A serious question, leave your rhetoric at the door, please.

[kickaha]

Did you get to vote for whom you wanted today?

Not 'did you get to vote' or 'did you get to put the mark on the ballot where you decided to and no one tossed it in the trash'...

Did YOU get to vote for WHOM YOU WANTED?

Not 'for whom you wanted from the two choices handed to you'.



Or did you, like I, come home feeling like you needed to take a shower because your vote really *didn't* count, since your opinion wasn't allowed to be voiced when it matters? (The primaries are only an artificial construct of our two-party system, and serve only to limit voter choice.)

Did you get to vote for WHOM YOU WANTED... or did you have to settle for lesser of two evils?

I don't care who you actually voted for, that's your business and no one else's. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Comments

[f-x.livejournal.com]

My general view, which hasn't changed during this run for the presidency, is those best suited for the job don't want it. These two are not the best this country can produce, but the best don't want the job.

Do I think Kerry will make a good president? Yes. The best? Hardly. Does he match my views and ideologies in every single way? Of course not.

The various primary candidates had different strengths and different weaknesses. I never had a strong preference for any of them, although I was more against some than others. Kerry was on the "good enough" list.

From what I have read of the various independents, they have particular pet projects or interests that have motivated them to want to be president, but I don't think any of them could handle the job overall. Frankly, I find Nader to be about as scary as Bush, so he's definitely out.

Again, if you consider it settling to vote for a candidate that differs on a single issue, the only option would be to elect myself. I definitely couldn't handle the job, and don't want it anyway.

[kickaha.livejournal.com]

Nope, just pointing out that it's highly unlikely for anyone with a functioning set of frontal lobes to be truly happy with their selection. Reluctantly satisfied I can believe. Mildly happy I can see. Thrilled? Ecstatic? Dear god, please keep those fanatics away from me, I really don't want anything to do with them.

And I seem to recall several candidates running in the primary... they didn't want the job? None of them struck you as a better fit with your personal views? As I recall, Kerry was a name on no one's lips until the voting 'strategy' started getting into full swing.

[f-x.livejournal.com]

None of them did anything for me. Even at the time, reading up on them, watching the primary debating, my only preference was "who has the best chance at beating Bush". I never got caught up in the fervor for Dean. I liked Clarke from the perspective of having a president that wasn't a politician, even though he really was. But I didn't agree with all of his views either. Kerry's biggest selling point? He claims that he is personally anti-abortion, but doesn't believe it is appropriate to use his authority to legislate his personal morals.

Kerry certainly has weak points. So did all the others. So does every single person I know.

Let me ask the question back to you though. Who would you have been truly 100% happy with?

[ymasen.livejournal.com]

ironically...

"He claims that he is personally anti-abortion, but doesn't believe it is appropriate to use his authority to legislate his personal morals."

Is often how *I* feel about abortion, and how mnay pro-choice women I know feel. That they are personally of the belief that they wouldn't choose abortion and but know they don't have the right to force their choices upon others. It's beliefs like this from Kerry that really made me go from mildly liking him to really admiring him.

Libertarian position on abortion...

[actsofcreation.livejournal.com]

The libertarians used to have the most sensible one liner I've ever seen on abortion (they may still hold this position, I've not checked):

"Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

[kickaha.livejournal.com]

McCain is the closest I could come up with, Clarke second. Either of them I would have been quite happy with. Them on the same ticket would have gotten my panties in whirl.

But please, can we drop the 100%, no-single-issue-difference straw man? I'm not sure why you felt the need to run this into absurdities, but there you have it. Please drop it. It's only muddying the issue.

The folks that I know that are definitely left-leaning can't possibly be thrilled about voting *for* a candidate that is against gay marriage, or civil unions, or what have you. That was my point. It truly highlights that what we have is not a selection of choice, but a selection between lesser evils... and frankly, they're getting more evil every year, and farther away from what the vast majority of my friends, family, and acquaintances truly believe and stand for.

The longer we have a system of voting and candidate selection that emphasizes only *two* choices, they are going to get farther to the extreme edges of the political spectrum in the emotional hotbutton issues that are guaranteed to get media attention and fanatics, and closer together in the issues that truly matter for the long term health of this society... and that position isn't healthy.

I think it's interesting that even in the primaries, your selection criteria was one based on strategic voting, and not personal preference. That should be a big red flag that the system is borked.

[f-x.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think my selection criteria was more a reflection of how severely I dislike Bush. I've never taken that view on any past campaign, and frankly if there had been 20 people running on the final ballot, I still would have picked the one with the best chance of ousting Bush.

I don't believe the single issue difference is a straw man, but regardless, you brought it up as a tool to disagree with ymasen. Gay marriage is an important issue no doubt, but it is still only one issue. Frankly, Kerry's view of "I'm personally against gay marriage but think the federal government should stay out of it" is a good one IMHO. I think it would be almost as bad an idea for the feds to force gay marriage on the country as to forbid it. It takes time for society's views to change, forcing the issue can cause a major backlash in the opposite direction. State amendments have made it clear the country as a whole is not ready for this change.

My optimal choice on that topic? Change all existing legislation surrounding marriage to be about civil unions instead. Take the controversial word "marriage" out of the equation all together.

[kickaha.livejournal.com]

On that last point we agree completely. Marriage is a religious event, civil unions are a legally binding contract surrounding inheritance (kill the death tax!), care of offspring, etc. Gawd doesn't enter into it.

Actually, I brought up the gay marriage to illustrate that our choices are even more limited and less rich than they appear to be. We are so trained to accept and settle for a lesser of two evils, that it doesn't even occur to most folks to think outside of that mental cage. It was not intended to be an example of 'any single issue difference is a settling'.

And to work backwards through your post, again, thinking from the outset how to vote strategically is an artificial construct of our voting system. Stop and consider how you may have approached it, if you had the choice of many candidates today? It's an interesting gedankenexperiment.