Wasting Your Vote

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:13 am

I've commented to some people recently when asked who I would vote for, that I would be voting for neither Obama or McCain. I will select a different candidate because I don't believe in doing that "lesser of two evils" thing. I also don't believe that by voting for a different candidate that I am "throwing my vote away." Rather I believe I'm exercising my right to vote as I see fit, and I'm also sending a message that I'm not happy with the choice given me.

I've noticed for some reason, this is something that can make the most mild-mannered person flip out. Some take it as a personal affront.

Why?

"You're just wasting your vote!"

"If you do that your vote's gonna go to (candidate's name) and the Democrats/Republicans will win!"

"If you don't vote for _____ or ____ then you have no right to complain!"

I always thought voting was a personal right and that a person should vote for who they think will do the best job. Not "which candidate sucks less."

I've always thought that if you didn't follow the program, study up on the candidates and issues, that you had no business voting.

I know people with the intelligence of a lima bean and they're voting- probably stupidly- and yet no one's upset about that.

Maybe if more people "threw their vote away" by voting for who they wanted instead of who they were given to choose from, we could truly "rock the vote."

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:15 am

You are right about one thing, many, way too many, peopole who vote have no idea about the issues or in the case of lesser level candidates even the person they are voting for (like a Congressman).

But by not voting for a main party candidate, you really either are wasting your vote or taking a potentially winning vote from one of the two candidates, thus in reality voting for the other.

Clearly this is your right and far better than not voting, but in the two party system it's all about playing the game that matters in the end...sadly :-5

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:36 am

I'm with you, Red. If more people check on all the candidates rather than assuming there's only two (or not checking at all) then there'd likely be one or two more viable parties around.

Let's just keep banging on these old school guys like Quinn

so that maybe they'll realize that the current situation is a self-fulfulling prophesy that isn't real unless they make it that way.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:52 pm

If I don't like either but vote for one anyway, who have I helped?

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:22 pm

A "cast" vote is never a waste. IMO

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:00 pm

You should always vote the way you feel-a vote cast in good faith is never wasted. When we stop thinking that way, maybe the system will change.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:08 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;933316 wrote: You are right about one thing, many, way too many, peopole who vote have no idea about the issues or in the case of lesser level candidates even the person they are voting for (like a Congressman).

But by not voting for a main party candidate, you really either are wasting your vote or taking a potentially winning vote from one of the two candidates, thus in reality voting for the other.

Clearly this is your right and far better than not voting, but in the two party system it's all about playing the game that matters in the end...sadly :-5

Not so.

There has to be a means to register your disaffection with the system and with the choices presented to you. A deliberately spoilt vote, or (if necessary) a vote for a candidate with no hope of success) is a way of saying that I will not back either party.

A vote for either of the majority parties endorces not only every policy that is currently in their manifesto but also every policy they come up with during their term in office.

How, by exercising a single vote, can you say "this I agree with but this - no way"?

If both parties endorse, for example, the war in Iraq and I find it abhorrent then I will refuse to vote for either party as to vote gives them justification for continuing the war.

If I do not vote then I join the apathetic no hopers who cannot be bothered.

By turning out to vote and stating that I agree with none of them then at least I have registered my complaint.

If a significant percentage of the electorate do so then whichever party is elected cannot claim a mandate for their policies.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:13 pm

Jester;933598 wrote: oh boy here we go....

if I vote for osama then I help osama, if I vote for mccain then I hlep mcain... if I vote for niether and I would have voted for osama then I help mccain, if I vote for neither and I would have voted for mccain then I help osama...

the 'niether' major party vote cannot win, hence the waste of vote verbage.

So... I have come up with a new startegy:

Vote for whoever you want in the presidential race... just dont vote for any incumbant in any other race.

Its the incumbants that have screwed EVERYTHING up to date. VOTE THEM ALL OUT.

That will be my campaign that I will launch in CA to oust both senators and representative, I have marches planned, billboards, bumper stickers, and flyers being made.

Oust All Incumbants! Bye-Bye Boxer, Pelosi, and the other freak.

So I really dont care who gets in as president. I'm not satisfied with either choice, ones a full socialist the other is a closet socialist. And I wont help either one. I may just write myself in, but I know in the end I'll do th elessor of two evils cuz Osama is a faster change towards hanging out hiney out to get shot off again.

And if you want neither Obama nor McCain? The neither vote can win if enough people try it.

