- Lista said...
- On a more Positive Note, Voting for Third Party Candidates is Better than not Voting at all cause at Least you are Making some Kind of a Political Statement with your Vote.
- soapster said...
- And I never said that you said that I did endorse or sanction Obama. As to your second point, I do all I can so the adage doesn't apply to me. I won't be guilted into bearing culpability for the immoral actions of political leaders that I didn't vote for.
- soapster said...
- Not voting makes a political statement as well, Lista. I've done it countless times.
- Lista said...
- "Simply because I might opt to vote 3rd party (as I did in the 2008 presidential election) does not imply that I endorse or sanction the actions or policies of Barack Obama. To infer or suggest otherwise, as you've done, is laughable." I did not even "Imply, Infer or Suggest" that you Endorsed or Sanctioned" anything, Soap. The Political Statement of not Voting is More Vague, since there are some who do so Out of Apathy and there is no Way to Separate Your Political Statement from theirs.
- dmarks said...
- Yeah, the statement of not voting ends up meaning "whatever happens, I am fine with the result".
- soapster said...
- Let that be your interpretation, dmarks. By opting for the lesser of two evils, you are still sanctioning evil. Would you rather die by firing squad or would you rather die of starvation? Rationalize it however you wish. I myself desire to live and if death be imminent then let it come to pass. But I will not sanction it.
- Lista said...
- Well, I Tend to Agree with Dmarks. What you said, Soap, is sort of a Black and White Form of Thinking. In this case, Black and White, Meaning Only Two Options or It's either One Way or the Other, It's either Evil or it is not. How About if we Discard the Word Evil and say that it is a lot of what you do not like, or a little Less of what you do not Like? To Say that it is Either Evil or it is not, is to Deny the Reality that One Undesirable can be Considerably Worse than Another Undesirable. Calling that which is Undesirable Evil, though, is Making it into an Issue of Morality, when in Reality Some of it is just an Issue of Preference. She Smiles. Boy, that might be a Can of Worms and we are Close to 50 Comments on this Comment Thread. Hopefully, I'll have the Time to do another Post Over the Weekend so that this Discussion can Continue on a New Comment Thread.
- Lista said...
- Perhaps where we are Disagreeing, Soap, is in Relation to the Idea that a Vote Motivated by Compromise is a Form of Endorsing and Sanctioning. I Do not Think that it is.
- dmarks said...
- Soap, it is not interpretation. If you sit out an election, you are giving the choices entirely to others.
- soapster said...
- And if you don't sit out and vote for someone who isn't giving you what it is you want or desire, you're still giving choices to others. I know black and white makes you squirm in your seat, Lista, but that's just something you're going to have to deal with on your own. If one candidate is promising Liver and Onions and the other Tofu, while Tofu might be preferable to me over Liver and Onions, I want spaghetti and I'll work towards getting spaghetti. If my efforts to do so fail, I will not vote between Tofu or Liver and Onions because I dislike them both and whether I vote for one over the other or not, in the final analysis, I'm going to end up with something I don't want. Why would I sanction it with a vote of approval??? It's moronic.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Voting Third Party and Not Voting at All
Sometimes the Only Way to Move a Discussion to a New Post is to Move the Last Few Comments in a Thread, so here is the Voting Third Party and Not Voting at all discussion from a Previous Comment Thread. Please Continue the Conversation here. I'll be Submitting my Own Thoughts in the Comment Area Soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I've heard it often said that those who abstain from voting "don't have any right to complain" about politics or the political process.
This is the most backwards statement I've ever heard and it's amazing how many people accept it as truth.
Weird. I don't Know why the Paragraphs always seem to Run together when ever I have Copied Comments to a Post. Oh well.
Here's my Response to Soap. That is to his Last Comment that is Listed in the Post...
"And if you don't sit out, and vote for someone who isn't giving you what it is you WANT or DESIRE"
Can't you see the Selfish Tone in what you are Saying, Soap?
"you're still giving choices to others."
