patrick.net

You could vote independent. Or green.

We got this way because we are afraid to vote for a thing we think will loose, thinking that it's wasting the vote, so we vote for the least worst option. And the votes are totally channeled in this direction by the options we're given.

My favorite example is from the Bush v Kerry race, if you remember that one, there was a huge anti-war movement going on in the states at the time, and Bush was being slammed by the left as the incarnation of a demon and Kerry was presented as the only viable alternative to bush, really, and so this huge anti-war movement was channeled into supporting Kerry, who was a pro-war candidate.

Any anti-war voter who really cared deeply about that issue should by rights have voted for Nader in that election, the only candidate who was anti-war. But they don't because of the way the system is set up and channels our votes to one or the other of the two "legitimate" candidates.

I say find a candidate who supports what you want and vote for what You want and make then work for that vote, don't let your vote get channeled and taken for granted.

Some countries have dozens of candidates with varied positions and instant run off elections that result in power sharing governments that seem to work quite well.

You can't ask a question like that unless you're willing to consider the alternatives.

kentm says

Or green.

Ha! The greens *are* the hard-left. They'd string me up under the justification of "hate" even faster than the Democrat base would.

It's impossible to "not vote". Failure to vote is still a vote in favor of a failed system. Having said that, perhaps that is your intended vote, in which case, wear it proudly.

"Vote no One", just like Brewster said.

Randy H says

Failure to vote is still a vote in favor of a failed system.

Huh? Voting means you support a failed system. Not voting means you don't. If enough people stopped voting for candidates solely based on Team Democrat or Team Republican, then candidates outside of the two-party system might realize they have a chance to win.

I'd prefer candidates not be labeled left or right, liberal or conservative. They are just themselves with views that aren't fixed on what their party wants them to be.

freak80 says

One party says I "hate" just because I believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

The other party wants me enslaved to a permanent aristocracy.

False equivalency. The liberals would not imprison you for thinking wrong, in the present or the future.

You're trying to make excuses for why the Democrats are not infinitely better than the Republicans. I suspect you have emotionally difficulty pulling the lever for Ds, for reasons that go beyond the logic you're trying to apply.

freak80 says

The other party wants me enslaved to a permanent aristocracy.

Fear of this real issue should trump fear of ensconced discrimination of the straight, white majority.

StoutFiles says

I'd prefer candidates not be labeled left or right, liberal or conservative. They are just themselves with views that aren't fixed on what their party wants them to be.

Word. The Founding Fathers were against political parties, but didn't forbid them and were unable to stop their eventual formation quite early in US history.

Banning political parties would force the public to pay attention to each candidate's ideas, rather than going rah-rah for one "Team" or the other.

It's hard to manufacture consent if every representative truly has their own take and votes their own conscience. With two parties, it's very easy to manufacture consent.

"We can either raise taxes on everybody or cut spending on social programs." Well, why can't we raise taxes on the rich, and cut the Team America World Police Force simultaneously, while lowering taxes on small business/the middle class and leaving social programs alone? Because the debate is only allowed in a very narrow range. Anything outside that range is "Irresponsible, Extreme, Impractical". Decided by whom? Those who manufacture the consent, that's who.

I don't remember voting on whether Georgism was "Irresponsible/Crazy/Extreme" or not, or whether having a military specifically designed to deploy overseas Expeditionary Forces above all else was "Irresponsible given the state of the world/national interest." For that matter, I don't remember voting what constitutes the national interest.

The national interest is what manufactured consent says it is.

Solzhenitsyn make a great spiel about how debate in the West was actually very narrow, based on his experience trying to communicate his Liberal but traditional Orthodox Russian viewpoint. He was invited to either complain about Russian Communism's war on human rights or religion, but never on how his Orthodox Mystic background worked with liberal values - that was outside the boundaries.

For your reading enjoyment, a snippet from Solzhenitsyn's Harvard speech from 1978:

Without any censorship, in the West fashionable trends of thought and ideas are carefully separated from those which are not fashionable; nothing is forbidden, but what is not fashionable will hardly ever find its way into periodicals or books or be heard in colleges. Legally your researchers are free, but they are conditioned by the fashion of the day. There is no open violence such as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to match mass standards frequently prevent independent-minded people from giving their contribution to public life. There is a dangerous tendency to form a herd, shutting off successful development. I have received letters in America from highly intelligent persons, maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but his country cannot hear him because the media are not interested in him. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, blindness, which is most dangerous in our dynamic era. There is, for instance, a self-deluding interpretation of the contemporary world situation. It works as a sort of petrified armor around people's minds. Human voices from 17 countries of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia cannot pierce it. It will only be broken by the pitiless crowbar of events.

Although I greatly disagree with Solzhenitsyn on a few things (Atheism for one), he was an interesting figure with a fantastic pulse on human behavior. The whole speech is recommended reading.

You can see why Solzhenitsyn was never allowed to speak on any but a narrow range of subjects; his ideas about too much material well being and alienation are absolute anathema to Consumer Capitalism, for example. Actually reminds me of the Dune novels a bit.

freak80 says

Ha! The greens *are* the hard-left. They'd string me up under the justification of "hate" even faster than the Democrat base would.

You're making this up and are being overly maudlin about it. No one is "stringing anyone up" except in your imagination. Again, consider what are your values, rank them in priority, and vote accordingly to what you think gets your priorities advanced.

If your priority is simply to say that you've voted Conservative then thats what it is. It seems to me from your posts that your main value is conservative cultural control rather than economic security, and so be it. But my advice on this front is to let it go. Gay Marriage is happening, its inevitable, only a matter of time, so you might as well examine the candidates that you feel will give you the most economic security and international stability. If those are your goals.

kentm says

You're making this up and are being overly maudlin about it.

Verklempt perhaps but not maudlin.

What party is against unlimited Free Trade at any price to the US worker?

Oh, both parties are for unlimited Free Trade (except for a handful of industries that provide little middle class employment like drug manufacturing - not research - and agriculture like sugar and corn). Wow, what a choice I have!

=========================================================
★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ | ROMNEY2012 | ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★
=========================================================
.............................VOTE ROMNEY.....VOTE FOR AMERICA!!!....................

★★★★★★★★★★==================
★★★★★★★★★★==================
★★★★★★★★★★==================
★★★★★★★★★★==================
★★★★★★★★★★==================
==============================
==============================
==============================

=========================================================
★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆
=========================================================

Randy H says

It's impossible to "not vote".

Not true. "Not Voting" is the same thing as a "Vote of No Confidence."

thunderlips11 says

What party is against unlimited Free Trade at any price to the US worker?
Oh, both parties are for unlimited Free Trade

Bingo.