NationStates Jolt Archive

It’s a well known fact that a large minority of American citizens don’t bother to vote. I admit, I can understand their point of view. Often I don’t feel like voting, myself. None of the candidates really interest me, not one with a chance of winning, anyway.

Now, I know this will be unpopular. There’s a strong anti-Bush sentiment among the liberal elements, and I can’t say I disagree. I do disagree on its manifestation, in the ‘Anyone but Bush’ doctrine. John Kerry, they say, may not be their candidate, or even a good candidate; but he will be a better president than Bush. Again, I don’t disagree.

Where is begin to disagree is the Democrat-sponsered fallacy that a vote for anyone but Kerry is a vote for Bush. Look, people, half of this country doesn’t even bother to vote--is that a vote for Bush, too? You aren’t going to win people to your cause by telling them they’re either with you--or your enemy. Does that sound familiar? It’s what Bush told the world after 11 September, 2001.

So this essay is directed to you non-voters, out there. Why aren’t you voting? Is it because you feel that the candidate that best represents your interests has no chance of winning? Nader, perhaps, or the even less well know libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik? I can understand that. It’s the only reason that my vote could still default to Kerry.

A thousand non-voters is a tragedy. A hundred million is a statistic. So long as their are so many non-voters, they can be safely ignored by both political parties. You’ll note that both parties spend an inordinate amount of effort appealing to a few ‘swing voters’, effort they do not spare for the non-voter.

If there is any reason to vote, surely this is it; while you abstain, you are ignored. Whether you cast a vote for Nader, or Badnarik, or even Bush or Kerry, just cast a vote. You may think that politics doesn’t effect you. Here’s something; politics will not effect you in an obvious manner unless it’s forced to, or until it’s banned.

Social change only happens when mass movements force it. You don’t have to take to the streets. You don’t have to start a revolution. All you need to do is cast a vote. If a third party were to do spectacularly well, you can bet the politicians would take notice. They’re not so much ideologues as careerists, and they’ll do whatever they must to keep their job.

You’re not apathetic. You’re disenfranchised. Realize that politics will not go out of its way to connect with you. The two groups of people who benefit the most from your non-vote are the democrats, and the republicans. If you don’t like them, go vote for someone else, but vote.

You're right. End the two-party system!

You're right. End the two-party system!

Um no. That would lead to a dictatorship.

Um no. That would lead to a dictatorship.

hahahahaha. welcome to the land of rhetoric beyond even what anarchists will throw at you.

with the electoral college system a vote for someone other than kerry is a vote for bush, it changes percentages

excellent post!

if all the people who were not going to vote anyway, voted for a good 3rd party candidate. (whoever that would be) it would put the fear of god into both major parties. it could effect big time changes.

i think that all people who can stomach either bush or kerry should suck it up and vote for either the one who is closer to their politics or who they hate the least (or whichever one isnt bush).

people who would never vote for either one should vote anyway for a 3rd party candidate. its the only way to voice your disapproval of the current system in a way that politicians understand.

If Bush wins this election, I will never vote again until I have a candidate I want to vote for.
I can't really say that Kerry would have been my pick, but I would elect a monkey before Bush....or perhaps Bush is a monkey?
Regardless, this system is flawed because it is bought out by corporate interests. The lobbyists in Washington line the pockets of our representatives who promise one thing to the people yet follow the flow of cash from the lobbyists. Where are the common lobbyists who aren't associated to corporations?
John Adams declared over 200 years ago that a two-party system would collapse this country's democratic ideals. I couldn't agree more. This is in essence, why I don't vote. My side is never represented. Which is sad, because I think that's what the majority of the non-voters think. Perhaps that's why 70% of the population doesn't vote?
What's disgusting is to watch the empty rhetoric of both sides following their party lines, when neither ever do anything they say they are going to do.
Bill Clinton....democrat, who are supposed to run up large deficits. He balanced the budget and even started a surplus. Reagan, Bush, and Bush II (Sorry for the unbalanced of this, but Republicans have dominated the last 25 years), all were republican, all were supposed to be fiscally conservative, all ran the deficit to the largest totals the world had ever seen. Each one also promised hundreds of things for tax-payers, which never came true. My personal opinion is Bush is the worst for this. I couldn't even count the number of times he's promised something and then underfunded his own bill.
This is why I don't vote. A two-party system is crap. And the majority are too lazy to group together to form a political party worth listening to. But oh well...times will change eventually.

