I refuse to vote...

[Shyatic]

For a Republican, or a Democrat.

They are a political party, and in that, they put the party before people. I'd rather vote for a monkey that throws poop, because at least I know what he stands for (poop throwing).

With a D/R candidate, they can say whatever they want, but then they have to step back in line to do the bidding of their party so all their friends get re-elected.

Thoughts?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

So your a quitter? You don't like the options so you will let somebody else elect the next congress and President?

 

[Shyatic]

So your a quitter? You don't like the options so you will let somebody else elect the next congress and President?

I'll vote for anybody else on the ballot.

I would probably make an exception for Ron Paul, because I think he'd be so devastating to the "status quo" that it's probably a good thing to bring about a valid third party

 

[dank69]

Your option is to do your best to keep the worst one out. Not voting for the second worst candidate is a vote for the worst candidate.

 

[Lemon law]

For a Republican, or a Democrat.

They are a political party, and in that, they put the party before people. I'd rather vote for a monkey that throws poop, because at least I know what he stands for (poop throwing).

With a D/R candidate, they can say whatever they want, but then they have to step back in line to do the bidding of their party so all their friends get re-elected.

Thoughts?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes Scribe, I have thoughts, no one will bother to force you to vote while you lose the ability to vote for the lesser of all evils. You have the strategy of an Ostrich, and even if you stick your head in the ground, it does nothing to stop what you fear from happening.

 

[Ausm]

I hope more people who vote straight ticket "R" feel the same way but seriously the problem is most people have no idea who they are voting for in terms of the record or beliefs.

 

[MotF Bane]

Excellent. As long as you are voting D/R, you are voting for a continuance of the problem.

 

[Shyatic]

I suppose I could boycott and just vote out the encumbant every time.

I don't know that it's any better of an idea, but there's really no point in voting if the interests represented aren't your own.

 

[Ausm]

I suppose I could boycott and just vote out the encumbant every time.

I don't know that it's any better of an idea, but there's really no point in voting if the interests represented aren't your own.

Career Politicians should be the first ones to hit the road imo...

 

[wand3r3r]

I've heard my friends saying they vote for anyone who's not in office just to make sure they squirm a bit. Once in office it's like an addiction worse then crack and politicians will do anything to retain power.

It's time for a voting system without "party" affiliations. They sell out to one side or the other.

Vote to create 1 term limits. Maybe they would try do something beneficial while they are in office if they aren't just trying to leech a longer term.

 

[Munky]

If enough people voted third party, you could see some actual change instead of the usual political BS.

 

[Shyatic]

I've heard my friends saying they vote for anyone who's not in office just to make sure they squirm a bit. Once in office it's like an addiction worse then crack and politicians will do anything to retain power.

It's time for a voting system without "party" affiliations. They sell out to one side or the other.

Vote to create 1 term limits. Maybe they would try do something beneficial while they are in office if they aren't just trying to leech a longer term.

You don't think we will ever get term limits if you keep voting for D/R, do you? You NEED a valid third party to vote for things like this.

 

[Craig234]

I think it's naive and misguided to say 'party means they put party before people'.

The fact is, organization is effective in politics. The founding fathers didn't say 'let's not talk to each other, let's do our own thing and see what happens'; they organized.

That wasn't putting 'party before country', it was being effectively organized.

If you wanted to end slavery - form a group that opposes slavery.

Today, parties stand for things. You might like or dislike them, but decide about a party based on its agenda, not simply that it's a party.

I understand the repulsion to any sort of 'party', but it's what I said in the first sentence.

Fact is, the 'special interests' are pleny organized - not just lobbyists but all kinds of organizations, with good funding and funding think tanks to create sales pitches and media organization to spread their message. They're able to stomp all over the public if the public doesn't organize a counter movement.

If you think 'both parties are sellouts against the public interest', then it'd make sense not to vote for either one, I guess, and just throw away your vote.

But I don't think that's the case. Get informed and you might learn that there's a lot to care which party gets elected; you can also fight for more third party rights.

Voting against the incumbent regardless of the alternative is a mistake.

