Do you ignore certain parts of platforms?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

So you're voting Libertarian, right?

I did last election... but I don't like Barr. Secondly, I don't believe in having no civil rights laws for the private sectors. Discrimination should be outlawed. I also believe in freedoms such as free trade... but I think we need limitations and control in order to not kill the economy (BUT, this is not my speciality, and I often have conflicting views that turns me to the extreme Laissez-faire capitalism), ... AND I was a little misleading in my last post... I believe in gun control. I believe a citizen has the right to control the gun, if the government can determine that he is able to use it safely. Our guns should be treated like our cars, esp. since guns are even more so a lethal weapon.

AND, I dont want to TOTALLY waste my vote by voting libertarian. I talk and campaign for it, but really, there is only two parties up for the spot, red or blue...

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

AND, I dont want to TOTALLY waste my vote by voting libertarian. I talk and campaign for it, but really, there is only two parties up for the spot, red or blue...

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

You send a message, but unless you can put together a historic movement, you can't expect that your vote will contribute to the kind of government you'll see in action in the next few years, really. This didn't keep me from voting Libertarian in 1992, but I can't see myself doing it again because I see foreign policy differently now. (I certainly might vote Libertarian at the state and local level, depending on a couple of issues that vary among candidates in the party and the likelihood that the office I'm voting for would address them.)

Sure, if enough people voted Libertarian, the other parties might recognize they needed to change their own platforms to appeal to these voters, but when you're talking less than 1% of total voters, it's hard to see how it's going to play out that way.

Like your signature says, sometimes you decide you're better off trying to vote for the major party candidate who you think will screw it up a little less.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

You send a message, but unless you can put together a historic movement, you can't expect that your vote will contribute to the kind of government you'll see in action in the next few years, really. This didn't keep me from voting Libertarian in 1992, but I can't see myself doing it again because I see foreign policy differently now. (I certainly might vote Libertarian at the state and local level, depending on a couple of issues that vary among candidates in the party and the likelihood that the office I'm voting for would address them.)

Sure, if enough people voted Libertarian, the other parties might recognize they needed to change their own platforms to appeal to these voters, but when you're talking less than 1% of total voters, it's hard to see how it's going to play out that way.

Like your signature says, sometimes you decide you're better off trying to vote for the major party candidate who you think will screw it up a little less.

Haha...I should probably be clearer and say that I'm voting for who I think is the lesser of ALL evils.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Not to pick on this point, but I don't understand this concept of "wasting" a vote. I would think that not showing up at the polls at all is "wasting" your vote, since you as a person have the right to vote. However, each vote, no matter how small in comparison to the total, sends some sort of message; either for one of the two major parties, or, by voting for a third party candidate, it shows a distaste for the Dems and Republicans, or at least for their platforms.

Then again, I voted Republican while living in Boston, so maybe I'm not the person to talk about "wasting" votes...

Idealism is swell and all Ksigkid, but I def. have an opinion of who I want in the McCain vs. Obama battle... I voted for Ron Paul this year, because he is someone I absolutely believe in, (and I knew my state was going towards the candidate I wanted in both parties) and he was garnering more than 1%, so his impact makes a difference, he did say something in the primaries, and still is... Barr, well, the man is totally off the radar.

Of course, if people complain about the candidate I DO vote for, if I vote for Barr, I could just throw my hands in the air and say, "Hey, I didnt vote for him."

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

AND I was a little misleading in my last post... I believe in gun control. I believe a citizen has the right to control the gun, if the government can determine that he is able to use it safely. Our guns should be treated like our cars, esp. since guns are even more so a lethal weapon.

Ooooohhh. I LIKE that. Since I've always felt gun control means hitting your target.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Ooooohhh. I LIKE that. Since I've always felt gun control means hitting your target.

yes, well, my fear is what the target is... you end up on the wrong side of the gun and you will find your view on gun control a little different as well as a warm wet sensation running down your leg...

[SWTXBelle]

I am voting for the candidate I feel would make the best president.

Novel, I know.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I am voting for the candidate I feel would make the best president.

Novel, I know.

Let us know how that works out.

ETA: Although I felt strongly about doing it myself in the primary, it didn't work out as well as I hoped. I can understand though feeling that going with the closest to the ideal is appealing.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Let us know how that works out.

ETA: Although I felt strongly about doing it myself in the primary, it didn't work out as well as I hoped. I can understand though feeling that going with the closest to the ideal is appealing.

I can tell you how it works out now - my candidate may not win, but I will not have contributed to continuing the status quo, which MARK MY WORDS is what you will get with either of the two main party candidates.

