less than 3 weeks till the US election

[Alaina]

Yes, please, people vote for a candidate, not just against some other one. I don't care who anyone votes for as long as they have a better reason than "At least it's not so-and-so".

Why can't you vote against a candidate? The problem with the American democracy is that outside of the Republican and Democratic parties, no one else really stands a chance. I could vote for the Independent Party or Green Party...but would my vote really count? Democracy becomes less effective when applied to such a large group of people. Getting your "voice" heard would work best if you stick to voting for or against the "big guns", the Rep or Dem.

So when you have either an R or a D, if you really, really hate the R, isn't the enemy of your enemy your best friend? I don't see what's wrong with the reasoning against that. If, say, you particularly dislike one candidate yet the others don't really get you too excited either, wouldn't your next option be to vote for the man who has the best chance against the candidate you hate?

[Mercury Hat]

It's been my understanding that nothing good ever happens when someone uses the "enemy of my enemy" justification. For history's sake I'll throw out the Soviets in Afghanistan and our aiding of the Taliban.

To me, though, it's just more mature to do something for some reason rather than against another.

[Alaina]

How is that any more mature? Is it more mature if I say I'm for abortion than anti-war?

Because I'm against something rather than for it means I don't have command of the facts, or perhaps I don't fully understand the situation?

[Luprand]

It may not be more mature to say you're pro-abortion than anti-war ...

.. but have you noticed it's called PRO-life rather than ANTI-abortion? People are more than willing to jump all over the prefix "anti" and show the people as the lousy opposition.

Hence abolition rather than ANTI-slavery, temperance rather than ANTI-alcohol, sanctity of marriage rather than ANTI-homosexuality, purity of comics rather than "I HATE HAET HETE THOSE STUPID ANIUME LUZERS!!1!!!"

--Sij

[Grabmygoblin]

And for all of you who are voting against Bush, rather than for someone else ...
THERE ARE OTHER CANDIDATES.
--Sij

Yes, please, people vote for a candidate, not just against some other one. I don't care who anyone votes for as long as they have a better reason than "At least it's not so-and-so".

guys, I get what you are saying, but who? who are these other candidates?
there were only two candidates I was really interested in during the democratic primaries: Dean and Sharpton. both were knocked out for various reasons. so now my choices are: vote for Bush, which is a total no-brainer HELL NO, vote Kerry, which I'm not thrilled about, or vote for a third party candidate.
lets take a peek at the third party candidates, shall we?

prohibition party candidate Gene Amondson, main issue... prohibition. nope, he's out.
consitution party candidate Michael Peroutka, so far right he left the republican party.
green party candidate David Cobb ungh the greens. good ideas, but totally naieve.
libertarian party, Michael Badnarik. rightrightrightyright.
peace and freedom party candidate Leonard Peltier...a convicted murderer or political prisoner depending on your view on the issue, left wing candidate.
personal choice party candidate Charles Jay, former VP candidate of Libertarian party, running mate a porn star.
...
bunch more
Nader is running on the Reform Party ticket.
don't get me started on Nader. I'm actually quite angry and disappointed with him right now.

I guess what I am trying to say is that for me at least I have no real choice. I hate Bush for what he has done to this country these past four years. I don't like Kerry either, but I don't dislike him as much, and have hope that, if elected, he will do the right thing. and I won't vote for third party candidates, because they are nuts.

[Dutch!]

At least we have a vote, remember that. You don't like the bloke, you vote him out and hope the majority of the rest of us do the same. You like the bloke, you vote for him and hope the majority of the rest of us do the same.

Better than picking up a rock and throwing it at someone...which unfortunately probably needs to occur from time to time, disappointing as that is.

I just reckon you need to be prepared to stand by your decision and take the good with the bad and admit down the track you might have made a mistake. I reckon good leaders do that too.

[Luprand]

Small thought that occurred ... isn't there some country out there that allows you to rank-vote for candidates? That would be cool.

--Sij

[Luprand]

Other thing to add ... how do you choose your friends? Do you look at people and say, "Well ... I hate all of 'em, but hey, this one isn't half as malodorous as the others. I might as well hang out with him."

Or do you say, "Y'know, this person has an awful lot of qualities that I like/respect/admire/find reeeeeeally attractive. Sure, he has some faults, but the things I like are what's important."

