I Should Compromise My Beliefs for Political Expediency?

from JoeUser Forums
I am furious. No, I am beyond furious at the ridiculous insistence that I renounce my Libertarian party affiliation in favor of the Democratic or Republican party on the basis of someone's opinion that I am "wasting my vote".

The "wasting your vote" lie is one that has been perpetuated to keep the major parties in play. It is a lie that serves the two major parties, and often works as a disincentive for informed voters who truly want to find a candidate aligned with their issues.

When I walk into the voting booth on November 2 and vote for the ticket of Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna, I am not wasting my vote, but exercising my rights as a citizen of the United States to vote for a candidate of my choosing. The perceived political viability of the candidate is not a reasonable rationale to change my vote, especially when, as I stated on another thread, forcing me to choose between the Democratic and Republican candidates would be like forcing me to choose to eat either moose shit or elk shit. Sorry, but I don't want either one.

How many voters are hoodwinked into the "lesser of two evils" mindset rather than voting for a candidate who truly represents them and their beliefs? How many leftist or rightist bullies have played into their hands by mocking people who openly support a third party candidate?

Here's MY stance, MY say: I believe in the Libertarian party and the platform of Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna. I stand unapologetically behind that platform. To state otherwise would be a lie. And I, for one, will not lie for political expediency.

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish
politics
12,537 views 48 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, vote my way, vote Kim Jong IL for lifetime president, NOW!!! And stop breathing up all of "my" air. Or we shall kick you out of land of free!!! (Delivered in best we must get moose and squirrel voice)
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
You get them their damn 5% Gideon! You and all the libertarians... go for it... shake the majors!
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
well, the thing is in a batteground state your vote is worth more in electing a president. in a safe red or blue state, you have more freedom to vote your conscience without altering the election. the lesser of two evils is a valid argument, you just disagree with it.

for example, take people who voted nader instead of gore because they wanted stronger environmental laws. the problem is that since bush won environmental laws were weakened. the nader voters made the democrats maybe fight harder for nader issues next time, but in the short term, we get worsened air quality when the new regulations(or lack thereof) kick in.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes, vote my way, vote Kim Jong IL for lifetime president, NOW!!! And stop breathing up all of "my" air. Or we shall kick you out of land of free!!! (Delivered in best we must get moose and squirrel voice)


Vat do you know about Moose and Squirrel? (Boris Voice)
Vote Boris and Natasha for '04, because Fearless Leader of Potsylvania says so, and you won't disobey Fearless Leader period.

On the Topic:
Another good article, and I still say what I have said before, I don't care who somebody votes for as long as they vote and they vote only once, they can vote for Bozo the Clown or Jackie Chan, or Elvis Presley's Ghost, just as long as they vote once, per election, not lifetime.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

for example, take people who voted nader instead of gore because they wanted stronger environmental laws. the problem is that since bush won environmental laws were weakened. the nader voters made the democrats maybe fight harder for nader issues next time, but in the short term, we get worsened air quality when the new regulations(or lack thereof) kick in.


If people didn't vote for Nader though, then the Democrats would not need to fight harder for Nader issues next time, allowing them to do whatever the Hell they want.


If a third party candidate steals votes from a major candidate especially from a swing state, I think that's a good thing. Not only does it show that other parties have an effect, but it also makes the two major parties listen to the people more. I doubt a third party candidate will even win the presidency, but they'll definitely continue to make an impact (and hold many other offices).

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I doubt a third party candidate will even win the presidency, but they'll definitely continue to make an impact (and hold many other offices).


I actually have a different take on this. I do believe a third party candidate will soon be viable due to the internet. I am working on outlining my hypothesis, and won't go into depth about it here, but intend to get it to the eye of political strategists in time for the 2008 election. It's my hope that I am right on this, for many reasons.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know what political expediency means. I know what a lie is. I also know what a valid compromise is.

Because you know that your guy has no shot at getting elected dog catcher let alone President (I assume that is what they are running for) then you also know that not voting for the candidate you agree with the most is the same as voting for the candidate you agree with least. I believe you know this.

Maybe you don't agree with either equally. Maybe they are equally odious to you. Maybe the differences are not enough.

If your complaint is that the two major parties are corrupt you might have a point. I suspect that if the Libertarian party every came into power there would be a whole bunch of people who thought they were corrupt. But sometimes compromise looks like corruption when viewed with the right kind of filter.

To me the most visible draw of 3..N parties is that they are not part of the system. They are not mainstream. They are not corrupt. I also believe that they do not compromise. It is not in their charter.

That pretty much is their undoing. To get anywhere they are going to have to compromise. As soon as they compromise then they have become a part of the system. As soon as they are part of the system they become corrupt.

The biggest problem with the two parties right now, in my opinion, is not corruption but compromise. American politics has existed for a long time with corruption (probably day 1)...but never does well without compromise.

Go ahead, vote your conscience...I will vote my compromise.