You're right. End the two-party system!
Um no. That would lead to a dictatorship.
Um no. How could you classify a pluralistic republic with the 5 to 8 parties the US should have as a dictatorship?

Um no. How could you classify a pluralistic republic with the 5 to 8 parties the US should have as a dictatorship?
I wouldn't call it a dictatorship.. although who really knows.. but Im not sure how anything would ever get done. With as much bickering and infighting that goes on in our current system between 2 parties... adding more parties would just seem to increase that ammount and eventually devolve our government into that anarchy that some people seem to want.

Hmmmm.. maybe that's the idea.

I wouldn't call it a dictatorship.. although who really knows.. but Im not sure how anything would ever get done. With as much bickering and infighting that goes on in our current system between 2 parties... adding more parties would just seem to increase that ammount and eventually devolve our government into that anarchy that some people seem to want.

Hmmmm.. maybe that's the idea.

A certain poster above would seem to believe that two parties and a dictatorship are the only options. A great number of pluralistic nations (including Japan where I currently live and many European nations) manage multi-party systems without devolving into either dictatorship or anarchy. And in reality, the US should be seen as a 2 (+1) part system, with two main parties competing, and an additional third party (like, oh lets say the Republican party or the reform party) arrising. Said third parties usually displace a sitting party (as the repblicans did) or, more commonly, serve as a corrective force, forcing the main parties to consider, adopt, or co-opt new ideas.

Oh, and an increase in the deadlock wouldn't necessarilty be a bad thing. At least it would cut down on the excessively prolifigate passing of un-necessary statutes....

Oh, and an increase in the deadlock wouldn't necessarilty be a bad thing. At least it would cut down on the excessively prolifigate passing of un-necessary statutes....

damn straight

I'd vote, if it meant anything. I live in Utah, a Republican state. People here would support Bush if he set them on fire.

A vote for anybody would be a wasted effort. If the Electoral College were to be done away with, then perhaps I would have a reason to vote against Bush.

But about the ABB thing, as much as I am against Bush I can't say I'd vote for anybody but him. Hell... I would make a terrible President.

Get rid of the Electoral College! Bring Democracy back to the US!

And while you're at it, vote for Michael Badnarik! www.badnarik.org :)

I'd vote, if it meant anything. I live in Utah, a Republican state. People here would support Bush if he set them on fire.

A vote for anybody would be a wasted effort. If the Electoral College were to be done away with, then perhaps I would have a reason to vote against Bush.

But about the ABB thing, as much as I am against Bush I can't say I'd vote for anybody but him. Hell... I would make a terrible President.
Nothing wrong with Utah. But I think I'd do alright as a President. Need a good advisor though.
And hey remember if you do'nt want higher taxes then you have to wonbder why republicans allow it to get through House and Senate if Kerry did want it. Of course the Truth if Kerry wants to cut taxes everywhere but the rich.

But its true with the electorial college that a vote fotr anyone but Kerry is going to Bush.
Popular vote is worthless in that respect with the Electoral ruling elections.

I'd vote, if it meant anything. I live in Utah, a Republican state. People here would support Bush if he set them on fire.

A vote for anybody would be a wasted effort. If the Electoral College were to be done away with, then perhaps I would have a reason to vote against Bush.

Yeah, as a New Yorker, my vote doesn't matter that much. I'm wondering whether to vote Kerry or go with a 3rd party to make a statement (a very small one, but...)

Nader, perhaps, or the even less well know libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik?

How about David Cobb?

How many non voters are there ? 70 % of population ?
It is a bit exaggerating isn't it ?
Why there is no third party ? I thought Ralph Nader is backed by the Green Party.
Please do elaborate, I am not an American.

What kind of impact do Libertarian Party and Green Party have in the forthcoming election ?
Why you tend to support Libertarian and its candidate Michael Badnarik ?

How many non voters are there ? 70 % of population ?
It is a bit exaggerating isn't it ?
Why there is no third party ? I thought Ralph Nader is backed by the Green Party.
Please do elaborate, I am not an American.