BTW your constant use of Osama for Obama is cheap and beneath you.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:18 pm

i know i have said " less of 2 evils" but there is not a strong third party. i am so suprised at this. with the unhappiness that is shown towards these 2 ??? But no Knight on a white horse has appeard. Or is this person out there and most of us have not heard of him or her. In lighten me??

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:40 pm

Jester;933711 wrote: ahahahaha Sorry to laugh but so what? the day after we find out which one of the two won... no one will even care how little the third party vote was. Thats a weak protest vote...

Then America is definitely different to the UK - over here a double digit spoilt vote would cause ructions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:45 pm

Jester;933692 wrote: Its a paraducks bud... thas all I can say...

If you vote for any other than the two who have a chance of winning then you screwed the one that you most likely would have voted for of the big two.

Its mindboggling I know... No it's not. It's simple. You've complicated it in your own mind. Keep it simple and you just might get what you want rather than slowing the pace of what you hate.

Bryn Mawr;933701 wrote: There has to be a means to register your disaffection with the system and with the choices presented to you. A deliberately spoilt vote, or (if necessary) a vote for a candidate with no hope of success) is a way of saying that I will not back either party.

A vote for either of the majority parties endorces not only every policy that is currently in their manifesto but also every policy they come up with during their term in office.

How, by exercising a single vote, can you say "this I agree with but this - no way"?

If both parties endorse, for example, the war in Iraq and I find it abhorrent then I will refuse to vote for either party as to vote gives them justification for continuing the war.

If I do not vote then I join the apathetic no hopers who cannot be bothered.

By turning out to vote and stating that I agree with none of them then at least I have registered my complaint.

If a significant percentage of the electorate do so then whichever party is elected cannot claim a mandate for their policies.
Exactly, Bryn. Weird thing in the US elections. People think they have to back a winner, so they set out to find out who the pundits are saying is going to win, then vote for them. This is called doing research.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:40 pm

Accountable;933420 wrote: I'm with you, Red. If more people check on all the candidates rather than assuming there's only two (or not checking at all) then there'd likely be one or two more viable parties around.

Let's just keep banging on these old school guys like Quinn

so that maybe they'll realize that the current situation is a self-fulfulling prophesy that isn't real unless they make it that way.

That's just the point...It's common knowledge that everyone(Or the majority, from which is so biased it bares no challenge) votes for one of the two Democrat or Republican...

Philosophically it is exercising your right to vote(As well as b!tch:wah:), but realistically it is throwing your vote away...

I on the other hand am thinking about moving to Canada...:wah:...Minutes from the border of Alaska to be exact...:wah:...

(joking)...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:56 pm

Jester;933949 wrote: I'm looking at North Korea... I think they could use a man like me.

That could be interesting...

Just walk in there with your cowboy hat on...

Should go over real well...

:wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:04 am

Bryn Mawr;933701 wrote: Not so.

There has to be a means to register your disaffection with the system and with the choices presented to you. A deliberately spoilt vote, or (if necessary) a vote for a candidate with no hope of success) is a way of saying that I will not back either party.

A vote for either of the majority parties endorces not only every policy that is currently in their manifesto but also every policy they come up with during their term in office.

How, by exercising a single vote, can you say "this I agree with but this - no way"?

If both parties endorse, for example, the war in Iraq and I find it abhorrent then I will refuse to vote for either party as to vote gives them justification for continuing the war.

If I do not vote then I join the apathetic no hopers who cannot be bothered.

By turning out to vote and stating that I agree with none of them then at least I have registered my complaint.

If a significant percentage of the electorate do so then whichever party is elected cannot claim a mandate for their policies.

In the UK first past the post mean that the majority of the voters are effectively disenfranchised, under thatcher and now under new labour we have a party in power that the majority of voters actually voted against! We have government imposed by a minority vote rather than a parliament that reflects the real diversity of opinion.

The first thing all of them do when they get in is gerrymander the constituency boundaries. Neither of the two main parties want proportional representation as effectively it means neither of them would get enough support to form a government. Self interest not concern for the well being of the nation is the norm on both sides. In Proportional representation scotland it had made a tremendous difference, for the first time in decades politicians are having to sit up and take notice-even the scottish tories like it now as it's the only way they can get any seats. bet labour would never had intriduced it if they had had the brains to realise it would mean the end of the labour mafia up here.

I don't think the UK is in any position to be too smug about our democracy compared with the states at the moment. We elected Tony Blair remember. twice!!! Although we do seem to be a bit better at smacking them down eventually and reminding them who is boss.

