Many voters here getting what you deserve

[srellim234]

Prior to the last presidential election many of you here insisted I was wasting my vote by voting FOR third party and independent candidates and not using it to vote for the lesser of the two evils from the major two parties. I continue to refuse to support Republicans and Democrats, who are now so "sold out" to the party that they no longer give a rat's behind about the United States as a whole. Well, here's what your vote that meant something got us:

http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/08/12 ... pions-debt

I said it before and I'll say it again: a vote for the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

[srellim234]

If, in fact, the Republican and Democratic parties had been the only major parties existing in the history of this country I might be inclined to agree with you. However, both parties started AFTER other parties were major parties and they had to overcome them as spinoffs or third parties. That desperately needs to happen again in this country but it will not until people quit wasting their votes on the Democrats and the Republicans. Vote FOR something and quit wasting your vote on someone who will not look out for your best interest or that of the country.

That's right, until you make your wishes known at the ballot box you're wasting YOUR vote by supporting the status quo.

[IBCoupe]

I voted third party in the last election, too. My vote was no more wasted here in Connecticut than was my coworker's, who voted for the Republican ticket.

'Course, it would have meant something if we didn't have the Electoral College, or if it was more regulated to distribute votes proportionally.

/baitingStebo

[stebo0728]

'Course, it would have meant something if we didn't have the Electoral College,

FAIL

or if it was more regulated to distribute votes proportionally.

PASS

/baitingStebo

Go'on now, reel me in.

[Cold_Zero]

I refuse to be feared into voting a certain way. I also refuse to believe that my vote is some how wasted if I dont vote a certain way. My vote can be diluted by unregistered and multiple votes, but my state has been working on cleaning that up.

To be honest, I have considered aligning myself with a non major party and sending a message to so called conservative politicians. You want my vote? You will have to work hard for it. I think this is the main reason why both parties fear their base into voting certain ways. Because they dont want to work on their base's vote and go off and court independents. *shrug*

Just because I am member of a different party does not mean that I/we can’t caucus with politicians from the major parties. Kind of like the coalition concept in a Parliamentary system.

[wingFeather]

I continue to refuse to support Republicans and Democrats

So you learned nothing from your loss?

[stebo0728]

I still often think that our original "property owners only" voting system had its advantages. Of course we have included women, and non-white races now, which is great, they can own land now too. Im not saying that we should definitely switch back to that, but I can DEFINITELY see why it was set up this way.

[IBCoupe]

Eh. Unless you're going to provide loopholes so that people who don't own property can't be affected by the law, I don't see why you should exclude their input in determining the law.

[stebo0728]

Good point. What about only people who kick a net positive tax amount into the system? Remember, no taxation without representation? Should the contrary apply, no representation without taxation?

[srellim234]

I continue to refuse to support Republicans and Democrats

So you learned nothing from your loss?

Way to take one clause out of one sentence and pass judgement. I did learn from the loss. I learned that more patience is required and more time is necessary for American voters to wake up.

I learned that I absolutely made the right decision by not supporting either of them. I'm confident that I'm right to continue to use my vote to attempt to change things. Hopefully enough voters will get fed up with the two majors and join me. The majors are losing constituency quickly as the ranks of the third parties and independent undeclared voters increase. I'm a firm believer in the optimistic theory that you can lose a few battles and still win the war. It sounds as if you've given up.

If you voted for a Republican, what did you learn from YOUR loss and wasted vote?

[srellim234]

stebo- I don't know how you could really calculate that and who would you empower to make that determination? Everyone pays sales tax. People pay their landlord's property tax through their rent payments. People pay corporate taxes through the prices they pay for goods and services. How are you accounting for areas and states that take more from the government than they contribute? Will that be factored into the equation?

I would suspect that the vast majority of people that are not contributing more than they take back are not voting now. Although you may open a large can of worms when you tell all the politicians in Washington, D.C that they themselves are no longer eligible to vote!

[wingFeather]

If you voted for a Republican, what did you learn from YOUR loss and wasted vote?

Those who voted Republican did not waste their vote - did you see how many of us there were? Almost half the nation. Now there is a serious cause! What is even better is that it woke up a ton of complacent people up... heck, I almost didn't vote because I though there'd be no way anyone would vote for Obama. The guy is a complete joke! Well, unfortunately he is proving it every day with his damage. But fortunately many were woken up by all this & are called to action. Democrats left and right are getting served.

Your vote did none of the above. Might as well wrote in Mickey Mouse...

[stebo0728]

Those who voted Republican did not waste their vote - did you see how many of us there were? Almost half the nation. Now there is a serious cause!

Name one serious consistent cause either major party stands for.

[n00b240]

I almost didn't vote because I though there'd be no way anyone would vote for Obama.

Damn guy, you need to balance your news sources a bit better. More than half of those who voted, voted for the now Pres. Obama. It was no secret that he was going to get a considerable amount of the vote at the very least. Having "almost half the nation" simply wasnt enough.