70% is perhaps even being optimistic, in non-presidential elections anyways. For Presidential elections it's more between 50% to 60%

It's irritating hearing all these people complain about how their "vote doesn't matter". Here in Kansas democrats are always complaining about their vote not mattering because it's a conservative state, but if they all got their butts into gear and voted, they could match the Republicans!

Nader is running as an independent now, he had a falling out with the Green party.

As for third party, my choice is clear.

What kind of impact do Libertarian Party and Green Party have in the forthcoming election ?
Why you tend to support Libertarian and its candidate Michael Badnarik ?


At the moment, the Libertarian party is the strongest third party in the US. I think in a few years they will be a serious threat to the Republicans and Democrats. I don't know as much about the Green Party however.

I support the Libertarian party because they are the party that most closely fits my political beliefs. No "lesser of two evils" crap for me.

The mentality that the electoral college makes any vote not cast for the victor a 'wasted vote' is dangerous. More than anything else, it prevents the collapse of the current system; perhaps a hundred million people are silently thinking, my vote won't count, so why bother?

Because your vote counts for less, when you don't even cast it! The non-voting population should get out and vote, even if it's for an inanimate object. It's the only way things will change. Better if you vote for a candidate, though; there's more restrictions on counting write-ins than there used to be. Regardless, the message remains the same; cast a vote.

Vote because you'd rather have your vote not counted that not allowed. Vote because you can't stand American politics. Vote because the two people who most want you to stay home are George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.

O how I wish Bush wins. Just so I can see how much you people b**ch about it.

I support Bush by the way but I can not vote do to being underaged. I really do hope Bush wins I have a feeling Kerry is going to do something worse that Bush has (which I don't think he has). Nothing that these people are going for effects me personally much. Maybe my parents and my teachers and maybe the distant future but all in all life will go on like it has so I vote for with my gut and my gut says Bush.

2009- Pataki for president! Now theres a good president.

What kind of impact do Libertarian Party and Green Party have in the forthcoming election ?
Why you tend to support Libertarian and its candidate Michael Badnarik ?

Well, the Libertarians haven't had any real impact in national elections yet. The Reform Party put forward a strong candidate in 92 (that would be Ross Perot), consequently handing it to Clinton. The guy took like 20% of the national vote...unbelievable. As well in 96, he ran again, getting like 6%. In 2000, the largest third party was Nader with the Greens, he got like 3% if I'm not mistaken? This year, he's set to pick up between 1 and 2% nationally. I don't think the Libertarians have hit 1% yet.

I need to research this a bit...

Yeah, voter apathy really hurts the country. When people don't speak up and vote, they're not living up to their duty. It's a government for the people, by the people. As my history professor said, the government works for us, and I tell them what they're supposed by voting.

I've been watching a little more MTV lately (my roommate likes it) and I've seen a lot of work getting younger adults to vote. Drew Barrymore was traveling around and going to schools asking people why they weren't voting and telling them how easy it was and such. They've been workin pretty hard at their campaign to convince young adults to vote. I just wish that more channels would do the same, make it more effective.

Apparently MTV has been doing this for the past (3?) elections, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like to see some statistics showing 18-22 year old voting percentages over the last while, but I'm about to fall asleep.

I'd vote, if it meant anything. I live in Utah, a Republican state. People here would support Bush if he set them on fire.
Hahahaha its funny...cause its true haha!

The mentality that the electoral college makes any vote not cast for the victor a 'wasted vote' is dangerous. More than anything else, it prevents the collapse of the current system; perhaps a hundred million people are silently thinking, my vote won't count, so why bother?

Because your vote counts for less, when you don't even cast it! The non-voting population should get out and vote, even if it's for an inanimate object. It's the only way things will change. Better if you vote for a candidate, though; there's more restrictions on counting write-ins than there used to be. Regardless, the message remains the same; cast a vote.

Vote because you'd rather have your vote not counted that not allowed. Vote because you can't stand American politics. Vote because the two people who most want you to stay home are George W. Bush and John F. Kerry.
I think you're part right, but you've got the important part right. It is important to cast a vote, even if it is a protest vote, or a vote against a candidate instead of for one, or even if--perhaps especially if--it's a "plague on both your houses" kind of vote to the two big parties.

People here would support Bush if he set them on fire.



Errr....Mr. President, your pants are on fire.