Normally with American presidential elections it's a case of waiting to see who gets the rubber stamp from the party apparatchiks. the democratic primary seemed a bit livelier. Was that due to Proportional representation? I've been told for years I was wasting my vote. Personally if that is the only argument someone can come up with for voting for a particular candidate or party then they have IMO kind of missed the point about democracy.

Vote raving monster loony party-you know it makes sense.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:06 am

I guess I just don't buy into that idea that I have to vote for one jerk to prevent the other jerk from winning. I know people who foam at the mouth when they find out someone's going to vote for someone other than the Chosen Two. They act as if MY vote is THEIRS and that by voting the way I want to, I am somehow ruining things for them. Maybe it's easier for me to do this because I've always gone against the grain. But the way I see it, Accountable is right. And these same people who get all up in arms about "throwing one's vote away" and think they have it all figured out are the same people who complain about whoever wins. Maybe if people would come out of this rut, they could make a CHANGE!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:56 am

Jester;933938 wrote: Acc I usually am simple minded, but this is just a fact...

But the numbers dont add up, despite how much I want to do it, it means obama has the greater chance if I do.

I cant take the chance.

Sorry.
Yes, Obama has the greater chance. Next time there'll be another immediate danger to keep you from doing what you've admitted is the right thing. We'll keep fighting the small fires until the whole forest burns down.

Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is insanity, Jester.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:13 pm

Accountable;934163 wrote: Yes, Obama has the greater chance. Next time there'll be another immediate danger to keep you from doing what you've admitted is the right thing. We'll keep fighting the small fires until the whole forest burns down.

Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is insanity, Jester.

We can all agree that a third candidate being voted in for President is far from the reality within our lifetimes, surely...

What I gather is that you(Acc), along with RedGlitter, feel that the numbers associated with those who truly wish to vote for a third party candidate(Keeping in mind voting for the same third party candidate) are equal to that obviously in comparison to the electorates needed to sustain the obligation of presidency?...

I can't agree...In fact,..I can't agree by a long shot...Therefore I see voting for the "lesser of two evils" at least a viable solution...That's to say if I even do feel that a third party candidate is a better option...

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:32 pm

What I gather is that you(Acc), along with RedGlitter, feel that the numbers associated with those who truly wish to vote for a third party candidate(Keeping in mind voting for the same third party candidate) are equal to that obviously in comparison to the electorates needed to sustain the obligation of presidency?...

Speaking only for myself, what I'm saying is if MORE people would break away from that "two evils" mindset, and vote for who they truly want instead of blindly accepting the pablum that's offered them, it could make a substantial difference. It might even work. At the absolute least, it would send the message that

A) Americans are capable of thinking for themselves and thinking "out of the box"

and B) that we aren't accepting the status quo.

When those votes are tallied all they say is that the majority of the people WANTED whoever the winner was. That's a show of support. It doesn't show that X people voted for who they thought would suck less.

Any vote cast is a voice spoken. There is no waste. Wasting would be not voting at all.

I think (correct me if wrong Acc) that Acc and I feel that the same people clamoring on about wanting change are the same people helping prevent it from happening.

BE the change you want to see.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:53 pm

RedGlitter;934856 wrote: Speaking only for myself, what I'm saying is if MORE people would break away from that "two evils" mindset, and vote for who they truly want instead of blindly accepting the pablum that's offered them, it could make a substantial difference. It might even work. At the absolute least, it would send the message that

A) Americans are capable of thinking for themselves and thinking "out of the box"

and B) that we aren't accepting the status quo.

When those votes are tallied all they say is that the majority of the people WANTED whoever the winner was. That's a show of support. It doesn't show that X people voted for who they thought would suck less.

Any vote cast is a voice spoken. There is no waste. Wasting would be not voting at all.

I think (correct me if wrong Acc) that Acc and I feel that the same people clamoring on about wanting change are the same people helping prevent it from happening.

BE the change you want to see.

I understand...The philosophical side of it...But to me it's just not realistic...Not realistic by far...

Look at Ross Perot...Probably the only third candidate for President to even come close...

In the 1992 election, he(Perot) received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election.

18.9% isn't even close to a legitimate challenge to win Presidency...

I can understand voting for people who you want to be President...

I can just understand more voting for one of the two that you know is going to be one of the two being voted in for President, from which you would rather see one in than the other as opposed to being satisfied with the person to whom you've voted for...Let's face it,..no politician vying for Presidency is perfect...