So why be any different with choosing a candidate?

prohibition party candidate Gene Amondson, main issue... prohibition. nope, he's out.
consitution party candidate Michael Peroutka, so far right he left the republican party.
green party candidate David Cobb ungh the greens. good ideas, but totally naieve.
libertarian party, Michael Badnarik. rightrightrightyright.
peace and freedom party candidate Leonard Peltier...a convicted murderer or political prisoner depending on your view on the issue, left wing candidate.
personal choice party candidate Charles Jay, former VP candidate of Libertarian party, running mate a porn star.
...

The thing I've noticed is that if you go looking for bad things in anyone ... guess what? You'll find them. Does one flaw make this person completely unredeemable? Does it do that for you? (and no, I don't mean this as a personal attack; this just seemed like the best example to use. Sorry, GMG!)

So unless you choose your company by choosing which one has the fewest negative qualities (and if you do, pull out that wedgie and stop being such a perfectionist), don't do that for your political leaders.

--Sij

[Grabmygoblin]

but shouldn't we hold public officials to higher standard? these people are running for the office that will control one of, arguably the most, powerful nations in the world. I may seem picky, maybe looking for negative attributes, but I'm just looking for someone who I feel will be able to handle the job.

[Alaina]

Other thing to add ... how do you choose your friends? Do you look at people and say, "Well ... I hate all of 'em, but hey, this one isn't half as malodorous as the others. I might as well hang out with him."

Or do you say, "Y'know, this person has an awful lot of qualities that I like/respect/admire/find reeeeeeally attractive. Sure, he has some faults, but the things I like are what's important."

What if you only really had 2 choices and one you had already hung out with for 4 years and found was an idiot that couldn't handle "being your friend"? If you've gotta choose, wouldn't the other guy be better than going with someone you know has done so much damage to you already?

[Dutch!]

Dunno how it works out your way, but here you vote locally for a representative of your electorate. There were about nine in our area a few weeks ago (covering most of the eastern half of Victoria). We get to number them from 1 to 9 in this case. If our 1st choice doesn't get enough votes to make the top two, then all of his votes get distributed according to the order of choices the voter made on their card. That way the other 7 are eliminated one by one to leave the last two, with all of the secondary votes from the others added to their own depending on the preference of the voter. Then the winner of the two big fellas gets the seat.

Most of the little parties generally give their preferences one way or another, so more often than not you might as well just vote for one of the two big parties (Labor or the Coalition) and be done with it.

Then, depending on how many seats each party wins, decides which party governs.

[Psiogen]

If everyone only voted for the candidate who perfectly matched their own policy positions, we'd all have to pick ourselves as write-ins.

I think we have to be realistic--no third-party candidate can win under the current system. The Democrats and Republicans are too entrenched. I support instant runoff voting, but right now, Kerry has my vote.

If I truly hated Kerry, I wouldn't vote for him. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but there's also a lot I like about him, and I think he'd make a pretty good president. His faults are far less than the Bush slime machine would have you believe.

[Phact0rri]

I think that this election is truely sad. its one of those, "bush is evil" platforms, looking over all the candiates, as apposed to showing what they will do for the country it appears its all "a vote for me is against bush" not just Kerry but Cobb and Nader are both doing the same things.

I am appauled by what bush has done, and I agree Kerry is more stead fasy and professional in terms of seperating his emotions, in the debates which was commendable. but for all I've seen he and bush feel the same way on most of the important issues.

Its funny almost every question on the two debates I saw had Kerry just rearranging what bush said and vice versa.

I think if anything this election (and heck the one before) shows beyond a doubt we need another supported party in the united states.

oh right and at this point I'm probably going Nader, but really its just to support third party, as I don't see any candiates who would really do any justice running this country anywhere but further down the jagged spine that has spit on everything the US was founded on.

okay... so I might be a little angry.

*flees*

[Luprand]

Other thing to add ... how do you choose your friends? Do you look at people and say, "Well ... I hate all of 'em, but hey, this one isn't half as malodorous as the others. I might as well hang out with him."

Or do you say, "Y'know, this person has an awful lot of qualities that I like/respect/admire/find reeeeeeally attractive. Sure, he has some faults, but the things I like are what's important."

What if you only really had 2 choices and one you had already hung out with for 4 years and found was an idiot that couldn't handle "being your friend"? If you've gotta choose, wouldn't the other guy be better than going with someone you know has done so much damage to you already?

Frankly, the last time I was in an online community where someone in power started hurting me, it turned out he had to do that in order to prevent other people from doing something worse. I ended up having to leave that one after making one too many rash decisions about who I really wanted to trust and I still have a hard time trying to apologize to someone I grievously insulted and betrayed.

