Fear more years

[elfs]

No, no news today. If you want to look up the attempt by the Pentagon to cover up the loss of 350,000 kilos of extremely efficient chemical explosives, you can go to Google News or Reuters or whatever.

I'm just tired. Goddess, the stress level in my house is high enough these days without the election being on our minds, the constant fear that the chimp is going to win and we'll be facing... what?

Four years from now, Bush's supreme court will have overturned Roe v. Wade and affirmed Bowers v. Hardwick: abortion will be illegal, and homosexual activities inside one's own home will be felonious conduct. The inclusionary doctrine of the Bill of Rights will be overturned and state governments will be free to adopt state religions, ban speech they deem offensive, the whole litany. Meanwhile, within the federal government, fiscal policy will be made in secret by corporations and social policy will pander to a concrete religious base that maintains intolerance *is* a holy tenant.

Of course, with Kerry, the whole DRM thing will continue, and there's no promise that student's right to use the GPL, which the Democratic Senator from Microsoft has tried to ban before, will survive four years with either party. His health care plan scares the gizzard outta me.

I'm a big believer in mixed government. Kerry is only up on Bush by 4% in Washington as of the latest polling rounds, which sucks because if it had been bigger I'd've voted for Badnarik. Omaha wants to discourage me from voting for Badnarik anyway because she's dismayed by the platform entry that states he'd bring the troops home immediately; well, that's a consequences of principles and principle number one is that the United States government has no business getting involved in foreign adventures that are not explicitly defensive. And I doubt things in Iraq could get "much worse" than they are now.

But I guess I'm voting for Kerry. I'm going to vote for a Democrat (and wash my hands afterward) because, well, malevolence, malfeasance, incompetence, and a disconnection from reality have been the hallmarks of the current administration.

Jim Hightower once commented that "If the Gods had wanted us to vote they would have given us candidates." Well, the Gods gave us something worse: an anti-candidate, compared to whom anything else on offer is preferable.

Comments

[phred1973.livejournal.com]

Elf, please. Stand on your own principals, even if (especially if) it appears hopeless. If enough votes are cast in this election for Badnarik, it will clue some people in that the "two party 'system'" is BS, and that voting for the best/least 'bought'/most correct candidate is always the way to go.

To vote for Kerry just to defeat Bush, even when the man has no soul, and can only say with conviction that which he has been coached to say, etc, etc... Please.

Don't let me be the only one to grit my teeth and say "He probably won't get elected this time, but my vote still counts. Let's show the sheeple that one can still speak(vote) one's mind in America.

Then, next election (assuming the Constitution will not have rotted away entirely by then), maybe, just maybe, people will feel good about voting for who they agree with the most of who is running, not just against the one they like the least.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is bullshit - especially when choosing the leader of one's country.

My absentee ballot is already sent - for Badnarik. And I am a soldier. I will be one of those called to clean up the messes. Support me, willya?

Thanks, Brother - however you vote, just be sure you do it with good conscience. Namaste.

[phred1973.livejournal.com]

And, after posting - I must clarify my entry with regard to my support of the Libertarian (big 'L') Party.

I have never and will never be able (or at least I doubt I will) to buy every facet of any religion/political organization/fill-in-the-blank.

I am, bye and large, a libertarian (note the small 'L') in my dealings with the Universe. The Party is as close to my ideal as I'm going to find in a 'semi-mainstream' political candidate that might have the possibility of winning anything big anytime in the near future. I am, therefore, voting *for* the candidate/party that best represents my personal philosophy, not voting *against* anyone.

I am not a strict isolationist. And, Oh, BTW: I personally and professionally believe that invading Iraq and deposing Hussein was a Good Idea(tm) -- regardless of WMDs actual existance/nonexistance. I also believe that since that happened, the handling of the Iraqi situation has been botched and mishandled.

This is not just a Bush issue, however. Just his watch. And, no, I don't agree with his Administration's dealing with civil liberties. Never have, neither in Texas, nor in DC.