For one thing, most districts are locked into which party will win. For another, that's a way for TERRIBLE alternatives to get in office if they do. It doesn't solve the issue.

I think you're much better off picking which of the two main parties you think is better/less bad and supporting it for now.

In the meantime, push for reform.

 

[Shyatic]

I think it's naive and misguided to say 'party means they put party before people'.

The fact is, organization is effective in politics. The founding fathers didn't say 'let's not talk to each other, let's do our own thing and see what happens'; they organized.

That wasn't putting 'party before country', it was being effectively organized.

If you wanted to end slavery - form a group that opposes slavery.

Today, parties stand for things. You might like or dislike them, but decide about a party based on its agenda, not simply that it's a party.

I understand the repulsion to any sort of 'party', but it's what I said in the first sentence.

Fact is, the 'special interests' are pleny organized - not just lobbyists but all kinds of organizations, with good funding and funding think tanks to create sales pitches and media organization to spread their message. They're able to stomp all over the public if the public doesn't organize a counter movement.

If you think 'both parties are sellouts against the public interest', then it'd make sense not to vote for either one, I guess, and just throw away your vote.

But I don't think that's the case. Get informed and you might learn that there's a lot to care which party gets elected; you can also fight for more third party rights.

Voting against the incumbent regardless of the alternative is a mistake.

For one thing, most districts are locked into which party will win. For another, that's a way for TERRIBLE alternatives to get in office if they do. It doesn't solve the issue.

I think you're much better off picking which of the two main parties you think is better/less bad and supporting it for now.

In the meantime, push for reform.

I don't think having a party MEANS that you put it before people. It's just what has happened the last 30 years or so of my life. Look at Dennis Kucinich for example, who I thought was very steadfast in his beliefs, and then went and was "talked to" by the President and voted for the crappy healthcare reform he said prior on PRINCIPLE, he couldn't vote for.

People in parties have NO principles. The way it works is this... Harry Reid turns to them and says "Wow, that's a nice bill you're introducing to help out XYZ group, it has a lot of support with everybody in the US! But see, we need you to help US out on a vote for something that helps the RIAA, called SOPA... so you scratch our back, we scratch yours..."

And that's the way of the world of politics. Having a valid third party with term limits makes that a lot more difficult.

 

[dank69]

I've heard my friends saying they vote for anyone who's not in office just to make sure they squirm a bit. Once in office it's like an addiction worse then crack and politicians will do anything to retain power.

It's time for a voting system without "party" affiliations. They sell out to one side or the other.

Vote to create 1 term limits. Maybe they would try do something beneficial while they are in office if they aren't just trying to leech a longer term.

Re-election is one of the only motivations for a representative to do his best to vote for policies that benefit the people he represents. Single term limits opens the door for politicians to do whatever they want once they are elected even if it screws over those that elected him/her.

 

[Shyatic]

Re-election is one of the only motivations for a representative to do his best to vote for policies that benefit the people he represents. Single term limits opens the door for politicians to do whatever they want once they are elected even if it screws over those that elected him/her.

They are already doing things that don't benefit the people. And they will still get re-elected.

Or do you think SOPA is a good idea?

 

[dank69]

They are already doing things that don't benefit the people. And they will still get re-elected.

Or do you think SOPA is a good idea?

Wow, that is a jump. Why would you think I support SOPA? Clearly there are reps on both sides that support SOPA. If my rep votes for SOPA I will look at the alternative next election cycle. If the alternative would not vote for a repeal of SOPA then that issue cancels out and I will have to look at the other issues and make my choice accordingly. It's not difficult.

 

[Craig234]

I don't think having a party MEANS that you put it before people. It's just what has happened the last 30 years or so of my life. Look at Dennis Kucinich for example, who I thought was very steadfast in his beliefs, and then went and was "talked to" by the President and voted for the crappy healthcare reform he said prior on PRINCIPLE, he couldn't vote for.

People in parties have NO principles.

That's simply wrong.

