kickaha | Remember how I said "There's always someone worse"?

Remember how I said "There's always someone worse"?

Kerry just picked Edwards for his running mate.

Fuck.

Just to set the record straight for all the non-NC residents...

Edwards was a big trial lawyer down here who "fought for the little people"... for a big check. Pro bono? his firm never did *any* that anyone's been able to confirm.

He then ran on a platform for Senator that he'd "fight for the little people". Guess what happened? A poor voting attendance record, and then only partway through his *first term*, he essentially abdicates to run for President. He walked out on the job because something shinier was dangled in front of him... and didn't have the decency or balls to just quit and let the 'little people' of NC choose a replacement. Nope, we got stuck with a do-nothing.

In my opinion he's a fraud, a fake, and a self-serving egomaniac with not enough political experience to run for governor, much less VP.

Now he's the Dem VP nominee... and suddenly I really don't want to vote for Kerry. What if Kerry takes a bullet? This Breck Boy bubblehead and power tripping maniac could ascend to the Presidency... he'd be like Bush, without any political experience at all. Oh gooooood.

Bottom line: Edwards let down the people of NC. He's a sham. And he'll do it to the rest of country, now that he's been given a chance.

Kerry, I am so utterly disappointed in you it isn't funny. You went for glitz over substance, and turned the Democratic nomination into a soccer-mom-vote popularity contest. Shame on you. You had my vote locked in until this... but now?

How's Nader looking? *sigh*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So, if you vote for Nader - then you WANT Bush for another 4 years?

Nope, it means I want Nader.

The 'throwing away your vote' fairy tale is the best way to keep the two party (and therefore fundamentally broken) system in place.

Vote *FOR* who you *WANT*. Period.

Any other approach is just playing into the hands of those that would eliminate our choice.

So... if you limit your vote to the two main parties, exclusively... you WANT no choice in your so-called democratic process?

Voting *against* someone is a child's approach. Learn the topics, and the candidates, and choose who you *WANT*, not who you don't. Voting against someone is easy, simple, and the lazy voter's way out. But gee, it makes GREAT rhetoric, doesn't it?

We all have a responsibility to do more than that in exercising our right to vote. Otherwise we may as well just openly acknowledge that we have no real power, and not vote at all. I'm sure many powers that be would love that.

I refuse.

What is a nice idea, and your ideal, often will jsut not float.

I don't agree with Kerry - or Edwards - on lots of issues, but they are many times better than the option - Bush.

Edward's more moderate look will appeal to many who think Kerry is too liberal.

The way I see it, you have two options:

Vote for Kerry - against Bush
Vote for anyone else - and for Bush

It boils down to "do you want Bush or not."

And anyway, Nader most likely won't even be on the NC Ballot, so, Liberatrian (who is that again? anyway, they're worse than the GOP), Democratic, or Republican.

It isn't about the person, it's about the best choice. Sure, they aren't your perfect choices, but getting some of what you want is better than getting nothing of what you want.

Vote for Kerry - against Bush
Vote for anyone else - and for Bush

It boils down to "do you want Bush or not."
-----

And there you have the perpetuation of the two party system, locked in stone. Thank you for contributing to the lack of choice in our political system.

Voting is all *about* ideals... it's not a popularity contest, and it's not a binary yes/no choice. Choose the candidate you *WANT*. Anything is else is selling the system and the country short, and the only true way to throw away your vote... because you voluntarily did not speak up for what you *wanted*.

And if you don't, you'll only get what someone else hands to you.

Oh wait. We already pretty much have that, thanks to decades of your viewpoint. But do carry on... after all, it's the same mentality used by the Bushies. Anti-this, anti-that... seemed to work for them. Maybe this time it'll work for you too.

Typically in the past, I've opted to vote for whoever wasn't one of "the two". However, this is lining up to be an incredibly close election where conceivably every vote could impact who wins.

I don't think you can provide a reasonable argument that Nader stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election. I'd be amazed if he could pull in a single state. Two party system aside, he just doesn't appeal to a large percentage of the population. Therefore, I think we can safely say that you aren't voting so Nader will win, but to make a point.

When Perot ran, I voted for him. Yes, he was a nut, but I too was expressing my unhappiness with the two party system. I realized that my voting for him had the potential to impact who would get elected, but I didn't really care.

With the exception of Nader himself, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement with the argument that Nader's presence in 2000 contributed to Bush winning. Hell, in some states right now die-hard Republicans are working to get Nader on the their ballots. You think it's so they can fight the two-party system? Hardly... They know his presence will only help keep Bush in office.

