Why is it that we have to vote for the "lesser of two evils"?

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Why is it that we have to vote for the "lesser of two evils"?

At what point will the American public say enough with the only two parties in this country that have a shot at the presidency, and either have a 3rd party come into the picture or a "restructuring" of the two current parties?

Vote for whomever you want, there's a space on a ballot to write in any person you want.

Could you be any more obtuse in ignoring his point of only two candidates with any chance of winning?

Bah, if anybody's obtuse it's you.

I addressed that point directly in my remarks you deleted in my quoted post above.

Fern.

The comment you made is terribly obtuse regardless of what you said after it.

It's like a woman posting about a rape, and you responding with two lines, the first saying "bet you enjoyed it!" and the second saying "no, seriously, my sympathies."

When you are called on the first statement, you can't defend it with the second.

Your first statement didn't merely omit something added later, it directly was obtuse in responding to his point, taking it absurdly literally.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
Democrats want to actually help the poor, not to have bad programs that do harm.

The Democrats programs are going to make everyone poor.

No, the Republican policies - the ones in power the last several years before that story - are going to do that.

The democrats are going to help people; Clinton did balance the budget, even with all the democratic programs still in place, and the democrats will tweak what needs tweaking.

You're looking at budget filled with everything from social spending to corrupt spending on contractors to borrowed 'tax cuts' for the rich, and saying social spending is the problem.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: quest55720
The problem is the extremist have taken control of the Republican party. The crazy social conservatives have had control of the republican party for a very long time. The sensible moveon.org and tree hugger types have made efforts but not yet taken control of the democratic party. I don't think the republicans can ever kick the social conservatives to the curb. I do have hope one day the democratic party can kick Pelosi and moveon.org to the curb and move away from the center to the right.

Fixed.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
Democrats want to actually help the poor, not to have bad programs that do harm.

At the individual level, I have no doubt that you're correct. At the individual level I have no doubt that most Republicans want to help people as well.

Once you get beyond that, corruption sets in. Democrats and Republicans in Washington have no interest in helping anybody but themselves. That's why federal programs to "help people" will fail. They're instituted to put people in power. If the poor are actually helped, that's just dumb luck.

At the individual level, most Republicans are in favor of the poor somehow magically doing better, as long as it costs them little or nothing. They are personally charitable though.

Unfortunately, they are usually ideological, rejecting any government role out of hand, limiting their help to the personal charity. Name ten areas of social progress in the last century, and I'll show you many if not most Republicans opposed to it at the time, whether child labor, minimum wage, workplace safety, the 40-hour week, labor rights to organize and strike, or countless other improvements.

Democrats are in favor of the poor doing better, and are willing to do the things needed for that - to pay the taxes, have the programs, to reduce poverty and grow the middle class.

At the leadership level, the Republicans represent the rich and powerful, period, with anyone else invited along as much as needed to get elected.

The democrats actually represent the American people in general, and make some compromises with the corporatocracy to get elected.

There are exceptions in each party, in particular the DLC/Clinton wing of democrats is especially corporate friendly, and less concerned with the poor than other democrats.

 

[sportage]

We could have better government if people weren't stupid. Duh?

That?s right!
A country that re elected Bush deserves Mccain/Palin.
Next on their agenda is to wreck SS, then employer provided healthcare.
You think your employer is going to be able to afford to furnish healthcare
after 4 years of Mccain and continued healthcare for profit? Duh is right!

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What are you talking about. There isn't any tiniest chance at all. A Democrat or a Republican will win. Get fucking real. Nobody but a fool wouldn't pick the lesser of two evils when one or the other will be elected. You can't adjust your mind to reality, it seems. You keep pretending there's some other answer when there is none. It isn't a defeated person who will vote the lesser of two evils, it's you who are defeated by reality. You can't face facts as they are.

Talk about being defeated. You vote for the lesser of two evils. When you stoop to that level, you've given up.

You are the one who has given up. I can stoop to any level I have to to do the right thing. I'm not a dreamer moral purist like you. I am a pragmatic machine who will commit any evil required to save your worthless ass.

Evil is still evil, in anybody's name. The end never justifies the means, no matter how much one may desire such things. Those who claim that they commit evil in order to bring about good delude themselves.

ZV

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More gibberish and twisting of reality.