Giving Choices to Others besides yourself is what Compromise is all about.
Black and White doesn't Make me Squirm, Soap, any more than the Word Compromise Makes you Squirm.
Why is Giving in to what Others Want Considered a Negative? Sanctioning and Approving Only Apply to that which is Moral and yet why, as a Libertarian, would you Consider Pushing even your Moral Values on the Rest of the Public.
If this is a Matter of Preference, rather than Morals, then you are Being Selfish. If it is Moral, then there is no Place for it in Politics, Except as it has to do with Individual Rights.
"If my efforts to do so fail, I will not vote between Tofu or Liver and Onions because I dislike them both and whether I vote for one over the other or not, in the final analysis, I'm going to end up with something I don't WANT."
Generally People who Think in All or Nothing Terms DO End Up with Nothing. Their Efforts DO Fail and they Not Only End Up with Something that they don't Want, but with Something that they Absolutely Hate. Such is the Consequence of Lack of Compromise when it Comes to Selfish "WANTS" & DESIRES"
Believe it or not, Soap, I also do not Like the Statement that you have Quoted Relating to Voting and Complaining and the Reason Why is because it is a Guilt Statement. Even though I do Believe that People should Vote, I also Believe that they should Study the Issues and if they are not Willing to Study, then I wish that they also would not Vote.
We Need to Motivate People to Study, not just to Vote.
RE: "I will not vote between Tofu or Liver and Onions because I dislike them both.." understandable in a general context. Personally, were I starving, I'd go with the liver & onions, though...
She Smiles as she Realizes an Interesting Parallel. I Guess if you were Starving, BB, and yet Refused to Eat, then you would have no Right to Complain about the Fact that you are Starving. Though I do Hope that you will Study the Issues..., I Mean your Cook Book, so that you will Properly Cook the Liver, cause Meat can be Deadly if not Cooked Correctly. lol.
Meanwhile, I'll Fix Soap some Spaghetti if he Promises to do just a Few Things for Me. I'm not Going to do it just because, though. Sorry. It just doesn't Work that Way with me and if you don't Like it, then well, your Starvation is just "something you're going to have to deal with on your own."
This is not an easy call.
At a certain point in life (hopefully!), one realizes that no candidate is going to deliver everything one wants. No one agrees with me on every single decision to be made. If you can't go that far with reality. If you are a one-issue voter, I guess you have an easier time of it, but how often is voting on the basis of a single issue a reasonable way to proceed?
I voted third party once and blamed myself and people like me for the result. I'd do that vote differently if I could do it over, but I do think there are times when "throwing a vote away" on a third-party candidate might be preferable to choosing between candidates who are way too similar.
Not voting at all? Why not write in someone you want?
Voting, however, is the bare minimum of political participation. Working for changes we want requires much more of us.
I Almost Voted for a Third Party Candidate for Governor, here in California. There was very Little Difference Between the RINO and the Democrat, other than the Fact that the Democrat was Pro-Union and the RINO was not. I Weighed this Out in my Mind and Decided that the Union Issue was Important Enough that I should Vote for the RINO. This was a Difficult Decision because I really didn't Like the RINO at all.
Unfortunately, we Ended Up with the Union Loving Democrat anyway, who is now Governing our State.
Here's what I Think. If you Live in a Swing State, in which your Vote could Make a Difference, you should be Really Careful with the Decision to Throw a Vote Away, yet if it doesn't Look Like it's a Close Race, Perhaps that is a Good Time to Make a Third Party Statement.
This is why we need to be involved at the Primary level. Americans must identify good candidates and get them through the primary stage so they then have a worthwhile choice between the two parties. Often the most important races will be between old line Republican politicians and new Tea Party type Republican candidates from the grassroots.
I think the Democrats have become so socialist that JFK, were he alive, would join the Republicans and wonder at whatever happened to his party?
Thanks for your Comment, Radar.
Nobody said anything Yesterday and the Silence Makes me Wonder if I Need to Post Again, though I don't really have the Time just yet.
