]After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots.[/quote]
I think this reflects the current attitude, turning in a blank ballot will be ignored. So that doesn’t seem such a good option.
[quote=teacherSD]I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.[/quote]
This is pretty much my opinion. Thus the title of this thread challenging anyone to put forward arguments against this strategy. (That Clinton good, vs Clinton bad argument was less than successful guys)
[quote=teacherSD]Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that partially voted ballots still count for the races where ballots are cast.
But my problem with voting the “non-partisan offices” only is that they really are not non-partisan. The party name doesn’t appear on the ballot, but usually most the support for the candidates, (the money for those signs hung at busy intersections) comes from the parties or from connections the candidate has made at party meetings. These are more training grounds for people who want to become candidates for “partisan offices” later. So, in a way these offices are not “non-partisan” they are “unrevealed-partisan” offices. And the candidates are merely lining up to get training in the whole “I give you campaign funds, you trade favors” system.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=teacherSD]In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.[/quote]
Teacher, thanks for the thoughtful on topic post!
[quote=teacherSD]I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste.[/quote]
I tend to agree. Seems to me if you don’t vote the message you are sending is I can’t be bothered. But that’s not the message I want to send. I want to send the message, “Damn right I care, I just can’t stand the choices you’re offering and I’m fed up with it.”
[quote=teacherSD]The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot.[/quote]
I think if this was publicized it could be very successful. But in today’s environment, I think it would just be taken as, “Look at this idiot, he’s too stupid to fill out a simple ballot.” If there was an organized movement to turn in blank ballots as a protest, then I’d do that in a heartbeat.
[quote=teacherSD]After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots.[/quote]
I think this reflects the current attitude, turning in a blank ballot will be ignored. So that doesn’t seem such a good option.
[quote=teacherSD]I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.[/quote]
This is pretty much my opinion. Thus the title of this thread challenging anyone to put forward arguments against this strategy. (That Clinton good, vs Clinton bad argument was less than successful guys)
[quote=teacherSD]Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that partially voted ballots still count for the races where ballots are cast.
But my problem with voting the “non-partisan offices” only is that they really are not non-partisan. The party name doesn’t appear on the ballot, but usually most the support for the candidates, (the money for those signs hung at busy intersections) comes from the parties or from connections the candidate has made at party meetings. These are more training grounds for people who want to become candidates for “partisan offices” later. So, in a way these offices are not “non-partisan” they are “unrevealed-partisan” offices. And the candidates are merely lining up to get training in the whole “I give you campaign funds, you trade favors” system.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=teacherSD]In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.[/quote]
Teacher, thanks for the thoughtful on topic post!
[quote=teacherSD]I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste.[/quote]
I tend to agree. Seems to me if you don’t vote the message you are sending is I can’t be bothered. But that’s not the message I want to send. I want to send the message, “Damn right I care, I just can’t stand the choices you’re offering and I’m fed up with it.”
[quote=teacherSD]The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot.[/quote]
I think if this was publicized it could be very successful. But in today’s environment, I think it would just be taken as, “Look at this idiot, he’s too stupid to fill out a simple ballot.” If there was an organized movement to turn in blank ballots as a protest, then I’d do that in a heartbeat.
[quote=teacherSD]After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots.[/quote]
I think this reflects the current attitude, turning in a blank ballot will be ignored. So that doesn’t seem such a good option.
[quote=teacherSD]I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.[/quote]
This is pretty much my opinion. Thus the title of this thread challenging anyone to put forward arguments against this strategy. (That Clinton good, vs Clinton bad argument was less than successful guys)
[quote=teacherSD]Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that partially voted ballots still count for the races where ballots are cast.
But my problem with voting the “non-partisan offices” only is that they really are not non-partisan. The party name doesn’t appear on the ballot, but usually most the support for the candidates, (the money for those signs hung at busy intersections) comes from the parties or from connections the candidate has made at party meetings. These are more training grounds for people who want to become candidates for “partisan offices” later. So, in a way these offices are not “non-partisan” they are “unrevealed-partisan” offices. And the candidates are merely lining up to get training in the whole “I give you campaign funds, you trade favors” system.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=teacherSD]In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.[/quote]
Teacher, thanks for the thoughtful on topic post!
[quote=teacherSD]I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste.[/quote]
I tend to agree. Seems to me if you don’t vote the message you are sending is I can’t be bothered. But that’s not the message I want to send. I want to send the message, “Damn right I care, I just can’t stand the choices you’re offering and I’m fed up with it.”
[quote=teacherSD]The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot.[/quote]
I think if this was publicized it could be very successful. But in today’s environment, I think it would just be taken as, “Look at this idiot, he’s too stupid to fill out a simple ballot.” If there was an organized movement to turn in blank ballots as a protest, then I’d do that in a heartbeat.
[quote=teacherSD]After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots.[/quote]
I think this reflects the current attitude, turning in a blank ballot will be ignored. So that doesn’t seem such a good option.
[quote=teacherSD]I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.[/quote]
This is pretty much my opinion. Thus the title of this thread challenging anyone to put forward arguments against this strategy. (That Clinton good, vs Clinton bad argument was less than successful guys)
[quote=teacherSD]Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that partially voted ballots still count for the races where ballots are cast.
But my problem with voting the “non-partisan offices” only is that they really are not non-partisan. The party name doesn’t appear on the ballot, but usually most the support for the candidates, (the money for those signs hung at busy intersections) comes from the parties or from connections the candidate has made at party meetings. These are more training grounds for people who want to become candidates for “partisan offices” later. So, in a way these offices are not “non-partisan” they are “unrevealed-partisan” offices. And the candidates are merely lining up to get training in the whole “I give you campaign funds, you trade favors” system.
