Do you ignore certain parts of platforms?

[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.

[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.

[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:

"I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demand that Congress enact Dr. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act which would set forth that every unborn child is a 'person' under the Constitution, entitled to equal protection of the law and therefore, no unborn child could be killed without due process of law."

In addition to guaranteeing the legal person hood of the unborn, Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which I wholeheartedly support, would strip the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. This would mean that Roe v. Wade would immediately pass away as any legal authority on this issue. There would be no need to worry about putting a Supreme Court on the bench that might eventually make the right decision on this issue. We can, therefore, end legal abortion immediately upon enactment of the Sanctity of Life Act. ... Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refuses to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I will use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.

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

[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.

[UGAalum94]

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 if more than a fraction of one percent of the population were willing to vote for Baldwin and that if elected he could actually make that change.

It would be a losing proposition for any elected official to vote for it unless we had a really clear and somewhat limited definition of what unborn meant.

As much as I'm anti-abortion, I recognize that it's a really small segment of the population who wants to insist on absolutely no abortions for any reason from the moment of conception on. Even many people who personally believe life begins then recognize that it's not a standard that the public at large would be willing to live with. (For instance, I think the number of people who think that IVF or the storage of embryos for IVF is wrong is TINY, and yet if you grant any conceived embryos legal rights IVF gets weird really fast). So is unborn person any implanted embryo? Any month-old, implanted embryo? And unless they could find the terms on which a consensus could form, they'd likely be voted out and the act repealed with the next congress.

Or so I think.

I'm not throwing this accusation at you Nitty, but doomsday scenarios can be powerful motivators, but it doesn't mean that it's a reasonable or rational motivator. A coat hanger and "we won't go back" doesn't seem reasonable to most people. It's almost the intellectual equivalent of the mangled fetus pictures from Pro-Lifers. Even if Baldwin says he wants to go back, we won't.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

Being pragmatic seems to me to mean settling for more of the same. I'm tired of it.

Just here on GC - look how many intelligent, politically concerned GCers have stated they are voting for a candidate they do not feel would be the best president/senator/whatever. Imagine what kind of change could be wrought if everyone STOPPED being pragmatic, and instead became a little idealistic.

You may say that I'm a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us.

Thank you, John Lennon.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Being pragmatic seems to me to mean settling for more of the same. I'm tired of it.

Just here on GC - look how many intelligent, politically concerned GCers have stated they are voting for a candidate they do not feel would be the best president/senator/whatever. Imagine what kind of change could be wrought if everyone STOPPED being pragmatic, and instead became a little idealistic.

You may say that I'm a dreamer.
But I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us.

Thank you, John Lennon.

I did feel frustrated by the number of people who were theoretically Fred fans who wouldn't vote for him in even the primary. The funniest part is that most of them voted for Romney instead.

[AGDee]

I do think it's unfortunate that we assume that the two current major parties are the only parties that will ever exist. The political parties have changed over the years and the only thing stopping them from changing again is the attitude that they can't change.

That said, if you're leaning toward voting for McCain but would really prefer the Libertarian candidate, then I think you should definitely vote for the Libertarian! If you're leaning toward voting for Obama but would really prefer the Libertarian candidate, then vote for Obama anyway

[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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

Are you questioning his two Honorary Doctorate Degrees??!??!111!?!?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

Well, if you can't fully support any one candidate, I guess voting for the lesser of ALL evils would be the way to go.

Come to that, and in keeping with the op, I've never had a candidate whose platform I was 100% in agreement with. Odds are I never will, unless I run. Hmmm . . . .well, I was named "Most Likely to Be First Woman President" by my junior high class, and I have a former student who is after me to convince McCain to select me instead of Palin . . . I do have ovaries, after all! But I can't even promise to bring him the GC vote, so I don't think that's an option after all.