[themadscientist]

I don't regret voting against Obama. I lost but I did what I could to keep his a** out of the chair. I am presented with a similar problem in the mid terms. My congressman is a liberal spendthrift and the challenger says the right things but issues in his past suggest he is a scumbag.

[IBCoupe]

Name one serious consistent cause either major party stands for.

"Not the other guys." They both stand for that.

Healthcare's a great example: the President and the Democrats presented the Republicans with their own 1994 healthcare reform plan. Oppose our own ideas? Of course! They're not our ideas anymore, they're somebody else's! There are bipartisan examples like that everywhere you turn; that's just the one that came most readily to mind.

Good point. What about only people who kick a net positive tax amount into the system? Remember, no taxation without representation? Should the contrary apply, no representation without taxation?

I think my response would be the same, Stebo. These people would still fall under the jurisdiction of American law; they'd still be represented by its government. Shouldn't they have some say in both of those things?

Even if they're the most uneducated back-asswards people around, they're still affected, so they should still have an effect.

[wingFeather]

Damn guy, you need to balance your news sources a bit better.

My news sources are balanced. Was this your first election? Usually the news will give glowing reviews of the Democratic candidate & portray him as already having won, when he in fact loses at the last minute. The press love Democrats, so it was not unreasonable that Obama (even though he is a complete idiot) was their golden child from day one. I just cannot believe that the public bought it this time. Is America really that stupid?

More than half of those who voted, voted for the now Pres. Obama.

Do you think I don't know this? Yes, Obama had 66,882,230 votes. McCain had 58,343,671.

It was no secret that he was going to get a considerable amount of the vote at the very least.

WHich proves that Democrats vote along party lines, and they could have put anyone on the ballot to get the votes they did. SAD!!!

Having "almost half the nation" simply wasnt enough.

But it is better than having Ron Paul's percentage, which is the subject of this thread... back on topic!

[C-Kwik]

I think the fallacy in the argument made in the article is that it suggests an independent candidate might have fared better than the Democratic or Republican Candidate. Its certainly possible (perhaps plausible) that the choices made would be different. But the results may still have been net negative.

WHich proves that Democrats vote along party lines, and they could have put anyone on the ballot to get the votes they did. SAD!!!

Worst argument ever. First, I personally know many people who are Democrats, who voted against Obama merely because Clinton Lost in the Primary. This was despite the fact that many of the reasons they backed Clinton were much more inline with Obama's views than McCain's views. Secondly, compare the number of popular votes between the Dem and Rep candidates in 2008 and 2004. While there are several interpretations can be made, its unlikely that so many people suddenly switched their political ideals. And even then, its not proof to any extent Dems vote the party lines. At least no more than you could say of Republicans.

[srellim234]

I do agree that an independent at the top office would probably not have fared any better. The two major parties are so entrenched that they would stonewall absolutely everything, knowing that in four years they could point to a lack of accomplishments as a justification for abandoning independents and voting them back in.

To be truly effective the independent movement has to be from the ground up, replacing the Republicans and the Democrats in lower offices with true conservatives, liberals and/or moderates who have not sworn their allegiance to party above country. Let them form the alliances, coalitions and compromises that will allow them to govern effectively. The two major parties have already proven they are not capable of that.

As for almost half the nation voting Republican being a cause, that cause would be what? It's certainly not a cause with an eye on governing and steering the country in the right direction. Were you really validating that the Republican spending, deficits, wars, continued attack on the middle class while rewarding the rich, cronyism, erosion of civil rights, etc. were the right direction for this country? I tend to think it was a lot more people voting again along party lines intent only on keeping the other party out no matter what.

The major parties talk a good game but they have proven they can't govern that way.

[C-Kwik]

I do agree that an independent at the top office would probably not have fared any better. The two major parties are so entrenched that they would stonewall absolutely everything, knowing that in four years they could point to a lack of accomplishments as a justification for abandoning independents and voting them back in.

To be truly effective the independent movement has to be from the ground up, replacing the Republicans and the Democrats in lower offices with true conservatives, liberals and/or moderates who have not sworn their allegiance to party above country. Let them form the alliances, coalitions and compromises that will allow them to govern effectively. The two major parties have already proven they are not capable of that.

My point was actually that even if an Independent candidate won and effectively helped to enact policy that was in line with their political ideologies, its hard to say of the result would have been better overall or not. It would be pure speculation. The implication of the article is that the major parties caused the problems and the independent party would have done a better job. We simply can't know with any certainty that this would be true.