The way it works is this... Harry Reid turns to them and says "Wow, that's a nice bill you're introducing to help out XYZ group, it has a lot of support with everybody in the US! But see, we need you to help US out on a vote for something that helps the RIAA, called SOPA... so you scratch our back, we scratch yours..."

And that's the way of the world of politics. Having a valid third party with term limits makes that a lot more difficult.

The population has al kinds of competing interests, and that's reflected in politics.

Nearly every interest with two sides tends to gravitate to one side allied with one party and the other with the other party. You can pick which you prefer.

You need to blame the people a lot as part of the problem. If the RIAA is a powerfu force, what choices are the people making that help that? Is it backed by powerful companies like Comcast and AT&T that the people pay billions of dollars to making them powerful? Do people complain about off-shoring to China and the decline of Main Street and then shop at Wal-Mart?

Do you donate to the advocacy groups and politicians who you agree with? Fact is, elections are largely determined by money.

94% of congressional races are won by the candidate with the most money. The public gets some blame for being so influenced by the expensive 30 second ads, too.

People sort of mindlessly hating politicians instead of blaming the ones more deserving are pare of the problem.

No wonder politicians tune out citizens who are going to say false things about them because they can't bother to get informed, and 'vote out the incumbent no matter what'.

You tell me how a group of politicians should 'put the people first' while raising enough money to get elected when that 94% statistic is in effect because of voters.

List specific issues and how they should raise the money - including when only 0.26% of people even donate $200.

When you try to do that you might find your opinions are not quite the same. You might even appreciate the group who are the 'progressive caucus' who IMO are the better group.

 

[palehorse]

I hope more people who vote straight ticket "R" or "D" feel the same way but seriously the problem is most people have no idea who they are voting for in terms of the record or beliefs.

FTFY...

 

[palehorse]

You might even appreciate the group who are the 'progressive caucus' who IMO are the better group.

It's sad that you can't make it through an otherwise ambiguous/bi-partisan discussion without plugging your "side." In fact, until I got to that last worthless paragraph, I was going to commend you for what would have been your first unbiased post... ever.

I should know better...

 

[soulcougher73]

That is fine, its not like your vote matters anyways on a presidential vote. Still comes down to the EC which in most states has no laws stating they have to vote the way the popular vote of said state does. Plus the EC nullifies a lot of votes depending on the state you live in. Use me as an example in Kansas..its ALWAYS RED. So a Dem vote in KS is a no vote basically. Swing states are the only ones where your vote may or may not count.

So basically as long as the EC is around your vote doesnt mean much..to top if off if you are in a heavy blue or red state and you are on the oppopsite of that vote wise..its just a double dick slap to the face to vote.

 

[Ninjahedge]

If you feel that neither represents, vote for an independent or write someone in if you want.

The key here is, if enough people come OUT to vote and DON'T vote for R/D, the message will begin to become clear and hopefully we start to see a 3rd, or 4th party form that represents a bit less of a polarized view of their represented constituents.

If we still keep getting <9&#37; of the vote on anyone but the top 2, forget it. We will only see men trying to voice an opinion with no real hope of winning. (Also, we still keep getting measly turnout... well...)

 

[Anarchist420]

I've actually become worried that the ballot box in VA will be rigged against Dr. Paul, so I'm considering not voting.

 

[werepossum]

For a Republican, or a Democrat.

They are a political party, and in that, they put the party before people. I'd rather vote for a monkey that throws poop, because at least I know what he stands for (poop throwing).

With a D/R candidate, they can say whatever they want, but then they have to step back in line to do the bidding of their party so all their friends get re-elected.

Thoughts?

So vote for the third party or independent who best represents your views (or at least the one which least offends your views.) It really isn't painful, and at the least, you'll be telling the powers-that-be that you follow politics and don't award your vote simply on the basis of party.

 

[Shyatic]

So vote for the third party or independent who best represents your views (or at least the one which least offends your views.) It really isn't painful, and at the least, you'll be telling the powers-that-be that you follow politics and don't award your vote simply on the basis of party.

I didn't say I wouldn't vote for them. Just not D/Rs.