Moonbeam no more twisting it. When I vote for good it is not some magical vote for evil as you portray it. You on the other hand KNOWINGLY vote for the lesser of two EVILS. I don't know that you can understand it so I'll say it again in another way.

Moonbeam votes for the lesser of two evils. It's still evil.

I vote for Good (either third party or otherwise).

Somehow you twist it into my vote for Ron Paul is a vote for McCain? LOL GTFO moonie.

You can try to run from your moral responsibility but in the end you will be sitting here next year wondering why NOTHING has changed. Talk about getting off your ass. Maybe if you weren't so lazy, you would work for REAL change, ones that REALLY WILL change Washington. But no, you want the EASY way out. Bigger government = evil moonie. You will not get it though, your is head stuck so far up the two party ass, smelling Obama messiah farts you're dizzy from the stench.

The Matrix has you. You cannot change it from the inside, something different not from the business as usual political spectrum. You say its ideology, and it may be. That ideology is something we should strive for, not something we run from. But instead of realizing that it cannot change from within party lines, you instead, go with the flow, the regular ration of evil.

The hard work is building from the ground up. Thats the true work moonboy. Obviously its too much work for you so instead of writing in someone YOU KNOW to be good, you will punch a card and go home. Sad, really. You and your messiah speak of change, but its only hot air. Sure we get a "change" from republican to democrat but thats where it ends. Hardline rhetoric will continue against Iran, Georgia will be ushered into the UN, more debt and a more oppressive government. You want change? You aren't voting for it.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If people like PC want to change the system they have to get off their asses and work to change it instead of sitting around on their computers bitching. I waste my vote on third party candidates all the time to send a message. So far everybody's been deaf. Hehe.

Not a waste moonie. If everyone instead of voting for the lesser of two evils voted for that third candidate, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And again, thats the real hard work, something you aren't prepared for.

 

[BoomerD]

Why do "We the People" usually have to choose between lesser of two evils?

Because "We the People" really have little to no say in who the candidates are.

We get to vote on candidates chosen by the parties, who are in the pockets of big business/special interests.

While the idea of voting for a 3rd party candidate SOUNDS good, as was mentioned earlier, it usually ends up with the net result of being the same as a vote for the candidate who is farthest from your political view, via the "spoiler effect."

TehMac asked me a while back if I was a "Populist." I'm ashamed to say, I actually had to go look it up.
Much to my surprise, I liked a lot of what they say, and agree with most of their platform.
Do I think they'll ever be a viable party? Hell no. The corporations control too much of the "soft money" and have too many politicians in their pockets.
Also, I was VERY surprised when I found out that the Populist Party, for the most part, are HUGE Ron Paul supporters. :Q
Maybe I need to give old Ron Who? another look...

 

[Farang]

Because we are such a large country that any one person who is able to encompass all mainstream political thinking is inevitably going to make most of the population think he/she is wrong on a wide variety of issues, even if those people support that candidate. If you have a libertarian they are only going to get 5% of the vote, a socialist 5%, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If people like PC want to change the system they have to get off their asses and work to change it instead of sitting around on their computers bitching. I waste my vote on third party candidates all the time to send a message. So far everybody's been deaf. Hehe.

Not a waste moonie. If everyone instead of voting for the lesser of two evils voted for that third candidate, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And again, thats the real hard work, something you aren't prepared for.

But they won't vote for the third candidate, and they never will.

Collective
Action
Problem

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If people like PC want to change the system they have to get off their asses and work to change it instead of sitting around on their computers bitching. I waste my vote on third party candidates all the time to send a message. So far everybody's been deaf. Hehe.

Not a waste moonie. If everyone instead of voting for the lesser of two evils voted for that third candidate, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And again, thats the real hard work, something you aren't prepared for.

But they won't vote for the third candidate, and they never will.

Collective
Action
Problem

With that type of attitude you're right.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If people like PC want to change the system they have to get off their asses and work to change it instead of sitting around on their computers bitching. I waste my vote on third party candidates all the time to send a message. So far everybody's been deaf. Hehe.

Not a waste moonie. If everyone instead of voting for the lesser of two evils voted for that third candidate, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And again, thats the real hard work, something you aren't prepared for.

But they won't vote for the third candidate, and they never will.

Collective
Action
Problem

With that type of attitude you're right.