Let me know how the whole "voting for the lesser of two evils" or "voting for someone I don't really support but feel I should vote for" or "voting AGAINST a candidate more than voting for one" works out for you!

eta - that is an inclusive "you", directed not just to UGAalum but all those who have stated a variation of the above rationales for voting for Obama or McCain.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I can tell you how it works out now - my candidate may not win, but I will not have contributed to continuing the status quo, which MARK MY WORDS is what you will get with either of the two main party candidates.

Let me know how the whole "voting for the lesser of two evils" or "voting for someone I don't really support but feel I should vote for" or "voting AGAINST a candidate more than voting for one" works out for you!

eta - that is an inclusive "you", directed not just to UGAalum but all those who have stated a variation of the above rationales for voting for Obama or McCain.

I realized much more of a jerk than I intend, sorry.

There's something to be said for voting for who you most believe in, but there's also something to be said for being more pragmatic.

Those of us with lesser of two evils thinking hope that we get a government that is more likely to reflect our beliefs than the other government that could possibly be voted in. And it really will come down to one or the other. And they are both likely to not change much, you are right.

On the other hand you can have the satisfaction of not having participated with a third or minor party vote, but that's about all you'll get.

I think the thing to do is to push for the people you want at the primary level of the big parties, like the Paul folks did this year. Or to push for the establishment of a more parliamentary system, but I don't think that's likely to happen.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I can tell you how it works out now - my candidate may not win, but I will not have contributed to continuing the status quo, which MARK MY WORDS is what you will get with either of the two main party candidates.

Let me know how the whole "voting for the lesser of two evils" or "voting for someone I don't really support but feel I should vote for" or "voting AGAINST a candidate more than voting for one" works out for you!

eta - that is an inclusive "you", directed not just to UGAalum but all those who have stated a variation of the above rationales for voting for Obama or McCain.

By voting for the lesser of all evils, I'm also voting for the person who I think would make the best President of the group (McCain). I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess not.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Interesting, from swtx's signature, I googled and found the Baldwin site -- for all those arguing that who is elected President could ultimately have no direct effect on the abortion issue, this from the Baldwin issues link:


Not saying this would happen (lots of politics would come into play), but it makes the point that it COULD happen.

It could happen, but there are a lot of things that could happen. I just don't think it's at all likely.

Stripping the Court's appellate jurisdiction on a single issue would be an enormous move, and (I think) one unprecedented in US History. The thing is, the Court's decisions on the abortion issue reach so many other issues (right to privacy, etc.), that you would have to strip the Court's appellate jurisdiction on those issues as well. Then, you're getting into a real seperation of the powers problem and a whole number of other legal issues. I that if this Baldwin is suggesting that the Court's appellate jurisdiction could be stripped on a single issue, he really doesn't get the point.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I am voting for the candidate I feel would make the best president.

Novel, I know.

Serious question, if you're willing to answer (and I won't hold it against you if you'd rather not):

Why do you think Baldwin would make the best president of all the candidates?

[SWTXBelle]

I'll not go into all my thinking, partially because I am not yet 100% sure he is who I will vote for - right now, it looks like it. Technically, I guess I'm undecided, other than the fact it will NOT be McCain or Obama. I'm still reading and trying to figure out who really would be the best president.

My knee-jerk gut reaction to presidential politics is to immediately look at the Libertarian and Constitutional candidates. My political views are somewhere between the two parties. There is a certain contrarian aspect to my choice, too. I'm tired of voters voting in those who are long-term political players, and then being surprised that nothing really improves. Were McCain truly a maverick Republican, I could get behind him (perhaps). But I think a lot of the "maverick" is a result of branding, as opposed to true maverick behavior. (See what I did there with the word "branding"??)

So, there is a certain desire to just see someone other than Obama or McCain in a GC sig line - I was a passionate Ron Paul supporter (someone who really has been a maverick Republican!), and with him out of the race I've found it harder to get excited again.

As I said, I'm not sure it will be Baldwin in November for me.

My facebook says my political views are "cranky".

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

My knee-jerk gut reaction to presidential politics is to immediately look at the Libertarian and Constitutional candidates. My political views are somewhere between the two parties. There is a certain contrarian aspect to my choice, too. I'm tired of voters voting in those who are long-term political players, and then being surprised that nothing really improves. Were McCain truly a maverick Republican, I could get behind him (perhaps). But I think a lot of the "maverick" is a result of branding, as opposed to true maverick behavior. (See what I did there with the word "branding"??)

You're quite right in this - McCain was never as much of a maverick as he was made out to be. He has always been quite conservative in his beliefs and his platform.

I would definitely consider a third-party candidate if there was one who I could really get behind. But, I've only been truly passionate about one political candidate in my life (Romney), and there hasn't been a third party candidate in any election who I could really support over the others.

Actually, I think the only third-party candidate I've voted for is Lieberman in the last Senate race, and that's more because I think he's done a good job representing CT.