Monday, September 19, 2005

No More Bullshit


My mother, who had never before voted for anyone other than a Republican in a presidential election, voted Libertarian last November. I, like many other people I know, voted for Kerry, but only because I wanted my vote to count against Bush. Several people I know did not vote at all because they could not in good conscience vote for any of the candidates, or because they could no longer believe in the system. I respect all of those choices.

We have all been conditioned to think that we vote in a two-party system. We have been told that any vote other than for a Republican or a Democrat is a wasted vote. This is not true, and we must stop thinking this way.

Even now, nearly a year after the last presidential election, I still have conversations with people about how we voted last November and why. For a while, I thought I would never vote again, but I have changed my mind. I believe there are enough of us who are so disgusted with our current system and with both of our main political parties that our unconventional votes could have an effect.

If there were an election tomorrow, I would probably vote for a Libertarian candidate. In last November’s election, Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik won 0.3% of the popular vote. Not very promising, but what if next time the Libertarian candidate were to win 3% of the vote, and the time after that 8%? Eventually even the slow people would get the message that we have choices other than Republican and Democrat.

I also think that if I could not vote for anyone who was running, I would go to the polling station anyway and write in “none of the above”. I would not want my action of not voting to be mistaken for laziness or disinterest. I would want to let people know that none of the candidates was acceptable to me. I will never again feel forced to choose from amongst people I do not like.

If everyone were to take a similar stand, we could bring about a change in the system from within. If people refuse to vote for candidates that are not acceptable to them, we will no longer have to suffer idiots in positions of power. It may take a while to convince people, and I would love it if we could somehow bring about change in a quicker fashion, but I will at least get satisfaction from making my voice of discontent heard.

13 comments:

Riggs is Crazy said...

I have some swamp land for sale in the artic if anyone is interested.

Max said...

Riggs, why do you have to be such a cynic?

Sinister Steve said...

MM,

Why are you so cynical of Riggs? He's the man!

Max said...

SS, I am not cynical of Riggs. I adore Riggs, in my own weird way.

Skeeter said...

MM,

Kudo's to your mom for voting Libertarian. I voted for Michael Badnarik, L, and have voted Libertarian for the past 4 elections (and a member for 15 years)
I believe in voting for someone, not against someone.
It has been more and more difficult since the days of Ross Perot to get visibility for 3rd party candidates. The main reason I believe is because the Demopublicans run the Federal Election Commission. There are huge barriers for getting names on ballots and even then, getting a candidate on national TV debates rarely happens.
Nader gets publicity because he's liberal (therefore TV broadcasts it), concentrates on the high liberal markets like Cali, Oregon, Washington, some New England states and has tried to capitalize on the Green Party popularity...although I think they've had a falling out. Nader has been less than the Green Party ideal.
Ross Perot was an idiot, but was able to get enough publicity because of his money (and because of the matching Federal funds, which Libertarian party rejects every election). He got alot of votes because he got on the debates.
I urge all those reading this blog to join the Libertarian Party and contribute money. Then vote Libertarian on EVERY LEVEL. If the office doesn't have an L candidate, write in "Libertarian Party". I carry a pen to the ballots every time.

Monkey said...

Why?

Skeeter said...

Monkey,

Go to LP.org and read the platform. If you disagree with anything there let me know and we'll discuss it.
I agree with just about everything in it. That's why I vote Libertarian.

ps. I'm hating this word verification stuff. I know it reduces spam, but...

Monkey said...

That's all good and well, but the only way to get anything done in Washington is to vote either Republican or Democrat, that's been a fact for hundreds of years. Your logic is sound but I'm afraid you're fighting against a machine that eats chumps like you for dinner.

Also, your views are considered radical and on the lunatic fringe by most MOR Americans. There is a reason that third party candidates aren't included in debates, and it isn't the threat of turning the tide.

Libertarian is the same as Socialist and anarchist to the voting public; you might want to rethink your strategy.

Max said...

Monkey, that is a defeatist attitude and I don't like it.

Skeeter said...

There definitely is that strain of thought in the Libertarian Party and that is "change from within"...Ron Paul (R) TX was the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate.

As far as debates are concerned I disagree. Ross Perot and more recently Ralph Nader have taught the DemRep's that they can't afford to have a 3rd party candidate debate them. Usually it's been the democrats that have "Suffered" because the candidate draws away votes.

It's true that there are alot of parties out there...most of which are pretty cooky. The filter is or rather should be, how many states is your candidate on the ballot? Libertarians have been on 50 ballots pretty consistently for the last few elections. In different parts of the country you'll see the Socialist Party or the Constitution Party or whatever, but that's pretty small.

I really envision 4 people at most on the debates...

Americans don't get to see or hear the different idea's unless they're C-Span junkies.

If they're idiots, that will be exposed, but you have to give them the choice.

And the last election they talked so much about the fact that Kerry "looked" more presidential because he was debating the president. Most Americans never saw him in that mode before. It changes peoples perceptions. And that was Kerry...KERRY...debating BUSH...BUSH for crying out loud!
No two bigger idiots have walked on stage together....Well, maybe Robin Williams and Whoopie Goldberg...but that's beside the point.

The Libertarian Party runs candidates in every level of government. They do pretty well too.

Monkey, I know it's hard to convince you otherwise and you may consider it fighting a losing battle, but I don't...I'll keep "Fightin the good fight everybody.." Triumph circa 1979

Just remember this Monkey, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil...

Peace Out.

Monkey said...

"Defeatist"? It's reality. Change isn't going to happen by voting Libertarian, sorry kids. It's a nice idea whose time has passed.

chatsy malone said...

How can the US be considered a democratic country or governement when there are only two candidates running in an election?

Skeeter said...

Chatsy,

There are many candidates running in every election in the US, the ones that get put on televised debates on network TV are limited by the "Federal Elections Commission". They set up what some would deem arbitrary rules for inclusion in the live TV debates.

Monkey,

Again, respectfully disagree, if you keep voting Republocrat it'll get worse and worse, the only way to change is vote differently.