Using Perot as a precursor, had the numbers been significantly larger I would agree that not voting for the "lesser of two evils" would be more crediting...

Until then I personally feel that voting for a third party candidate is equal to not voting at all...And I mean no offense...It's just reality...I personally admire those who vote for the person they feel would do a better job, rather the blame lies in the people not choosing to change the system, but it has to be orchestrated...

It's a dilemma because it's up to the people to change the fact that there are only really two candidates with the potential of becoming President of the United States of America, just that the fact of the matter is is that it's not being changed therefor until everyone gets together and decides they want to change the "rules" of the system they're just going to be forced to choose between the "lesser of two evils" because that's just reality, therefore I find it to be acceptable given the circumstances...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 3:58 pm

We're talking about a nation wide strike upon the voting integrity...

What we need is a voting revolutionist...

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:00 pm

It's a dilemma because it's up to the people to change the fact that there are only really two candidates with the potential of becoming President of the United States of America, just that the fact of the matter is is that it's not being changed therefor until everyone gets together and decides they want to change the "rules" of the system [snip]

I cut off the part where it started to go awry for me. Otherwise I agree- until people decide to make effort for a change, we're stuck with the same ineffective crap. I think our method of voting is unfair and a joke. A few people voting with their conscience aren't going to do much. But if the majority voted that way, we could make SUCH a difference. But see, as long as people continue to stick with what they think they know , waiting for everyone else to get with the program before they vote for who they really want, it'll never happen.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:08 pm

RedGlitter;934897 wrote: I cut off the part where it started to go awry for me. Otherwise I agree- until people decide to make effort for a change, we're stuck with the same ineffective crap. I think our method of voting is unfair and a joke. A few people voting with their conscience aren't going to do much. But if the majority voted that way, we could make SUCH a difference. But see, as long as people continue to stick with what they think they know , waiting for everyone else to get with the program before they vote for who they really want, it'll never happen.

Well I agree...What do you propose?...

My point is is that if it's left up to individuals to change the system it will never get done, because what's needed is an orchestration of ideal principal related to voicing your true opinions...

Someone cheating on a graded curve system is worse than someone cheating on a 100% set in stone test system...It makes them dumber...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:11 pm

K.Snyder;934818 wrote: We can all agree that a third candidate being voted in for President is far from the reality within our lifetimes, surely...

What I gather is that you(Acc), along with RedGlitter, feel that the numbers associated with those who truly wish to vote for a third party candidate(Keeping in mind voting for the same third party candidate) are equal to that obviously in comparison to the electorates needed to sustain the obligation of presidency?...

I can't agree...In fact,..I can't agree by a long shot...Therefore I see voting for the "lesser of two evils" at least a viable solution...That's to say if I even do feel that a third party candidate is a better option...

If you continually vote for "the lesser of two evils" in a two party system which gives you no real choice of policy or direction then how do you ever expect to change anything for the better. By the very fact that you term it the lesser of two evils you are saying that neither party offer the policies you want to see enacted.

How do you let the establishment know that you are not satisfied with the way society is moving or the way the government is being run? A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to preserve the status quo.

As long as you are trapped in the rut of voting for the big two come what may then they have zero incentive to change - they might be offering apples and pears but if you don't like fruit then you'll starve.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:26 pm

Bryn Mawr;934907 wrote: If you continually vote for "the lesser of two evils" in a two party system which gives you no real choice of policy or direction then how do you ever expect to change anything for the better. By the very fact that you term it the lesser of two evils you are saying that neither party offer the policies you want to see enacted. Well to clarify I've never really believed in the "lesser of two evils" rather I only say that because it's the overall accepted ideology...Or so it seems...I myself vote for those who will benefit the ideals I feel represent the betterment of the majority...It just so happens that I feel any politician I vote for is the lesser of two evils...

Bryn Mawr;934907 wrote:

How do you let the establishment know that you are not satisfied with the way society is moving or the way the government is being run? More predominantly you take their job...On a wider scale I don't think it's a matter of 100% reform across the country as much as I think voting for all of the individual offices would be your opinions being held more credible and useful...

Bryn Mawr;934907 wrote: A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to preserve the status quo. I wouldn't necessarily consider the term "lesser of two evils" to be restricted of improvement...Even John Gotti gave to the poor...

Bryn Mawr;934907 wrote:

As long as you are trapped in the rut of voting for the big two come what may then they have zero incentive to change...

I agree for the most part...There are the occasional droppings that people may benefit from time to time with but as far as perfection is concerned I agree wholeheartedly...

