<quote name="Levi Pearson" date="Thu, 19 Jun 2008 at 09:04 -0600"> > Von Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> You assume that YOU and ME doing the 'right thing' will somehow > >> influence everyone else to do the same. The world just doesn't work > >> that way; some of us actually think about how the current voting > >> system actually works and what a vote for a candidate means in that > >> context. What you would *like* a vote to mean is largely irrelevant. > > > > There it is, the circular logic. *sigh* > > > > There's no circle there. By the time the presidential election comes > up, 'voting reform' is a non-issue, and the viable candidates have > been determined. Campaigning for sure losers and educating people > about their platforms (hopefully in a less obnoxious manner than you > do) is helpful, but actually voting for sure losers is not.
You're right, it is too late for voting reform. It's NOT to late to vote with purpose. The 'viable' candidates will always be determined largely through incumbent powerhouses. So if you always vote for a 'viable' then you always get more, bigger, and worse government eroding our liberties, because those in power want nothing more than more power. Here's the circle. You act a certain way _because_ the world is a certain way _because_ people act that very way you're choosing to act _because_ the world is that certain way _because_ people act that way. Circular enough for ya?? > > I have never said that. Sure, it's no secret that I support Ron Paul, > > but I don't think everyone should vote for him simply because I like > > him. Levi, you and I have had this discussion before. I try to get you > > to tell me what it is you don't like about Ron Paul and the ONLY thing > > that ever comes out of your mouth is "he doesn't have a chance." Well > > I'm sorry but you're just part of the problem there, buddy. If you > > really don't like him then just come out and say so, then I'll stop > > bugging you about throwing away a vote. > > Blah, blah, blah. I don't particularly like Ron Paul's platform. I > don't think he'd make a particularly good President, but I do hope he > keeps up his role in Congress, because I think that's a better place > for him. And he doesn't have a chance of becoming President, and he > wouldn't even if everyone who really wanted him to be President voted > for him. So, no, recognizing that fact is not part of any 'problem' > any more than people recognizing that all the other minor players have > no chance is a problem. Your distorted view of his chance of success > makes no difference to anything aside from the amount of noise you > make here. There you go, you just can't help yourself. Everytime you talk about Ron Paul you have to say how he has no chance. Don't you get it? I DON'T CARE what his chances are. He has my vote. My view of his chances is not distorted. Maybe you can call my view on how independent voices can make a difference, no matter how outnumberd, distorted. At least that's addressing a view that differs from yours. I have not been excessivly campaigning for Ron Paul here, and I'm sorry if I'm obnoxious. For what it's worth I don't expect anyone else to vote for him now that he's not going to be on the ballot. I do expect people to take a good look at the 'viable' candidates. Your right, they are both largely the same. But they are NOT mainstream. They like you to THINK they are mainstream but they are not. Ron Paul is closer to the mainstream, though maybe a little on the other side, which makes him look extreme because he's outnumbered by the hand picked "same" candidates. I'm sorry but the majority of Americans DON'T like the war, they don't want to bomb iran, and if they really thought about it wouldn't want bases in korea and europe and all over the freakin' globe. These candidates offer no change. They offer more war, more spending, more inflation, more government, less liberties, less middle class, less freedom. That is not what mainstream America agrees with, they are just really good at making you think they are mainstream. And the only reason they get away with it is everyone thinks that everyone else thinks that they are mainstream and only a mainstream vote has a chance of making a "difference". We have to stop second guessing what everyone else thinks and think for ourselves for a change. It's the only way to break the cycle. > > Sure it can be a calculation game. If the risk factor of B getting into > > office outweighs the benefit of C getting into office (weighted with > > probabilities or something) then vote for A PROVIDED you agree with A > > although perhaps not as strongly as C. Follow? Voting the lesser of two > > evils is what I rail against. If you're calling them both evils then > > don't compromise yourself! And remember kids, McInsane and Obama are > > both evils. > > Voting for the viable candidate that you agree with most is what makes > the most sense, whether you agree with them very much or not. Our two > major parties are not terribly different in the grand scheme of > political thought, and that's because mainstream America has a pretty > narrow political spectrum. Wishing it wasn't so doesn't change the > fact, nor will yelling at people to vote for unelectable candidates. > We will probably never have a President outside of that narrow > spectrum, but changing voting rules could open up the possibility of > letting more 'extreme' politicians into Congress. Whether that'd be a > good thing or not is up for debate, but it doesn't have a whole lot to > do with the Presidential election. Voting for the candidate you agree with most *period* is the only thing that makes any sense. I would only vote for a 'viable' candidate over another I agree with more if the 'viable' candidate is at least _close_ to making me feel like he could actually steer this country in a better direction. Choosing which liberties to give up based on which you would miss the least is no choice at all. "Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither and lose both." Here the security is thinking that your vote might actually make a difference in a close race. "I could be that one vote! That makes me warm and fuzzy!" Stop playing games with your votes, it is NOT A GAME. Here's an analogy. Someone asks me if I want to drown or fall off a cliff. I answer NEITHER. He then assures me that most people (group meeting, whatever) are going to choose one or the other, and whichever wins we're all going to experience. I still chose NEITHER! Either way I die, what's the difference? Even if not enough people choose neither to save us all, at least I can know I didn't walk willfully to my death without a fight. > > Hence why I try to convince people the merits of conscious voting. If > > you really believe choosing the lesser of two evils is the best way to > > vote, then have at it. I will still disagree with you. That's the beauty > > of America, we each can say and vote as we please. At least for a little > > while longer... :/ > > Personally, I like to vote while unconscious. :P Good for you. Von Fugal
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