I don't think you're getting it. By virtue of our electoral structure we will almost certainly never have a viable third party. End of story. This isn't caused by a lack of motivation, this is caused by the way our country was formulated.

I understand that this sucks, but that doesn't change reality.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I don't think you're getting it. By virtue of our electoral structure we will almost certainly never have a viable third party. End of story. This isn't caused by a lack of motivation, this is caused by the way our country was formulated.

I understand that this sucks, but that doesn't change reality.

Are you trying to say that it is physically and lawfully impossible for a third party candidate to be president?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I don't think you're getting it. By virtue of our electoral structure we will almost certainly never have a viable third party. End of story. This isn't caused by a lack of motivation, this is caused by the way our country was formulated.

I understand that this sucks, but that doesn't change reality.

Are you trying to say that it is physically and lawfully impossible for a third party candidate to be president?

Nope, but then again it's not physically or lawfully impossible for you to walk through a solid wall if the spaces between your molecules line up perfectly. I don't view that as an invitation to start bashing myself into the sides of my apartment though.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I have a political science degree..
[...]
Right now, both parties are extremely centrist with very little difference between the two..

So do I.

Surely you can see that this current iteration of the Republican party, which lies prostrate and pandering before the radical religious right and their various litmus tests, which has developed and promoted the RADICAL idea of the Unitary Presidency (which nearly completely obliterates our nearly 200 year old heritage of checks and balances between the three branches of government), and which has broken down our historic Constitutional divide between church and state, even going so far as to promote faith based "science", and which has enthusiastically overseen the creation and promotion of the largest and most repressive government internal security bureaucracy the free world has ever seen, the Dept. of Homeland Security, is anything but centrist.

In fact, this Republican party is the most RADICALLY right wing and retrograde major political party now extant in ALL of the globe's major Western democracies, BY FAR.

It is radical, authoritarian, religious, and the vigilant nursemaid of the ultra rich.

For my two paragraph post, I called them 'centrist'. But, both parties collectively are anything but centrist. The current iteration of the Republican party yadda yadda - I completely agree with it... but the current iteration of the Democrat party does nothing - absolutely nothing - to challenge it.

Both McCain and Obama are 'talking tough' on Iran.. Both of them never question the need for the Dept. of Homeland Security. Both of them hardly touch on major issues while appearing to be opposites on a bunch of minor issues. I mean.. We elected the fucking Democrats.. Shouldn't Bush be impeached by now and our troops withdrawn?

It's like you're trying to convince me that the Republicans are evil.. and because of that, the Democrats are not.. But, I am trying to say that both parties suck.. Both of them are guilty..

Really, the 'center' of the two parties right now is only the center of their current idealogies - that collectively would be a radical difference from the ideals of the average American.

Further, I hardely believe 'faith-based science, evolution, or anything related' is worthy of even being discussed by both parties. That kind of shit is just the kind of 'distractionary politics' that my first post tried to outline. We have two parties leading us in the wrong direction, yelling 'full speed ahead!' while differing on how exactly we go in that wrong direction. Free-market capitalism as we know it is being destroyed by the government and you care about faith-based science?

What exactly are you saying? Are you saying I should vote Democrat?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I don't think you're getting it. By virtue of our electoral structure we will almost certainly never have a viable third party. End of story. This isn't caused by a lack of motivation, this is caused by the way our country was formulated.

I understand that this sucks, but that doesn't change reality.

Are you trying to say that it is physically and lawfully impossible for a third party candidate to be president?

Nope, but then again it's not physically or lawfully impossible for you to walk through a solid wall if the spaces between your molecules line up perfectly. I don't view that as an invitation to start bashing myself into the sides of my apartment though.

Then it can be done. Stop saying it isn't possible or won't happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Then it can be done. Stop saying it isn't possible or won't happen.

Does this mean you're going to start running headfirst into the nearest wall? Not impossible there either.

This isn't even to say that voting for third parties is useless, because it's far from it. It's a way to affect the agenda set by the two major parties. If a third party wins the presidency, it will be because it has destroyed one of the two dominant parties now and replaced it. They might be different then, but they will be no more representative of the electorate as a whole, so what's the point?