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:29 pm

Well I agree...What do you propose?...

I propose that people start voting with their conscience, even if they think it's a stupid thing to do. I don't think a change will happen overnight because the entire system needs overhauled and I hate to be cliche, but "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." If we could get some people used to voting this way, more people would be willing to do the same and it would grow.

A lot of people spout the rhetoric about wasting one's vote simply because that's what they've been told. They've never really bothered to think about it for themselves.

My point is is that if it's left up to individuals to change the system it will never get done, because what's needed is an orchestration of ideal principal related to voicing your true opinions...

I see it differently. I think the only way it will change is by leaving it up to individuals. I think what's needed is the backbone to do what's right and stand up for what one believes in. Maybe that's me being an idealist, but I think voting for someone you don't believe in is the same as lying.

People who are saying " Yeah it sounds good but...." are the holdup in my opinion. If they keep waiting until everybody else does it it'll never get done. They'll just continue to keep the change from being implemented while the few of us dissenters (ha) do what we can to voice our opinion.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:42 pm

RedGlitter;934920 wrote: I propose that people start voting with their conscience, even if they think it's a stupid thing to do. I don't think a change will happen overnight because the entire system needs overhauled and I hate to be cliche, but "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." If we could get some people used to voting this way, more people would be willing to do the same and it would grow.

A lot of people spout the rhetoric about wasting one's vote simply because that's what they've been told. They've never really bothered to think about it for themselves.

That's the entire reasoning behind voting for the "lesser of two evils"...People see that individuals voting for third party candidates one at a time and see their potential in doing the same thing as a "waisted vote"...When people vote for a third party candidate one at a time the numbers convince people that third party candidates will never get into office...And realistically probably never will for the next hundred years let alone my lifetime...So they say to themselves..."I might as well vote for one of the big two who will benefit me more" as opposed to voting for the one person to whom they feel is for the betterment of the ideal government...

RedGlitter;934920 wrote:

...but I think voting for someone you don't believe in is the same as lying.

It's not a matter of voting for one you wholeheartedly believe in as it is voting for one that will benefit you more from a realistic standpoint...And the realistic standpoint is a third party candidate is not going to be voted in during the lifetimes of those voting based on the numbers evident in third party candidacy...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:46 pm

K.Snyder;934818 wrote: We can all agree that a third candidate being voted in for President is far from the reality within our lifetimes, surely...No we can't all agree to such a preposterous statement any more than we can agree that only a white male has any chance of winning.

K.Snyder wrote: What I gather is that you(Acc), along with RedGlitter, feel that the numbers associated with those who truly wish to vote for a third party candidate(Keeping in mind voting for the same third party candidate) are equal to that obviously in comparison to the electorates needed to sustain the obligation of presidency?...

I can't agree...In fact,..I can't agree by a long shot...Therefore I see voting for the "lesser of two evils" at least a viable solution...That's to say if I even do feel that a third party candidate is a better option...
I've said several times that I'm not talking about winning this presidential election. It's got to start. It's got to grow. Somebody's got to be the first one on the dance floor or nobody will ever dance.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:48 pm

K.....

As long as people continue to think this way, positive effectual change will not happen. We will remain stuck with presidents who do not serve our needs. It will be our own fault, as it is now because we bought into that theory.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 pm

Jester;934851 wrote: Maybe thats how 'they' keep us (in keeping with the great conspiracy theorists) down?

Like Kev said, the numbers do matter. I know where your coming from Ive wanted to do it before. If I could get to where I did not care I'd have an easier time of it.
I took a second to calm down after reading this before posting, because I'm certain you're not accusing me of not caring.

Your brand of caring is short-sighted. You want to make sure that not too much harm's done this term. Same thing last term. Same thing next term. My brand of caring is that I'm tired of harm being done so I'm trying like hell to get us out of the rut we're in and off the course we're on.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:50 pm

I've said several times that I'm not talking about winning this presidential election. It's got to start. It's got to grow. Somebody's got to be the first one on the dance floor or nobody will ever dance.

Thanks Acc. That's what I've been trying to say but I wasn't doing too well.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:50 pm

RedGlitter;934856 wrote: Speaking only for myself, what I'm saying is if MORE people would break away from that "two evils" mindset, and vote for who they truly want instead of blindly accepting the pablum that's offered them, it could make a substantial difference. It might even work. At the absolute least, it would send the message that

A) Americans are capable of thinking for themselves and thinking "out of the box"

and B) that we aren't accepting the status quo.