Problem for me is that any candidate, regardless of party affiliation has to be generally aligned with my political ideologies and convictions. And even then I have to face the reality that given a somewhat polarized distinction between the two major parties on a lot of issues, I could be well aligned with an independent candidate, but if that candidate has no shot of winning, then picking the lesser of two evils of the top two candidates is the more realistic approach towards making sure a candidate I don't want in office (the one least aligned with my ideologies) is selected. Its not ideal, but it is realistic...and unfortunate. Though, I would say it would be most relevant in elections like in 2000 where many states had very small margins between the major party candidates in the popular vote. If a single state that had at least 3 electoral votes to give would have voted Democrat if the Independent Candidate wasn't there, Al Gore would have been the president. Not to say this would be the case had the independents not been there, but if I had voted independent that year, but would have preferred Gore to Bush, then my vote for an independent would have worked against me in the bigger picture. This would not have made a difference in the last election though. There weren't enough popular or electoral votes to have given McCain the win. The irony is more people and a higher percentage of voters voted for independent candidates when it could have made a bigger difference than this past election when it wouldn't have made any difference.

[srellim234]

True, but actions speak louder than words. Ideology in word only is meaningless. The Republican and Democratic national candidates feed their middle and lower class voters (the bulk of their voters numerically) what they want to hear in order to get them to vote for the party. Or fear of the other guys. Once in power they govern in a manner contrary to that ideology. Instead they concentrate on a return to the society of the Middle Ages, intent on a rich ruling class dominating a poor lower class and eliminating the middle class. The only real difference between them is that the Republicans have allowed the Christian far right to add theocracy to their goal.

Again, actions speak louder than words. Look at what each party has done when they had control. Neither one should be allowed to do that to our country again.

[C-Kwik]

The Republican and Democratic national candidates feed their middle and lower class voters (the bulk of their voters numerically) what they want to hear in order to get them to vote for the party. Or fear of the other guys. Once in power they govern in a manner contrary to that ideology.

Would it be any better if a candidate were truly honest about what he would do when he got into office if his views fundamentally disagreed with yours?

I see the point you are making, but ultimately, it still comes down to how a voter perceives how well a candidate matches their views. I'm certainly not going to vote for an independent just because he is not a Republican or Democrat. That's pretty much just like voting along party lines.

[stebo0728]

Seems to me the trend lately has been which candidate in the primary has a chance to beat the other guy, more so than what any of them stand for. Power struggles are FAIL.

[IBCoupe]

[cough]Linda McMahon[/cough]

[stebo0728]

[cough]Linda McMahon[/cough]

Damn that cough sounds vile, u should see the doctor, has your ObamaCare kicked in yet?

[WDRacing]

I still often think that our original "property owners only" voting system had its advantages. Of course we have included women, and non-white races now, which is great, they can own land now too. Im not saying that we should definitely switch back to that, but I can DEFINITELY see why it was set up this way.

Make it white males only and I'm down

[stebo0728]

I still often think that our original "property owners only" voting system had its advantages. Of course we have included women, and non-white races now, which is great, they can own land now too. Im not saying that we should definitely switch back to that, but I can DEFINITELY see why it was set up this way.

Make it white males only and I'm down

Just white males, or white male property owners? I really dont care to see K-Fed voting to be honest.

[IBCoupe]

Damn that cough sounds vile, u should see the doctor, has your ObamaCare kicked in yet?

Don't need it; I work for a unionized defense contractor.

But seriously: McMahon went out of her way to avoid actually talking about the issues. When asked, she, at one point, said she didn't have an opinion yet. Much of the primary analysis up here has come to the conclusion that Republicans chose McMahon over the other candidates (who showed in polls that they'd be equally viable in November - I think she and Rob Simmons were equally weighted in that regard; he might have even been a hair higher) because she's the only one with deep enough pockets to take on the extreme popularity and renown of Richard Blumenthal.

[srellim234]

It's not like voting along party lines if you are selecting the person with the closest stance to yours regardless of party. I tailor my selections to match the office as well as I can, too. As such I've voted for everything from conservatives to liberals from just about every party on the ballot over the years.

At this point in my life I equate it quite a bit to my business experience. If I'm using an employment agency to find a suitable employee and I keep getting poor employees I'm going to fire that agency and try another one. If I keep getting people that are trained at XYZ school and I find they are totally inept or incapable of doing the job they are supposedly qualified for, I'm going to quit hiring graduates of that school.

It's the same with our hiring of political officeholders with our votes. It's time to fire the Republicans and Democrats as the suppliers of our political employees.

[stebo0728]

It's not like voting along party lines if you are selecting the person with the closest stance to yours regardless of party. I tailor my selections to match the office as well as I can, too. As such I've voted for everything from conservatives to liberals from just about every party on the ballot over the years.

At this point in my life I equate it quite a bit to my business experience. If I'm using an employment agency to find a suitable employee and I keep getting poor employees I'm going to fire that agency and try another one. If I keep getting people that are trained at XYZ school and I find they are totally inept or incapable of doing the job they are supposedly qualified for, I'm going to quit hiring graduates of that school.

It's the same with our hiring of political officeholders with our votes. It's time to fire the Republicans and Democrats as the suppliers of our political employees.

To further your analogy, perhaps you shouldnt "hire politicians" out of any school at all, but rather the homeschoolers. The homeschoolers are always the brightest