If you don't mind Bush being president for 4 more years, then I wholeheartedly salute you voting for a philosophy instead of a president.

Frankly, in North Carolina it probably won't make a difference since the state is practically a given for Bush. However, I personally would rather see John Edwards, John Kerry, or even Martha Stewart as president before giving Bush that much power again. To me, it's not about a poor choice but a terrifying, destructive choice.

Yes, I plan to vote for Kerry this election. I am planning to set aside my philisophical views for a moment to try and find a short-term practical way to improve a terrible situation.

Will I go back to supporting a better election system with more than two parties? Yes. But if I were willing to subject the country, and the world to 4 more years of Bush to make a philisophical point about the current voting system, I would be naive at best, if not horribly irresponsible.

Again though, I say that about myself because I believe that 4 more years of Bush is one of the worst things that could happen to this country. Much worse than continuing a 2 party system for a few more years. Much worse than the possibility that Edwards could maybe become president if Kerry dies.

If you don't mind Bush being re-elected, then by all means you should vote for Nader. But claiming a vote for Nader isn't going to directly aid in putting Bush back in office is a naive claim at best.

One final point, and then I'll shut up and climb back in my hole. Voting is a binary yes/no choice. It is a popularity contest. Your vote is only one of hundreds of millions. People are voting for who they like best. It is a vote for a person, not an ideal. My ballot is going to say "George W. Bush", not "Trickle down economics, war and leadership through fear".

I never said I was voting for Nader. I made a rhetorical comment about looking at all the options now that my preferred choice has done something utterly boneheaded. That is all. Any assumptions about my voting personally for Nader were made by ymasen. I'm sorry you spent your time writing a well thought out response to a non-issue.

Voting is only a binary choice and a popularity contest because, we, the people, allowed it to become so through accepting the mass marketing and dumbing down of our election system.

Early days of this century, there were dozens of cola companies... now only two really matter. Why? Because once those two reached a certain size, it became obvious that if they marketed themselves as the *only* choices, they eventually would be... people would forget the rest over time. "Coke or Pepsi?" Remember that? It was a binary choice... a popularity contest. Can anyone really tell me they can taste much difference between the two any more? Once the field was cleared, the two moved much closer to each other in an attempt to take over each others' market share, until they are essentially indistinguishable from each other.

Exactly the same thing has happened with our political system. The Democrats and Republicans are hardly distinguishable any more... (Edwards helped pen the Patriot Act!) they've cleared the field by convincing everyone quite thoroughly, apparently, that they are the only two choices. That any other choice is 'wasted'... and those choices are dwindling rapidly because people *believe the marketing*.

Our election system is no more meaningful anymore than Coke vs. Pepsi or McDonald's vs. Burger King... and that's precisely how the folks at the top like it. We don't have free elections, we have two mass-marketed 'choices' that are shoved down our throats with all the precision of any other ad campaign.

And the easiest way to brainwash the masses (which is obvious has worked admirably), is to pit them against each other... anti-Dem, anti-Bush, anti-abortion, anti-war... you name it, it's preferred to have people be *anti* anything rather than *pro*... because people in a dither are more easily controlled.

We as a nation are letting the same people who brought us our fast food catastrophe dictate how we place our votes... and we're on the precipice of losing everything because of it. You think Bush curtailed personal rights? Wait until both sides do, in turns. (Hint: Edwards... Patriot Act...)

How we vote is not beside the point... it IS the point. Without that, we have no power left in this country, and it won't matter who we vote for, because the two sides will be essentially identical.

Let's face it, the voting process itself is fucked. One vote/one candidate is a statistical dinosaur. The electoral college needs to be revamped back to the original approach.

And the two party system needs to be put to rest as the lie that it is.

Will I vote for Kerry? Most likely... because after all is said and done, I'll probably still think that his *positions* are the best choice, and that he has the leadership quality to pull it off. I like Nader's positions on many things, but I don't think he has the experience or leadership to make it work. Never have. Clark and McCain were my two dream candidates, but of course glitz and rhetoric won out over substance, as is usual in the mass marketing culture we live in.

Coke or Pepsi?

Big Mac or Whopper?

Bush or Kerry?

It's all the same anymore... and no one seems to be able to see that.

Well done, Madison Ave., well done. The sheep are aligned for the pit.

Coke or Pepsi?

Big Mac or Whopper?

Bush or Kerry?