When those votes are tallied all they say is that the majority of the people WANTED whoever the winner was. That's a show of support. It doesn't show that X people voted for who they thought would suck less.

Any vote cast is a voice spoken. There is no waste. Wasting would be not voting at all.

I think (correct me if wrong Acc) that Acc and I feel that the same people clamoring on about wanting change are the same people helping prevent it from happening.

BE the change you want to see.
We're definitely on the same page on this issue, at least.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:52 pm

Accountable;934941 wrote: We're definitely on the same page on this issue, at least.

:D You know Acc, when you and I differ, we differ hard but when we agree we agree fiercely. I like that myself. :-6

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:55 pm

Accountable;934931 wrote: No we can't all agree to such a preposterous statement any more than we can agree that only a white male has any chance of winning.

I've said several times that I'm not talking about winning this presidential election. It's got to start. It's got to grow. Somebody's got to be the first one on the dance floor or nobody will ever dance.
RedGlitter;934937 wrote: K.....

As long as people continue to think this way, positive effectual change will not happen. We will remain stuck with presidents who do not serve our needs. It will be our own fault, as it is now because we bought into that theory.

I say that the only chance at changing voting for the big two is a mass orchestration put together to emphasize true desire through voting for whom they feel is for the betterment of the majority whereas those opposed feel it will only change by individuals voting for who they feel is for the betterment of the majority leading to the convincing of others...

What's left is to see which prevails...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:56 pm

K.Snyder;934884 wrote: I can just understand more voting for one of the two that you know is going to be one of the two being voted in for President, from which you would rather see one in than the other as opposed to being satisfied with the person to whom you've voted for...Let's face it,..no politician vying for Presidency is perfect...So you have a definite fave between the two annointed ones? Which one do you see as better?

K.Snyder wrote: It's a dilemma because it's up to the people to change the fact that there are only really two candidates with the potential of becoming President of the United States of America, just that the fact of the matter is is that it's not being changed therefor until everyone gets together and decides they want to change the "rules" of the system they're just going to be forced to choose between the "lesser of two evils" because that's just reality, therefore I find it to be acceptable given the circumstances...Take a peek in the mirror, K. YOU'RE A PEOPLE! Why not be an agent for change instead of waiting?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:57 pm

Accountable;934931 wrote:

I've said several times that I'm not talking about winning this presidential election. It's got to start. It's got to grow. Somebody's got to be the first one on the dance floor or nobody will ever dance.

RedGlitter;934940 wrote: Thanks Acc. That's what I've been trying to say but I wasn't doing too well.

[]I wasn't talking about this Presidential election either...I was talking about one outside of the next one-hundred years...:wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:57 pm

I say that the only chance at changing voting for the big two is a mass orchestration put together

K, how would you propose to make that orchestration come to fruition?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:00 pm

K.Snyder;934949 wrote: []I wasn't talking about this Presidential election either...I was talking about one outside of the next one-hundred years...:wah:

Ohh...well I have to say I think voting methods will change within the next hundred years. I think (hope) enough people will finally get fed up with the rigged system and will institute change.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:03 pm

K.Snyder;934905 wrote: My point is is that if it's left up to individuals to change the system it will never get done, because what's needed is an orchestration of ideal principal related to voicing your true opinions...I'm figuratively whacking you over the head with the Declaration of Independence, then bouncing a quarter off your thick skull! (with love, 'cause I really like you, K). Read the coin. E Pluribu Unum Out of many, one. Guess what the many are, K. INDIVIDUALS, that's what. Individuals just like you. How many of the signers of the Declaration looked around and said "Once you get a majority to sign, come see me." NONE, that's how many. If anyone said that they got left behind. Thank God that's not the only kind of people we had back then, and it's not the only kind of people we have now.

You get to choose what kind of individual you want to be, K.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:04 pm

Bryn Mawr;934907 wrote: If you continually vote for "the lesser of two evils" in a two party system which gives you no real choice of policy or direction then how do you ever expect to change anything for the better. By the very fact that you term it the lesser of two evils you are saying that neither party offer the policies you want to see enacted.

How do you let the establishment know that you are not satisfied with the way society is moving or the way the government is being run? A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to preserve the status quo.

As long as you are trapped in the rut of voting for the big two come what may then they have zero incentive to change - they might be offering apples and pears but if you don't like fruit then you'll starve.
Exactly, Bryn. Thanks & keep it up. :-6