Both 'mainstream' candidates fail to meet basic requirements for my vote. I do not believe Kerry at all, and I cannot condone much of Bush's 'faith-based' policies.

For all of the problems with the Libertarian Party, at least they believe in something close to what I believe, are intelligent, and they have a backbone.

I can vote for that.

Congratulations!

[kenshardik]

You just voted for Bush! While I generally applaud sticking with your ideals, in this case where things are so tragically close, a vote for any opponent of Bush besides Kerry is a vote for Bush. If Bush wins, I hope you will be able to get up every day for the next four years as civil rights get repealed and our country sinks further into the religious fascist state it is becoming and feel really good about voting for Badnarik.

Re: Congratulations!

[phred1973.livejournal.com]

Some would argue the other way - that a vote for Badnarik (or the Greens, or Nader, or Pee-Wee Herman) is a vote for Kerry.

As for defending my civil rights... One of the primary reasons our founding folk said we should keep our arms is to defend against tyranny in our own government.

This fact is not lost on me.

Be well

Re: Congratulations!

[kenshardik]

I disagree with things going the other way. Then again, I don't really have my finger on the pulse of Conservatives, so I don't know if they're as fed up with Bush as I am. Somehow, I suspect not.

And despite the continuing insurgency in Iraq, I am not sure that our right to bear arms will really allow us to defend against tyranny. Not unless a private citizen can own surface-to-air missiles and a private air force of modern military craft.

Re: Congratulations!

[phred1973.livejournal.com]

Explain this to the Vietnamese.

And to the Afghans.

They were both outgunned, as well. And the US and former Soviet military establishments still fear a similar situation...

Then again, look at Iraq. No Planes. No Tanks. I would hope, however, that American Patriots with their backs against the wall would not be dastardly and evil - but just as tenacious and motivated.

I also have my doubts that the majority of our military is brainwashed enough (yet) to put up with directives that extremely violate civil liberties for any length of time. After all, we are citizens, too, and we have friends and family who are not in the military/government (and even some who are), and are gay/bi/lesbian, smoke pot, practice non-monogamy, BDSM, like to wear spandex, eat french food, etc.

I certainly hope I am not in the minority. Everyone wearing a uniform of the US armed forces has taken an oath to defend and protect the Republic and the Constitution - to include the Bill of Rights. Between you and me, I try to keep them aware of that.

Either way, I think it's healthy to vote one's conscience, and I think it's a Good Idea(tm) to start weaning the US from the 2-moron system for elections, and getting the media to accept 'third party' folks as more than quaint idealists -- and incorporate them openly in the big debates, etc.

And, honestly, I don't see how Kerry will be any better than Bush, overall.

Would you like green diarrhea or yellow diarrhea for lunch today? Either way, I'm not sure I'm interested in eating.

--
"Not Everyone shares your beliefs."
"My beliefs do not require them to."

It is wrong to expect a reward for your struggles. The
reward is the act of struggle itself, not what you win.
Even though you can't expect to defeat the absurdity
of the world, you must make that attempt.
That's morality, that's religion. That's art. That's life.
~ Phil Ochs

2 roads

[(Anonymous)]

The whole voting for a third party candidate thing can wait. Really now. I am a staunch liberal and have a pretty clear view on whats going on right now. All my fellow independents/liberals really let me down in the 2000 elections. This WHOLE bush thing happened because your vaunted ideals. To this day you hold onto those ideals even tighter due to bush's rampage against civil liberties. And you will vote with ideals in this election to. But if/when bush is re-elected you better keep those ideals to yourself, you can just about say goodbye to free speach. Everyone says that in an idealistic world everything would be perfect, and thats probably true, but this is the realistic world and its slowly morphing into a facistic world. Unless you actually have a leader that has an open mind on ideals and liberties how could you even think of stifling that opportunity just so you can "show" everyone the independents are out there. Hold onto your ideals and vote bush or act on your ideals and vote kerry. Now is not the time for trepidation with a third party candidate.

