[b said:
Quote[/b] (0zzy @ Oct. 19 2006,7:40)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I will only vote for candidates that oppose the Iraq war, and favors the restoration of Constitutional principles like Habeus Corpus, Free Speech, Search and Seizure rights, and Seperatoin of Church and State. The must also favor and promote open and transparent government, and hold corrupt politicians accountable. And most of all, I favor candidates who will work to remove the influence of corporate money in American politics.
I guess that you won't be voting.
Just out of curiosity, what in the world did that mean? Are you aware that there are candidates, even entire political parties, that would fit this bill? It sounds to me like Capslock is a
Libertarian and, if so, will have the option to vote for quite a few politicians that meet his criteria. Remember that there are more positions to vote for than just president, and if I remember correctly there were even two or three 'third parties' that fielded presidential candidates in 2004. I know; I voted for one.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But shouldn't candidates be judged on how effectively they govern? If someone's record indicates they're willing to break all the promises they made to voters last time, why should I listen to his promises this time?
I agree. However, I think the initial comment was more in regards to making a decision based on one candidate having smoked weed once, received a speeding ticket, or whatever else thirties years in the past. The actions taken by anyone often have little bearing on predicting future actions after 30 years of education and experience in life. Also, often, as in the above examples, judging a candidate because of personal choices that affected only their own lives that differ from your personal ethics code is the first step to legislating morality, which I think we can all agree is a bad thing.
Such are strawman arguments presented by the opposing side and, unfortunately, tend to be very effective.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I have to admit that I have not read everything he stands for, but someone put that you don't get to vote for who you want really since if your write in a candidate that is as good as tossing your vote into the "trashcan" literally.
I have heard this argument against voting for anyone not Republican or Democrat and am assuming you meant it that way as well. If you were referring to just write-ins and I mischaracterized your statement than I apologize.
The only way to create a system that would allow you the choices you desire is to find a way to make a third or fourth party politically viable. The only way for this to happen would be for one of these third parties to gain enough votes to represent a clear threat to any ruling party. This is already beginning to occur at the lowest levels; and now needs to become more mainstream for Senate and House seats.
Thus voting for a third party candidate on the ballot is not 'throwing your vote in the trashcan'. If anything, it can be seen as an investment with little short-term viability. I did not expect Badnarik to get elected for president in 2004. So why did I vote for him? Honestly, I considered voting differently just to keep Bush out. Kerry trounced Bush intellectually in the debates, and would have definitely be preferable (in my opinion).
However, I didn't because I wanted my vote to count for something. I have always believed in working hard now for a better and easier future. Voting for Badnarik did accomplish something; it was symbolic. It showed that there IS support for those ideals, and that there are people out there that are fed up enough with the current two parties and their subtle differences that they will work to make a more reasonable choice a feasible option. I didn't expect my vote to help him win, but I do expect it affected someone who looked, saw how many hundreds of thousands of people voted the same way, and realized "there really is another choice."
Voting for a third party candidate is worthwhile because it is the ONLY way to give them a chance. They may not win this time. They may not win ever. But here's what it comes down to: If you believe in them and do not vote for them then their chances of eventually toppling the two party system are 0%. If you believe in them and do vote for them, then their chances are greater than 0%. What that chance becomes is irrelevant; the point is that it exists. Hopefully others will see that third parties have support and begin casting their own votes that direction. Maybe they won't. But I'd rather know my vote went toward something I believe in, towards showing my support for the best candidate, and towards giving my nieces and nephews the choices they deserve, rather than just clawing and scratching at the walls to slow my inevitable descent.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]can any one say greenparty?
I have had little experience with them but did witness a debate between their presidential candidate and Badnarik for 2004. They made some...'interesting' statements but really showed their position with their support for an increase in minimum wage to almost $10 and their claims that this would make life for minimum wage workers so much better. My guess is they think money materializes out of the air when needed...
My mom began her first business when I was 5 years old. I began working there at 12 and began helping her manage it by 15 when she was concentrating on starting up another. Besides academic knowledge of economics I can speak from real world experience. Had the minimum wage been raised that drastically at that time here's what would happen:
* A few small businesses, perhaps as many as 25% (though I doubt it), would absorb the cost either by increasing margins or decreasing profit. The min-wage workers here would, indeed, see an increase in their quality of life.
* Most small businesses, I would guess around 70%, would have no way to absorb the costs. The owners would increase their weekly workload from 40 hours to 80 hours without any increase in pay, decreasing the incentive to own/start a business and thus decreasing competition and market efficiency. Several employees from each business would be laid off and others would receive fewer hours, so most would see no net increase in their weekly pay.
* A few small businesses, probably as many as 15%, would simply close. They would have no way to absorb the costs and the owners would either not be able to, or choose not to, work the extra hours for no benefit. The min-wage employees from these businesses would also be jobless.
Besides the major disruption in the economy, I fail to see how this situation is any better. You have a few min-wage workers who have seen a net increase in earnings, and for that many many others had to pay with their jobs. You have increased unemployment drastically, removed the incentive for small business ownership, and decreased competition in the market. This is doing nothing more than shifting the pay from two thirds of the min-wage workers to the other one third; make part of the poor into minimum wage and most of the poor poorer.
I could possibly (maybe) forgive a random guy on the street for not realizing this; but this was coming from a presidential candidate! Other statements and claims made during the debate sounded similarly warm and squishy and similarly fell flat on their face when examined logically. Perhaps they have changed over the years and, if you say they have, I will re-examine their website and re-evaluate the party. Insuring that we are living in a environmentally sound society based on renewable energy sources is a laudable goal. However, the price of ignorance in pursuing this goal is far too high.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.