Hahahaha its funny...cause its true haha!

Yeah, same up here in North Dakota. I've found 3 living breathing liberals up here. Although I should see some more if I end up going to a showing of OutFoxed, but we'll see.

But I'm not even voting up here! Absentee in California! ^_^

Six of one and a half dozen of the other.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

Yes, I've seen the 'Bush is a Fascist' stuff before. The similarities are not a pleasant thing to witness. I don't think we're there yet, but it makes you realize that a full half of the country wouldn't notice(or care) if Bush switched openly to a 'national socialist' platform. Fascism is a system of government that dares not speak its name, because of WWII and the vilification(not that he didn't deserve it) of Hitler, but that too many Americans would be perfectly comfortable under.

It is easier to see the dirt on someone else's nose, than your own. This is another danger--an easy rode to fascism. Built in support, that will not change it's mind until you come for it's guns.

Again, I stress; the only hope is for a candidate independent of the two parties. Preferably a third party, because this gains that party recognition(my main complaint against Nader, is that his run doesn't benefit the Greens, this year, except through past connection).

Yes, I've seen the 'Bush is a Fascist' stuff before. The similarities are not a pleasant thing to witness. I don't think we're there yet, but it makes you realize that a full half of the country wouldn't notice(or care) if Bush switched openly to a 'national socialist' platform. Fascism is a system of government that dares not speak its name, because of WWII and the vilification(not that he didn't deserve it) of Hitler, but that too many Americans would be perfectly comfortable under.

well, they couldn't call it national socialism this time. but the 'socialism' aspect of it was mostly smoke and mirrors anyway. today they'd just call it 'nationalist freedom' or something. that seems to be the buzzword of the day.

You're right. End the two-party system!

Definitely.

I would create a loose colalition o indepednents or even third parites. Go under the Gray Party. the whole concept is that this moderate party could connect those nonvoters to candidates they liked. I think the big thing third parties have to do is attract the nonvoters. Which is one good thing Nader is doing. If you have people voting between Democratic or Green or Libertarian or Republican the party will never get a large vote.

Again, I stress; the only hope is for a candidate independent of the two parties. Preferably a third party, because this gains that party recognition(my main complaint against Nader, is that his run doesn't benefit the Greens, this year, except through past connection).
Ralphy Nader doesn't have the Green Party ticket. That went to David Cobb

I would create a loose colalition o indepednents or even third parites. Go under the Gray Party. the whole concept is that this moderate party could connect those nonvoters to candidates they liked. I think the big thing third parties have to do is attract the nonvoters. Which is one good thing Nader is doing. If you have people voting between Democratic or Green or Libertarian or Republican the party will never get a large vote.
The real problem is that the two major parties have stacked the game so much in their favor that it's nearly impossible for a minority party to gain a foothold. In the last 30 years, third parties that have had national repercussions have been largely cults of personality. Ross Perot is the best example of this. Without Perot's leadership, the Reform party has slipped to the point where the state of Florida wasn't even going to recognize it for ballot access purposes, and in terms of electoral power, Perot was far more influential than Nader has ever been.

My interpretation of the 'with us or against us' thing is that if too many people vote for the green party, then the conservative party will gain the most votes and win. It's not that voting for the the green party is bad, it's just that in a state (like mine) where the polls are 50-50 for dems and pubs, people have to be more moderate and vote democrat then be more liberal and vote green if they don't want a conservative in office. The problem is that it's all-or-nothing when states are concerned, and liberals can't afford to split their votes between two parties.

I wouldn't call it a dictatorship.. although who really knows.. but Im not sure how anything would ever get done. With as much bickering and infighting that goes on in our current system between 2 parties... adding more parties would just seem to increase that ammount and eventually devolve our government into that anarchy that some people seem to want.
Maybe you should forget your Aerica-centric theories and have a look at successful multi-party systems in other countries. My country, Ireland is an example. We have about five major parties, and they actually spend most of their time talking about the issues. They spend less time bickering and smearing than the two American parties.

Also, even speaking theoretically, a two-party system produces much more bickering and infighting. The people are divided into two camps with the other camp as the exclusive competitor. Unless a party was ready to spend their time attacking five other parties (leaving them with approximately no time to put their arguments forward), there would be less political flaming.