Your Blog is Awesome, BTW. You may be Long Winded, but you've got so very much worth while to Say. Now for your Comment...
I Agree whole heartedly that we need to Vote in the Primaries, yet this doesn't Solve the Problem, for so Often the Better Candidates do not have the Necessary Votes to Win and Even in the Primaries, sometimes there are Two Leading Candidates Creating a "Lesser of Two Evils" Situation even on that Level. Unfortunately, the Really Good Candidates are not who People Vote for, especially here in Liberal California.
Because of this, Unfortunately the Issue of Voting for the One you Like, who can't Possibly Win, or Choosing between "the Lesser of Two Evils" who Actually have a Chance is Still Present, even in the Primaries.
It's too Bad that Voters throughout the Country, for the Most Part are more Liberal than Conservative and Unfortunately that Includes many of the RINOs.
I am long-winded. I am going to try to take your advice and shorten my posts.
Every vote means something. I will vote for the lesser of two evils if by doing so the whole is made less evil. Since Washington is SO evil right now almost any improvement will help.
Never will I vote for a third party candidate unless the third party can win. Wars are won one battle at a time, sometimes one hill at a time. :-)
I do appreciate your encouragement!
Ask God for Guidance, Radar, as to what to Keep and what to Leave Out and Keep in Mind that you do have a rather Intelligent Audience. Don't Take my Word for it, Radar. Ask God and Respond to Him.
Hang in there, Radar. You're the Greatest.
asking God may just be the answer~!
Conventional wisdom would have it that voting for a third party is a wasted vote so if most people feel this way it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thanks for your Comment, Z, and there may be some Truth to it.
Here is a Comment from Radar that he Left on My Earlier Post about Compromise and Gridlock. That Comment Thread has Gotten too Long, so I have Moved his Comment here.
Radar said...
In real elections it is the work before the primary that helps get the best candidates on the ballot that often is the difference-maker. People who believe in the political system never see non-voters as making any statement other than that they are too apathetic to do anything about government. Volunteer to work for a candidate, be a precinct worker or a poll judge or just hand out flyers for someone you support. My wife and I worked hard to help Marlin Stutzman get to Washington and he did finally get there...
April 26, 2011 9:40 PM
Can't say that I disagree with anything that you've said here, Radar. Thanks for the Comment.
"And if you don't sit out and vote for someone who isn't giving you what it is you want or desire, you're still giving choices to others"
Uh no. By voting your are strongly expressing your choice.
Sitting an election out is mere lazy apathy.
Sitting out an election is not more apathy than is walking down to your polling place on election day.
Getting actively involved; becoming a precinct chair, CD coordinator, state delegate, national delegate....now that is the sign of someone committed to change. So, on those occasions I leave portions of my ballot blank, don't talk to me about apathy.
I'll be in Tampa come 2012 how about you?
My Apologies to Dmarks. His Comment Disappeared from Moderation While Blogger.com was Down. Fortunately I had a Copy of it in my Email Box, so here it is...
Dmarks said...
I don't need to talk to you about apathy. The blank portions of the ballot speak the message loud and clear.
My Response
Lista said...
We Need to be Careful, Dmarks, that we do not Lay Guilt Trips on People about not Voting, especially when it Comes to just "Portions of the Ballot". I've Even Left Certain Portions of the Ballot Empty. If I am Totally Torn on an Issue, then I Feel it is Better to Let People who Feel Stronger about the Issue to Decide. Also, if I'm Confused or have not had the Time to Study a Particular Issue, I will not Vote on the Issue.
It is Better to Not Vote if the Person has not Studied, yet to Show Up and Vote for some of what is there is Better than Staying Home.
I Think that Soap's Point, though, is that there are Other Ways to Get Politically Involved besides Voting. Though I do not Agree with his Decision to Sit Out some of the Elections, I do see what he Means about Political Involvement, which I Know he does do.
Post a Comment