Maybe I am the problem...my mother always said I was.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, I have issues with being in a swing state. I'm actually a registered libertarian, Gid, so we have that in common. However, one of the candidates is much more attractive to me than the other, and being that I'm in a swing state, I might just vote for him instead of Badnarik. (Having said that, I would love to see national coverage on any of the stations about Badnarik or Nader, just to confirm the rumors that they're actually running.)

So Gideon, if you feel like taking on a project, you could try to convince me to vote for Badnarik and give up my otherwise swing vote.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon, if you think that Bush and Kerry will be equally bad in office, then go ahead and vote for another party. But if you like one more than the other, even if you still like a third party better, I think it quite a reasonable arguemnt that if you were to vote for the best candidate who doesn't have a choice vs. the better candidate who has a choice then you really have cut off your own nose to spite your face.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon, if you think that Bush and Kerry will be equally bad in office, then go ahead and vote for another party. But if you like one more than the other, even if you still like a third party better, I think it quite a reasonable arguemnt that if you were to vote for the best candidate who doesn't have a choice vs. the better candidate who has a choice then you really have cut off your own nose to spite your face


I have said it before, I will say it again: to me, the choice between Bush and Kerry is like being forced to choose between elk shit and moose shit. Sorry, but I'm above that.

And, no, my BEST choice is to vote my conscience, which I am doing and will continue to do.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have said it before, I will say it again: to me, the choice between Bush and Kerry is like being forced to choose between elk shit and moose shit. Sorry, but I'm above that.

This statement comes off as awful pretentious. Did you really mean that you are better than all of us who deign to vote for the two major parties?

I viewed your original statement as much more general. I don’t like X and I don’t like Y so I am going to be Z. But now you are making it much more specific and that you don’t like either candidate. If you truly believe in Libertarian values and would not vote for someone unless they held these values…why bring Bush and Kerry into it?

Now considering your fine example of elk and moose shit I think I would choose elk shit. Elk, I think, would leave a much smaller scat and I believe it is in more easily swallowed chunks (I am assuming the eating is the thing that you object to). Of course it would be a judgement call based upon what the animal had for dinner.. But if I had to do it blind then I would probably go elk. Somebody with more moose shit eating experience feel free to tell me why I am wrong on this?

The choice is going to be between A and B this year. Maybe picking none of the above makes a great statement, I don't know, but it doesn't really impress me.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
This statement comes off as awful pretentious. Did you really mean that you are better than all of us who deign to vote for the two major parties?


I said, to ME, that was what I consider the choice to be, and I stand by it. If you believe in either of the major parties, by all means, vote for them. For that matter, if you see either as being the lesser of two evils and feel so compelled, vote for them as well. But I don't, and I won't, and I am tired of the implications that it is a "wasted vote" on my part.

You speak of condescension. What of the condescension that is historically, perennially heaped on third parties? I have heard this same bile sputtered all of my adult life; the problem with it is, the majority of the third party supporters hear it and believe it. If they were encouraged to vote their conscience, I do believe a third party would be viable.

I viewed your original statement as much more general. I don’t like X and I don’t like Y so I am going to be Z. But now you are making it much more specific and that you don’t like either candidate. If you truly believe in Libertarian values and would not vote for someone unless they held these values…why bring Bush and Kerry into it?


Because Bush and Kerry are the candidates Badnarik is running against. It is relevant for that reason.

The choice is going to be between A and B this year. Maybe picking none of the above makes a great statement, I don't know, but it doesn't really impress me.


I am not picking "none of the above"; that is your interpretation. Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna are on the ballot in all 50 states, they have electors in all 50 states. This is not even close to a "none of the above" vote, as I support the Badnarik/Campagna campaign.

You may feel my words are strong; I ask you to go back and look at the words of principled men of the past and ask if they are any less strong. I feel that our country has deteriorated greatly and that if those who perceive the deterioration fail to speak out, it will continue to do so. I feel that the Democratic and Republican parties showed their homogeneity in 2002, when 90% of the seats in the House of Representatives went virtually or completely unopposed, meaning the opposing party decided the representation was "good enough". Frankly, I'm tired of it and I'm tired of buying the "wasted vote" argument.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
By saying
but I'm above that.

Are you not really saying that most of the rest of us are below that?

You speak of condescension

I don't believe I did. I said your statement sounded pretentious. Which I kind of wish I didn’t use that word because I have consistently failed to spell it correctly…but I think it is the right word. I am more than willing to admit that I might reading into something here.

But I will stop prodding the tiger because there is no point. You will do what you will and I will do what I will and both of us will probably be satisfied with ourselves.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you not really saying that most of the rest of us are below that?


IF you believe in Bush or Kerry, or IF you believe that there is a genuine lesser of two evils, then I don't fault you. If either wins because people believe in their message, then the principles of Democracy won out. If, however, you feel as I do that both parties are equally deplorable and you truly believe that a third party candidate is the best candidate but you don't reflect that in your vote, then yes, I guess that's what I'm saying. I am saying you should vote your conscience and encourage others to do the same.