Do you actually like your two-party system? The Democrats know that no matter how crappy their policies are, they can always depend on the left vote simply because they are not the Republicans. The Republicans are the same with the right-wing vote.

I would wager that the majority of people who vote for either of these parties don't agree with most of the ideas of that party. Ever wonder why "Independents" are the biggest group of registered voters in the US?

Maybe you should forget your Aerica-centric theories and have a look at successful multi-party systems in other countries. My country, Ireland is an example. We have about five major parties, and they actually spend most of their time talking about the issues. They spend less time bickering and smearing than the two American parties.

Also, even speaking theoretically, a two-party system produces much more bickering and infighting. The people are divided into two camps with the other camp as the exclusive competitor. Unless a party was ready to spend their time attacking five other parties (leaving them with approximately no time to put their arguments forward), there would be less political flaming.

Do you actually like your two-party system? The Democrats know that no matter how crappy their policies are, they can always depend on the left vote simply because they are not the Republicans. The Republicans are the same with the right-wing vote.

I would wager that the majority of people who vote for either of these parties don't agree with most of the ideas of that party. Ever wonder why "Independents" are the biggest group of registered voters in the US?


Actually yes I like the Democrat party. We unite for our candidate against a common foe Bush.
Republicans silent themselves for their fear of losing support when they run next 4 years from now.

A few repubs fear Kerry so they vote Bush and don't like Bush either.

But Democrats are united. I like that. So come on, I mean come on. (South Park episode with Bloods and Crips)

70% is perhaps even being optimistic, in non-presidential elections anyways. For Presidential elections it's more between 50% to 60%


First off, don't you mean pessimistic?
Second off, 105 million people voted in the 2000 election
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Out of a country of nearly 300 million, that's 33%.....so 66% didn't vote, close to 70%.
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en


Also notice, Gore won that election by 500,000 votes, if you tossed the electoral college away. That's not even close. Forget Florida.....he lost the majority and shouldn't be president. Therefore.....WE DON'T LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.

A democracy means; in my opinion, your vote counts to elect an official. In fact, the dictionary.com definition states, "Majority rule". In 2000, I lived in Indiana, who voted Republican for every election since Lyndon Johnson. When I cast my vote for Gore, and Indiana went Bush....Bush got every single electoral vote for the state of Indiana; thereby negating my vote. Therefore, my voting rights were essentially taken away. It's so stupid! We're voting for the president of the United States, not the president of Indiana!

However, I encourage everyone; PLEASE VOTE. If we show enough clear majorities opposing electoral college results, WE CAN CHANGE THE SYSTEM! Please vote....let's get this crap changed so we can return to a two-party DEMOCRACY at least; even though it's still not a government by the people, it's better than government by the bureaucrats!

Oh yah, and the country needs to speak up, because neither party want to get rid of the electoral college.
Why?
So that they can focus on only a few states when it comes time for elections. They don't want to campaign over the nation, they want to win their couple of states. So in essence, only a few states actually matter in the election...

BUT VOTE ANYWAY DAMMIT! read the above statement so you know why you need to.....BECAUSE WE HAVE TO CHANGE THIS!

So this essay is directed to you non-voters, out there. Why aren’t you voting?

How's this? I don't vote because my vote doesn't count. You heard me... doesn't count. My state always votes for the same party, and in the last few elections I have wanted to vote for the other party. When your state is going to give all of its electoral college votes to the other party by a margin of over 40%.... why vote?

I wouldn't call it a dictatorship.. although who really knows.. but Im not sure how anything would ever get done. With as much bickering and infighting that goes on in our current system between 2 parties... adding more parties would just seem to increase that ammount and eventually devolve our government into that anarchy that some people seem to want.

Hmmmm.. maybe that's the idea.

Well...
Things get done where I live, and we have 6 political parties. Yeah, they bicker, but that's what the parlament is for, isn't it?

How's this? I don't vote because my vote doesn't count. You heard me... doesn't count. My state always votes for the same party, and in the last few elections I have wanted to vote for the other party. When your state is going to give all of its electoral college votes to the other party by a margin of over 40%.... why vote?

Vote to show that the majority vote goes to the other candidate...therefore proving that the electoral college is crap. If what happened in 2000 is repeated, then perhaps we can return to a democracy after 140 years.