Not the same, because if I take the time to seek out a source of Cheerwine, I can find it, buy it, and be completely content. In fact, nobody's going to ask me "Why aren't you drinking Coke or Pepsi?"

If I vote Nader, I'll wind up with Bush. I don't like it any more than you do. I wouldn't vote Nader, anyway; because he's a total basket case, and if they'd just let him on the debates (well, if they'd let him debate last time), the rest of the people would see that.

You're right, though, the voting process needs to be revamped. The electoral college is good, mind you, because (up until now) it was designed to prevent demagogues. We've got the technology (or, maybe we don't, since electronic voting still seems to be a quagmire of fuckitude); so are you proposing a "first, second, third?" kind of voting?

I _personally_ think that the way to change the two-party system is from the bottom up, and I think great movement has been made in that direction. If we can find a libertarian candidate with a decent suit, we're in business.

Votes:
"First second third"... exactly. Scientific American ran a fascinating article on voting processes a few months ago. April, I think. It used the 2000 US Presidential Election of a prime example of how *NOT* to have people vote... it does one of the poorest jobs of reflecting people's rankings. (The other was the last French Presidential election, when the NeoNazi (LePin?) almost won from out of nowhere.)

Tiered voting allows for rankings - as it is, a far left Socialist and a moderate Democrat with fiscally conservative leanings both end up voting precisely the same way - which means that everyone loses their voice to some degree. It also means there are *NO* 'wasted votes'. We could a dozen candidates, and votes would be distributed as the voter saw fit. The kicker? It's really frickin' easy. "Who's your first choice? Who's your second choice?" and so on. If you don't like anybody left in the field at all, you simply don't vote for them at all. Assume there are 10 candidates. Your first pick gets 10 points. Your second pick gets 9. Your third, 8. And so on. Anyone you don't pick at *all*, get 0 points, meaning you give them no clout, period. *NO* vote is wasted.

Instead, we have this idiotic system that is geared directly for the mass marketing wonks to take advantage of, and run us all right into the gutter. Whoo.

Electoral College:
Thank you for seeing the EC has a purpose - most people I talk about this with think it's somehow evil, and in the way of a popular vote approach. *shudder* If we had a simple popular vote, the seven largest cities in the US would decide each election, the rest of us would be statistically insignificant. Great thought, eh?

Right now each state gives the full EC ballots to the popular vote winner in that state... which is just bizarre. I have an alternative:

Each state has a number of EC ballots equal to their total number of Congress seats: 2 for the Senate, and N for the House, based on their population. The N House seats are voted on by district already. I say we leverage this for the EC... each district has a popular vote for their single EC ballot, and then the two remaining EC ballots (representing the Senate seats) are given to the *overall* state popular vote.

This splits each state up into smaller pieces, each of which can vote independently of the others, and have equal representation, yet there is still a unified voice of the state in the remaining two ballots.

It makes the EC closer to the popular vote, while protecting the interests of smaller population areas. Having lived in both rural and urban areas, their needs are simply different, and often at odds - allowing the urban populace to push often short-sighted legislation through by sheer weight results in more harm than good to rural areas in most cases. Everyone's out for their own short-term interests, instead of seeing a larger view.

Of course, with tiered voting, the EC may simply be a redundancy, since the outcome ranking of the election will more closely the reflect the varied wishes of the general population.

Now for a fun one: bring back the original approach that winner got Presidency, and 1st runner up got Veep? I rather like. Might lead to gridlock, would certainly lead to more discussion and discourse during each term instead of these wild swings of the pendulum we currently have that just enforce the polarization of the political rhetoric.

Now for a fun one: bring back the original approach that winner got Presidency, and 1st runner up got Veep? I rather like. Might lead to gridlock, would certainly lead to more discussion and discourse during each term instead of these wild swings of the pendulum we currently have that just enforce the polarization of the political rhetoric.

Someone, at some point, did some study for which I have absolutely no citation that says that gridlock is best for the economy. The less congress does, the better.

I completely believe that. :D

For the rec ord, I asked a question, didn't make an assumption about your voting for Nader.

"So, if you vote for Nader - then you WANT Bush for another 4 years?"

question - not assumption.

Fair enough. It's still an illogical progression based on bad assumptions.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Remember how I said "There's always someone worse"?

no subject

Fallacy

Re: Reality

Re: Reality

Re: Reality

Well said, but...

Re: Well said, but...

Voting mechanisms.

Re: Voting mechanisms.

Re: Voting mechanisms.

Re: Well said, but...

Re: Well said, but...