I appreciate your input, I just think you slightly misconstrue my point. My point isn't to browbeat anyone into voting for my candidate if that's a candidate they don't believe in. My point is to encourage third party supporters to vote for the candidate of their choice, no matter how much people may look down on them for it.
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Boris still wants to know "Vat do you know about Mewse and Squirrel?"

Vote Fearless Leader in '04 or else you will be shot.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Watch me pull this viable 3rd party candidate from a hat Rocky! Looks like a libertarian to me!
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
I think both Gideon and Freemark are making good points here...
If you honestly think that both candidates are equally bad, and wouldn't even think of voting for "lesser of two evils" because the evils are equal, then why not vote for a third party candidate? If someone really hates both candidates that much, he/she probably wouldn't vote at all if there were no other choices. So voting for a 3rd party candidate isn't wasting that vote, since the vote wouldn't have gone anywhere else to begin with. It wouldn't have been there at all, otherwise.

However, if there is a major candidate who even MOSTLY agrees with your views, even if a 3rd party candidate fits them exactly, I think it's probably best to vote for the major candidate so that most of your views will be represented, if not all of them. If, to you, there really is a lesser of two evils, you probably don't want the more evil one in office, right? So you'd vote for the other.

Does that make sense? It did to me.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
However, if there is a major candidate who even MOSTLY agrees with your views, even if a 3rd party candidate fits them exactly, I think it's probably best to vote for the major candidate so that most of your views will be represented, if not all of them. If, to you, there really is a lesser of two evils, you probably don't want the more evil one in office, right? So you'd vote for the other.


You are still picking an evil, so what's the point, vote for whoever, vote ONLY once an election, and VOTE, what does it matter who he/she votes for, as long as they vote, swing states be damned, if the candidate lost that state because of a third party vote, than it's the candidates own fault for not taking measures to EARN those votes not DESERVE.

Excerpt from my opinion on the latest news article on Revolt on the Right!:
[WE] have [A] choice when it comes to voting for President so vote for whoever you want, that swing state bull needs to stop, if the votes lost to a third party candidate in a swing state loses them that state they should have done more to gain those third party votes by earning them not demanding them. Vote Me, because you don't like him, and even though you don't like me either, let's not see him win.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
But, do you really want the "greater evil" guy in office for FOUR YEARS? Wouldn't you want the one who at least MOSTLY agrees with your views? No candidate will ever be elected who agrees with you entirely...
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
And certain issues are more important than others... if the major-party candidate you vote for shares your views on national security and the economy, isn't that more important than him not sharing your views on gay marriage and abortion rights? As long as you vote for a moderate enough Senate/House of Reps, the president can't get away with making decisions that go against your social views. So isn't it more important to vote for a candidate that shares the most important of your views, rather than have a president who shares NONE of them?
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
I will let Gideon answer all the questions about Third Parties further, because he is a true third party, I am more like the guy who supports the George Washington Party, No Parties, because it works at dividing the country over parties and misses the issues like he stated when he left the Presidency, man was smart even though he had wooden chompers.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
So isn't it more important to vote for a candidate that shares the most important of your views, rather than have a president who shares NONE of them?


Musik,

No it is not. I will explain why.

For too long, Americans have been sold two largely similar parties. Democrat or Republican, there hasn't been a whole lot of difference in the bill of goods we've been sold. Third parties have long been ignored, in no small part because many third party supporters have conceded their vote to the "lesser of two evils" for far too long. I believe this has some bearing on the low voter turnout.

The reason I emphatically and unapologetically affirm my support for the Libertarian Party is because it is necessary for the growth of the party and the accountability of the "major" parties. Someone made the analogy on one of the posts of the election being like a choice between liver and peas. They responded that, no matter how loud you call for "pizza", you're not going to get it.
My response is, if you call for pizza consistently, the next time a few more will echo your choice. Then a few more. Eventually, over time, we may get pizza on the menu.

Although it is an example of an ideology I don't support, I can show you where a third party helped shape American policy within the last century. Over the course of the 1920's and the 1930's, the socialist party began to grow on the scene in American politics. They began winning elections in municipal elections, then state, and began influencing policy makers in Washington. When the Great Depression came about, there was a worldwide interest in socialism. The US was no exception, and in 1932, Eugene V. Debs won 10% of the popular vote in the race against Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt, of course, won, and many of the socialist ideals were incorporated into the New Deal, as Roosevelt and the Democrats were well aware that if they did not reform their party's platform, they would cease to exist by the 1936 election (the fact that this had happened to the Whig party in the late 1850's probably helped them to realize the need to reshape their platform).

So, third parties CAN make a difference, and at the very least I'll be able to look at myself in the mirror on November 3, and know I voted true to my convictions.