You want to fix the problem? Go amend the constitution, but remember you have to convince the two parties to amend themselves out of power. Not gonna happen.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Then it can be done. Stop saying it isn't possible or won't happen.

Does this mean you're going to start running headfirst into the nearest wall? Not impossible there either.

This is irrelevant which is why I didn't address it previously.

This isn't even to say that voting for third parties is useless, because it's far from it. It's a way to affect the agenda set by the two major parties. If a third party wins the presidency, it will be because it has destroyed one of the two dominant parties now and replaced it. They might be different then, but they will be no more representative of the electorate as a whole, so what's the point?

You have to start somewhere.

You want to fix the problem? Go amend the constitution, but remember you have to convince the two parties to amend themselves out of power. Not gonna happen.

That can be done but we must start by getting together and voting what we believe is the closest to the America we envision. Once we get the people in congress/Senate/presidency, the change that needs to happen will come much easier.

 

[Tab]

Seriously, this thread is one of those things that just wants to make me move to Ohio and vote for Obama...

Unfortunately, that won't happen but that's not really a bad thing either. What is bad is all of these people who think a 3rd party is the magical party. The party that holds it's ideological ground and never faulters from free-market economics and always adheres to the liberal social views.

Now, let's say there was some "ideal" libertarian party running. They'd say they'd implement "laissez-faire" economic policies but they'd do the exact opposite. They say they would legalize pot but they'd just "decriminalize" it instead. There would be corruption, scandals, the same "negative" political ads, they'd spend hundreds of millions campaigning just to get your vote then tell you to fuck off.

Then you'd get a big hissy-fit, complain how one party only gets a 31% of the vote and all the power, how all three parties suck, and blah-blah-blah....

Does anyone see where I am going with this? It's wonderland all over again!!! Wee!!!

EDIT: I don't know about the rest of you, but not voting for the lesser of two evils. I'm voting for whom I think would make a good president and who'd put our country on the best path for the future.

 

[KlokWyze]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Because we have a winner take all system. As long as 50.00001% of the vote gets 100% of the representation we will have only 2 viable parties/candidates in any election. The only way to change this is to change the constitution, which would require the two major parties to sponsor legislation to put themselves out of power.

Don't hold your breath.

Cheers to that. :beer:

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I think people who talk about voting for "the lesser of two evils" are the least politically aware, and usually stay home on election day anyway.

Exactly, that is why I vote for the greater of the two goods.

I will vote every single election for the sole reason that I have that right. Just because I believe that both the D/R are bad choices, doesn't mean I won't vote.

Originally posted by: Farang
Because we are such a large country that any one person who is able to encompass all mainstream political thinking is inevitably going to make most of the population think he/she is wrong on a wide variety of issues, even if those people support that candidate. If you have a libertarian they are only going to get 5% of the vote, a socialist 5%, etc.

Nobody will be able to make everybody happy. Unfortunately a lot of people I talk to say they don't like either McCain or Obama. I remember elections (for example Clinton's re-election) where people were in support of one or the other, but they knew who they liked. It appears as though the past few elections people are more "on the fence" about their choice.

I agree 100% with Obama's talk of change, we need it. We don't need a change to Obama, but we need a change in our options. Can I write in anybody I want? Yes. Can I vote 3rd party? Sure. Would either of them have a meaningful effect except maybe saying the the D/R parties that I don't like their current platforms and they make some small changes.

I align more along the lines of the democratic party, but haven't liked a democrat since Clinton that has been on the ticket. I am sad to say I have preferred the republicans since the 2000 election, but didn't like the majority of their views. Both parties need to re-work themselves to become a party that people can once again like. I know I will hear that "Obama is exactly that" or something, but I can't believe that. He scares me for many reasons, but McCain appears to be a "typical republican" and nothing special.

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I have a political science degree..
[...]
Right now, both parties are extremely centrist with very little difference between the two..

So do I.

Surely you can see that this current iteration of the Republican party, which lies prostrate and pandering before the radical religious right and their various litmus tests, which has developed and promoted the RADICAL idea of the Unitary Presidency (which nearly completely obliterates our nearly 200 year old heritage of checks and balances between the three branches of government), and which has broken down our historic Constitutional divide between church and state, even going so far as to promote faith based "science", and which has enthusiastically overseen the creation and promotion of the largest and most repressive government internal security bureaucracy the free world has ever seen, the Dept. of Homeland Security, is anything but centrist.

