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.

kentm says

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.

That's like saying "A permanent aristocracy is happening, it's inevitable, only a matter of time, so you might as well give up." I'm not going to vote for something I'm against just because someone tells me it's inevitable.

Nobody knows the future.

Please read the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and section 10 of New York's Domestic Relations Law (which defines marriage as a civil contract), and reconsider your statement about marriage. Whatever your religious views might be, they do not excuse denying other Americans the equal protection of the laws. Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but not their own facts, nor can they be made strangers to the laws of their own country.

When marriage was allowed to become a function of the state rather than a strictly religious tradition, it was assumed by all that this would be a partnership between the two with the fundamental core of the definition of marriage held up by the state and thus administered. What the gays are doing by insisting on a redefinition of marriage is to have the state hijack the institution completely and force it into the realm of politics where the fashion of the day is law.
Perhaps religion should never have relinquished its hold on the administration of marriage, but that ship sailed centuries ago. Today the function of religion in marriage is perfunctory in many cases. Two people get married at a time and place of their own choosing, probably by a clergy person who just printed out his/her ordination certificate from the Internet last week.
I fully understand and sympathize with the folks who are upset at the gay marriage agenda and want to hold it to one man and one woman. They've been cheated here, by a government who promised to hold this trust and is now breaking its word.
But I also agree that a redefinition of marriage (to include gay marriage) is inevitable. The religious roots of marriage have lost their grip on anything substantial and have been waving around in air searching for soil that was stolen years ago. As a partnership of church and state, marriage is done.

Here's what I see for the future:
1) gay marriage
2) polygamous marriage (sooner than you think!). This type will be quite popular for people who want to raise a family in tough economic conditions. If you have two men and three women in a marriage, three or four of them can be working and still have plenty of child care available. As well as ... Um, interesting social activity among the five parents.
3) The utter rejection of state sponsored marriage by many religious conservatives of different religions, replaced with church-administrated unions where all conflicts would be mediated by church ministers. This will likely have as many names as there are religions: Catholic marriage, Hindu marriage, Mormon marriage, Sharia marriage.

The gays will get marriage, but it will not be what they want. They want legitimacy, but what they will get is entry into an institution which has lost all integrity. It will be about as meaningful to get a marriage license as it is to sign up for Unemployment.

[...]

Quigley says

When marriage was allowed to become a function of the state rather than a strictly religious tradition, it was assumed by all that this would be a partnership between the two with the fundamental core of the definition of marriage held up by the state and thus administered.

You are mistaken about the history of marriage. First of all, it is older than any of the currently popular religions. It included same-sex couples prior to the existence of Islam and Christianity, and in fact John Boswell traced a continuous tradition of same-sex marriages in Christian Europe including benedictions based on Serge and Bacchus. (BTW consider the story of David and Jonathan, as told by Samuel.)

The roots of marriage are probably older than humanity itself, arising from natural law. It has included polygamy for most of human history; Romney comes from a polygamous family, and it remains popular in Islam. I'm not a fan personally, but many of our fellow primates do seem to live that way.

As a legal matter, married couples expect rightly to have the equal protection of the laws. That applies even if one is Catholic and the other Jewish (even though "conservatives" in both religions would prohibit the marriage), even if one or both are male or female, the same or different colors (see Loving v Virginia), etc. Stretching the definition of marriage to include larger numbers of people would raise a number of different issues that can easily be distinguished. Whether polygamy will return to America is entirely independent of whether same-sex couples get the equal protection of the laws.