The moral of the story: optimism and trust positively suck and there are times I just can't muster up any more hope for anything in the future. This is one of 'em. I can't wait for a month from now when everything's stopped and we can all go back to our lives or hang ourselves, whichever feels more convenient at the time.

--Sij

[Alaina]

Wow, this thread has really gotten depressing...add that to the fact that I just came from a sucky Bright Eyes concert in which one song was so depressing a drunk girl kill tried to commit suicide by jumping off a balcony...

I think our country needs a complete rehaul of its political institution, but that'll never happen. Heck, we couldn't even adopt the metric system! America is suffering from a bad case of path dependency, and though they know reorganizing the "democracy" we have would probably lead to a more efficient and equal system, they're not going to bother. Too much work, no?

[Psiogen]

but for all I've seen he and bush feel the same way on most of the important issues.

Its funny almost every question on the two debates I saw had Kerry just rearranging what bush said and vice versa.

There are plenty of major policy differences between the two, but you won't find many of them in the vapid TV soundbites, since Bush tries to sound liberal an any issue that favors liberals, and Kerry tries to sound conservative on any issue that favors conservatives.

This site details some (though not all) of their differences.

[Luprand]

Yeah ... listen, I'm sorry about the increasing downerness of my posts; dunno what's eating me exactly, and for all intents and purposes I should be in a great mood ... but that's sadly not the case. I'll try and be happy-go-Luprand again by tomorrow or so.

--Sij

[Phact0rri]

but for all I've seen he and bush feel the same way on most of the important issues.

Its funny almost every question on the two debates I saw had Kerry just rearranging what bush said and vice versa.

There are plenty of major policy differences between the two, but you won't find many of them in the vapid TV soundbites, since Bush tries to sound liberal an any issue that favors liberals, and Kerry tries to sound conservative on any issue that favors conservatives.

This site details some (though not all) of their differences.

Sly, don't get me wrong I'm totally blind, when it comes to the two candiates. Sure I don't really like either of them but I know there are issues they disagree on. the problem, is the issues they disagree on are either "still way off the marker" like how they both feel about small busisness and both proposals do not strengthen the market. Ecology, which Kerry has some thoughts reguarding that could be commendable if he wasn't on the less means more diatribe. or the issues that don't affect me as a voter and an american citizen.

sorry I guess I should have made that more clear.

I think our country needs a complete rehaul of its political institution, but that'll never happen. Heck, we couldn't even adopt the metric system! America is suffering from a bad case of path dependency, and though they know reorganizing the "democracy" we have would probably lead to a more efficient and equal system, they're not going to bother. Too much work, no?

Well as much as I'd like to take part the entire structure of our government and repiece it back together using the thoughts of "equality" and "freedom" as my guide. I'm sure that most people wouldn't agree with me. Course in 2000 Jella Biafra had an interesting Platform ^_^

Nah I'd be one to take things a step at a time. and thats usually how politcs works. Its just looking at both Kerry and Bush, I don't see the beginings of anything that appears to be somthing I can light a match too. I don't see how either of them are giving me hope for the future, in terms of being able to live my american dream, or even have food on the table. I'd be one to say I'm more concerned about the next four years because these four have hurt me rather bad... I'm umemployed, I'm in debt, I lost a grant due to local tax reform measures.

I have a lot of ideas of how to make the US a better place, course I've spent a good portion of my life being an advocate of better ways and opinions. But right now, I'd settle for a job and a stable economy.

[Alaina]

But I think the time for gradual improvement has passed us by. Look how divided the country is! It's become difficult to find a Democrat who can truly respect a Republican's beliefs and vice versa.

If we wait until a stable period of economy to change, it'll never happen. Because people will say, "Aw, the system's got it covered. Democracy isn't so bad because we've all got enough money now."

And just a random fact, Bush took away million(s) of dollars from the Pell Grant, and I lost $600 of federal money for college.

[JexKerome]

Just one more thing to throw in: Bush got the office because of people saying "why bother?" and not voting. I get the idea some of you don't remember or weren't really aware of the months of uncertainty and those infamous Florida recounts until Gore gave way in order to not destabilize your country. So much for that. It was the people's apathy which created that scenario, and four years later...

If you really don't like any of the candidates and don't vote, not only could you well be giving Bush a hand (he's still top dog, after all) but you'd also have no right to complain later, if the new president totally lets you down.

I know what I'm talking about, since it happens around here all the time and look at us.

So go vote, people.