In fact, this Republican party is the most RADICALLY right wing and retrograde major political party now extant in ALL of the globe's major Western democracies, BY FAR.

It is radical, authoritarian, religious, and the vigilant nursemaid of the ultra rich.

For my two paragraph post, I called them 'centrist'. But, both parties collectively are anything but centrist. The current iteration of the Republican party yadda yadda - I completely agree with it... but the current iteration of the Democrat party does nothing - absolutely nothing - to challenge it.

Both McCain and Obama are 'talking tough' on Iran.. Both of them never question the need for the Dept. of Homeland Security. Both of them hardly touch on major issues while appearing to be opposites on a bunch of minor issues. I mean.. We elected the fucking Democrats.. Shouldn't Bush be impeached by now and our troops withdrawn?

It's like you're trying to convince me that the Republicans are evil.. and because of that, the Democrats are not.. But, I am trying to say that both parties suck.. Both of them are guilty..

Really, the 'center' of the two parties right now is only the center of their current idealogies - that collectively would be a radical difference from the ideals of the average American.

Further, I hardely believe 'faith-based science, evolution, or anything related' is worthy of even being discussed by both parties. That kind of shit is just the kind of 'distractionary politics' that my first post tried to outline. We have two parties leading us in the wrong direction, yelling 'full speed ahead!' while differing on how exactly we go in that wrong direction. Free-market capitalism as we know it is being destroyed by the government and you care about faith-based science?

What exactly are you saying? Are you saying I should vote Democrat?

This guy speaks the truth. Both parties are talking about minor issues when the effin housing market is/has gone to hell, the economy sucks, gas is expensive and risen $2/gal+, and people are worrying about how they can pay their bills. Instead they fight about if we should teach crap like "faith based science, evolution, or anything related" as brxndxn says. They talk about how they will "pull out" of Iraq, well that's going to take 4+ years if we started today to pull troops/equipment out. They won't be home tomorrow, but it's being talked about as if they were.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I don't think you're getting it. By virtue of our electoral structure we will almost certainly never have a viable third party. End of story. This isn't caused by a lack of motivation, this is caused by the way our country was formulated.

I understand that this sucks, but that doesn't change reality.

Are you trying to say that it is physically and lawfully impossible for a third party candidate to be president?

Nope, but then again it's not physically or lawfully impossible for you to walk through a solid wall if the spaces between your molecules line up perfectly. I don't view that as an invitation to start bashing myself into the sides of my apartment though.

Then it can be done. Stop saying it isn't possible or won't happen.

The only chance of that ever happening is if the US gets rid of it's electoral vote system.
Until then, I consider voting for Ralph Nader to be a waste of vote.
If I was eligible to vote in 2000, and chose Ralph Nader; I'd equally blame myself for all the problems we had under Bush as well.

Oh, and you can forget me voting for that moron Bob Barr that you guys nominated.
I'd take Obama over him any day of the week.

# Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) - 44,909,806 (43.0%) and 370 electoral votes (32 states and D.C. carried)
# George H. W. Bush/Dan Quayle (R) (Inc.) - 39,104,550 (37.4%) and 168 electoral votes (18 states carried)
# Ross Perot/James Stockdale (I) - 19,743,821 (18.9%) and 0 electoral votes

It seems based on this, one needs a 3rd party candidate to be polling well above 25% on election week to even have the remote possibility of winning 1 electoral vote.

Do you support changing our political system from "electoral votes" to "popular votes"?
I do, and I hope you do as well.

 

[Moonbeam]

PC: That can be done but we must start by getting together and voting what we believe is the closest to the America we envision. Once we get the people in congress/Senate/presidency, the change that needs to happen will come much easier.
-----------

Right. You want me to vote for the lesser of three evils, but the one of the three that will not win.

No way. A vote for the lesser of three evils is still a vote for evil.

I will only vote for the party that matched my vision of America perfectly. Then I will stand by and sneer at people like you who vote for evil Libertarians.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Juddog
There should actually be 4 parties, for each of the 4 corners of political beliefs.

There are WAY more than 4 corners, because there are far more than 2 axis of distinction in political thought. Democracy is best served with between 5 and 7 parties, but anything under 11-13 is still better than what we have right now.