I don't read the Politics forums that much, so I apologize if this is a duplicate of a recent thread by anyone else. I'm trying to decide wich canidate to get behind for the presedential elections this fall. My biggest problem is that I don't really like either Bush or Kerry...I'm sure this sentiment is felt my many others as well. I don't align with either of the parties ideology, I guess if I had to pick one party I'd be closest to libertarian. My question is that if I vote for a minority party or independant canidate will I be 'wasting my vote'? If the polls don't lie either Bush or Kerry will get elected, but it is a close race and they could use every vote they can get. Is it better to vote for the person that I think will do the best job, or the person who will do it a little bit better then the person who will otherwise get it? Last election the main contenders were Bush and Gore...and it was down to the last few votes that the election was decided. (I live in Florida so I know what I'm talking about!) Last election I voted for the 'lesser of two evils' and was glad that I did. Any thaughts on the matter will be greatly appreciated!
Personally, I'm a big believer in voting your conscience. If you don't support a candidate's positions, why vote for him? If you live in a state that is firmly in either the Bush or Kerry camp, voting for either of them is more of a wasted vote than voting for a 3rd party that you actually believe in. If you live in a "swing state", then it all comes down to whether you are more comfortable casting a "lesser evil" vote, or are so disgusted with the 2 major parties that you want to register a protest vote regardless of the possibility of a "spoiler" effect. I live in a state that ALWAYS goes democrat (Gore won by >15% margin in 2000, IIRC), so I will be going 3rd party again this year. How I have to decide between voting for Nader for the 3rd election in a row, Voting Green Party (Cobb/LaMarche), or really "flipping the bird" at the whole damn system, and voting Socialist Party. At this point, I'm leaning Socialist.... http://votesocialist.org/
If you vote for the candidate of your choise, you are not wasting your vote. You are using it properly and to the fullest. The goal is NOT to vote for the winner. The goal is to vote for your candidate and hope that they win. You have to ask; which is more important to you, your candiadate winning or Bush losing?
Like EllisDTrip said, it depends what kind of state that you're in. If you live in a battleground state (like I do), then you should probably go for the lesser of two evils. When you consider that either Bush or Kerry will win the election, not voting for one is like not voting at all (at least in the final outcome).
I am also a firm believer in voting your conscience. This "lesser of the two evils" talk is nonsense. I feel that neither the corporate-funded Democrats or Republicans represent average Americans. I have said this before, and I will probably say it again. But, unfortunately, that's all the bulk of Americans will vote for. I think I am one of the few people in the forums who don't really care if either Bush or Kerry is elected, because they are so much alike. People who think otherwise are not very informed. At this point, it seems almost as if Kerry is to the right of Bush on several issues. Just listen to Kerry's acceptance speech from thursday night, pandering to conservative swing voters like the phony piece of living silicon he is. People have this fucked up notion that if Kerry is elected, things will make a 180 degree turn overnight and we'll suddenly be living in a perfect world where violence, poverty and injustice are unheard of. This is such a naive way of thinking. I think this war in Iraq is a major issue. But instead of bringing our troops home from Iraq, Kerry wants to send more troops there to die. More international support probably will not make a whole lot of difference when you consider the amount of resistance that is seen in Iraq. In November, I will be one of the few THINKING Americans willing to "throw my vote away" on somebody who will not win. Originally, I was going to vote for Ralph Nader, but now I plan on voting for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. This is my way of protesting against a system that exploits good people.
correct me if I'm wrong, but a 360 degree turn would not be a perfect world, but actually put us exactly where we are correct? this is the first time that I am electing to go with the lesser of two evils, whether it proves worthwhile or not, but all I really care is to help fire Bush. Kerry may end up being no better. All I know is that I can't support a religious zealot as my president, now matter what party they represent.
Yep. I think what Rat meant was 180 degrees... Would that include John Kerry, who has promised to appoint anti-abortion judges to the SCOTUS if he deemed it necessary for "balance"?
xaosflux, what I would recommend you do, is to find the one issue nearest and dearest to your heart and soul.....the one issue you feel passionate about (maybe it's the war, abortion, gay marriage, jobs, economy, healthcare, whatever). Align yourself with that candidate that supports your passionate issue, whatever that may be. That is truly voting your conscience.
Thank you for all of the SWIFT excellent replies... I'm currently wrestling between (Badnarik) or (Bush or Kerry). A few of the above posts focused on battleground/swing states though, and as was PAINFULLY obvious to everyone in 2000 I'm in one of them..where a handful of votes sealed the final outcome. I'm NOT happy with a lot of things that are happening under the current administration, and I really don't know enough about Kerry to decide if it would even be worth bringing him in. NO matter what I WILL vote for SOMEONE, even if it's write in!
Dear X Did you really have to put this post on sticky? Is it somehow better and more important than any other persons post? Yours Balbus
Oops..I meant to take it off yesterday, only wanted it sticky for a day! I did not think it was better then all the other posts, I was just really hoping that someone would see it and I'd get at least one reply, was really overwhelmed by the quick replies though! Thanks again everyone!
Facts: -Bush has given us the largest debt in US history. This will eventually result in higher taxes, fewer services ore higher prices. Have you ever heard what happened to Germany before the rise of Hitler. It literally took a wheel barrel full of cash to buy a loaf of bread. We’re heading down that same path. Remember- Hitler we elected! -Bush has diminished our civil liberties- similar to Hitler. -Bush started a war with a country that is not and has not been a threat to us- similar to Hitler. -Bush has deregulated every environmental law in the country. Ancient Sequoia and Redwood trees are slated to be cut. He has given all of our natural recourses to corporate interest. -Bush has walked away from several international treaties. Nuclear Test ban – Kyoto.. -Bush has isolated us in the international community- making us less safe. -Bush is giving our tax money to a hand full of billionaires instead of paying for education and social security. There has never been a stronger case to vote against a candidate.
Well.. I believe you should vote for the lesser of two evils. In my opinion this would be Kerry. I would not vote for either of them however it will boil down to Bush and Kerry so I believe you would be wasting your vote if you vote for a minority party. It's sad but true. Gore could have won by a landslide if so many people didn't tip the scale in Bush's favor by voting for Nader ( although Bush probably still would've won cuz he's a cheating, lying deciever of the people that that cheated his way into office in the first place and he'll damn well try & do it again). I would personally love to see someone from a minority party elected as prez.. but unfortunately it's not a fair game for them. We still live in a two party dominant country and as such should vote accordingly. As much as I'd like to.. I feel it to be a big mistake to vote for anyone other than the lesser of the two main evils.
When I hear a politician say "vote for me, I'm not as bad as the other guy" it is a sign that they will say or do whatever is necessary to stay in power. By not voting for whom you believe, you encourage the individual(s) that you voted for that you approve of their policies lock, stock and barrell and that those individuals are free to implement their agendas almost at will. I will admit that back in 2002, I voted for the Green party candidate for Maryland state Comptroller. While I disagreed with this individual more than I did the Republican challenger, I realized that the Republican had no chance against the incumbent Democrat, whom I despised despite his popularity. I also did this as a gesture to try to boost the standing of minor political parties here. Voting for the lesser of evils will never get your desires fulfilled, it only slows the processes of the inevitable. One analogy I've used before is the following: You have two trains travelling on parallel tracks, one train is travelling at 100 miles per hour the other at 99 miles per hour. Which train is travelling at which speed is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the brakes on both trains don't work, both the engineers are madmen and that both trains are headed over a cliff. Now, do you really want to be on either train? I say vote for what you want not what you fear. Unless I feel there's a good reason to do otherwise, I'll be voting for Michael Badnarik http://www.badnarik.org