XBoxBoy
Participant[quote=teacherSD]In an attempt to bring the topic back to your original post I will give my opinion of your original question.[/quote]
Teacher, thanks for the thoughtful on topic post!
[quote=teacherSD]I had a politics professor in college who said that not voting was a waste.[/quote]
I tend to agree. Seems to me if you don’t vote the message you are sending is I can’t be bothered. But that’s not the message I want to send. I want to send the message, “Damn right I care, I just can’t stand the choices you’re offering and I’m fed up with it.”
[quote=teacherSD]The professor disagreed and said a better form of protest was to go to the voting booth and turn in a blank ballot.[/quote]
I think if this was publicized it could be very successful. But in today’s environment, I think it would just be taken as, “Look at this idiot, he’s too stupid to fill out a simple ballot.” If there was an organized movement to turn in blank ballots as a protest, then I’d do that in a heartbeat.
[quote=teacherSD]After the 2000 presidential election (Bush v. Gore) there was a lot of attention on which ballots “count” and I seem to remember that blank ballots are just thrown out. They do not keep track of the number of people who turn in blank ballots.[/quote]
I think this reflects the current attitude, turning in a blank ballot will be ignored. So that doesn’t seem such a good option.
[quote=teacherSD]I personally have started voting for third party candidates. If something like the Ross Perot effect happens, I don’t care. If Clinton wins because people voted for Perot instead of Bush and that bothers me, then I should have voted for Bush.[/quote]
This is pretty much my opinion. Thus the title of this thread challenging anyone to put forward arguments against this strategy. (That Clinton good, vs Clinton bad argument was less than successful guys)
[quote=teacherSD]Another possibility is to vote only for nonpartisan offices. However, I would be afraid that my whole ballot would be thrown out if it isn’t complete. I don’t know if this is true. Does anyone else know?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that partially voted ballots still count for the races where ballots are cast.
But my problem with voting the “non-partisan offices” only is that they really are not non-partisan. The party name doesn’t appear on the ballot, but usually most the support for the candidates, (the money for those signs hung at busy intersections) comes from the parties or from connections the candidate has made at party meetings. These are more training grounds for people who want to become candidates for “partisan offices” later. So, in a way these offices are not “non-partisan” they are “unrevealed-partisan” offices. And the candidates are merely lining up to get training in the whole “I give you campaign funds, you trade favors” system.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantFirst off, thanks Brian for sticking to the topic. (Why this thread immediately turned into a Clinton good vs Clinton bad pissing match is beyond me.)
[quote=briansd1]I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions. [/quote]
I always participate in the primaries. As a matter of fact I’m registered as a republican, not because I like the republicans (I dont) but because I had hoped that I might be able to provide a vote to move the republican’s from the far wing nut right to the center. (So far that hasn’t been working out so wel, but that’s another discussion)
But here’s my dilemma. I see this whole repub vs dem and big govt vs smaller govt debate as BS. The issue isn’t which party is in power, or whether we do things via govt or via “free” markets. The issue is how do we allocate resources in an efficient and fair manner free of corruption and fraud, From what I see, the current situation of politicians and lobbyist working together to line the pockets of special interests completely subverts this goal
So, given that I want to vote for a candidate that will actually work towards my goal of efficient allocation free of corruption, I find it pretty hard to stomach anyone who has gotten the support of either the democratic party or the republican party.
[quote=briansd1]When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.[/quote]
[quote=Hobie]So it is bitter pill but I think we need to stick with the two parties for now.[/quote]
So, leaving aside Brian’s feeling that most everything we eat is unhealthy, (Dude, there’s some serious issues buried in that statement) my question to you two would be, if we just go along with the current two parties, how can we ever hope to change the system? For Hobie, if we don’t change things now, are you thinking we will sometime in the future? Why will the future be a better time?
XBoxBoy
ParticipantFirst off, thanks Brian for sticking to the topic. (Why this thread immediately turned into a Clinton good vs Clinton bad pissing match is beyond me.)
[quote=briansd1]I’d say participate in the primaries and vote the issues, not the emotions. [/quote]
I always participate in the primaries. As a matter of fact I’m registered as a republican, not because I like the republicans (I dont) but because I had hoped that I might be able to provide a vote to move the republican’s from the far wing nut right to the center. (So far that hasn’t been working out so wel, but that’s another discussion)
But here’s my dilemma. I see this whole repub vs dem and big govt vs smaller govt debate as BS. The issue isn’t which party is in power, or whether we do things via govt or via “free” markets. The issue is how do we allocate resources in an efficient and fair manner free of corruption and fraud, From what I see, the current situation of politicians and lobbyist working together to line the pockets of special interests completely subverts this goal
So, given that I want to vote for a candidate that will actually work towards my goal of efficient allocation free of corruption, I find it pretty hard to stomach anyone who has gotten the support of either the democratic party or the republican party.
[quote=briansd1]When I pick something to eat, I always choose the items that taste the best and are the least unhealthy. Most everything that we eat is unhealthy…. But we have to eat nevertheless.[/quote]
[quote=Hobie]So it is bitter pill but I think we need to stick with the two parties for now.[/quote]
So, leaving aside Brian’s feeling that most everything we eat is unhealthy, (Dude, there’s some serious issues buried in that statement) my question to you two would be, if we just go along with the current two parties, how can we ever hope to change the system? For Hobie, if we don’t change things now, are you thinking we will sometime in the future? Why will the future be a better time?
XBoxBoy
-
AuthorPosts