To finish, everyone knows the future is at stake and they know what they want. Problem is all the conservatives/republicans are united and the liberals/democrats/independents (me too) are divided. We need to stand together. This time there really is only two roads, no third less traveled one this time.

Re: Congratulations!

[kenshardik]

Either way, I think it's healthy to vote one's conscience, and I think it's a Good Idea(tm) to start weaning the US from the 2-moron system for elections, and getting the media to accept 'third party' folks as more than quaint idealist....

I think the way to do this is through "grass roots" campaigns. Get more Greens, Libertarians, etc. elected to local governments - mayors, state representatives/senators, governors - and then move on to national government.

And, honestly, I don't see how Kerry will be any better than Bush, overall.

Because Kerry isn't a religious fundamentalist? Because he believes in living in a global society? Because Kerry cares about the environment and civil rights?

How can you believe that? Are you going to talk about free trade and corporate interests?

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

Elf has 2 daughters, as I do. This election isn't just about the level of damage that Bush could do within the next 4 years (which, face it, is considerable) it's about the level of damage that a Bush-appointed Supreme Court would do over the next 30 years. According the GW himself, he expects up to 4 positions to come open within the next few years.

I'm not just voting for Kerry for my own sake, for the sake of the economy, the environment, and the civil rights that I consider to be the foundation of what makes the United States special. Nor am I voting for Kerry just because I think he would treat our military with far more of the respect and care they deserve. I'm voting against Bush for my daughters' sakes, to help preserve their right to make their own medical decisions.

[phred1973.livejournal.com]

If you earnestly and honestly believe that Kerry can and will deliver the best possible (and sensible, responsible, and feasible) outcome, then by all means, please vote for him.

I, however, must respectfully disagree with your choice.

Isn't this why we have the vote?

BTW: I have a daughter as well. She's 18 months old. I make my decisions with her in mind as well. Whomever you choose, please choose FOR something that you believe the candidate can and will deliver on, while keeping in mind what else they stand for that you don't like... or even that they DON'T actually stand for anything at all.

I ask Elf to vote his mind and heart, without weighing the odds that putting his pebble in the box that matches his own nature causes some other box to outweigh all others individually.

Whether he chooses to do that or not, is really up to him, isn't it?

As it should be.

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

I can't honestly say that I think Kerry is the best person for the job. I can say I think that, of the possible candidates, he is the best choice we have. While I think it's a good idea to cast one's vote for the candidate who most closely represents one's own interests and values, in this particular case (IMO) it is absolutely vital to use the ability to vote to get Bush OUT. Unfortunately, the two goals don't always end up pointing to the same line on the ballot, and when that happens it's important for each voter to evaluate what is more important to them, living according to their ideals, or using the power they have to shape reality. My belief is that it's more effective to start by shaping reality when you're shooting for an ideal.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

It is not that I believe that Kerry can and will deliver the best possible outcome. It is simply that I believe that Bush will deliver the worst possible outcome, and I'm going to take Heinlein's advice on voting to heart: there may rarely be things to vote for, but there are always things to vote against.

I must vote and vote effectively. Given how tight this race is, I cannot allow the popular support for Kerry be reduced by even a single vote. Not because I support him popularly, but because the popular vehemence against Bush's mendacity must be as clear as possible.

[wyrdone.livejournal.com]

What this country needs is to get rid of the Electoral college which only serves to continue the two party system.

I am a bunch of others up here argued over this and came up with how we would change things.

1) Make the President elected by popular vote. Up until recently the Senators were elected by Electoral vote, but that was changed when the technology of tabulating votes became advanced enough to tabulate all the votes in a small enough timeframe to be feasible. The method we came up with was a weighted runoff vote where people voting would list in order of prefence the candidates running (up to X number...we really didn't try and determine the total number of slots) and would be allowed to leave slots blank. The candidate with the highest number of vote points in total would be the winner.

2) Official Debates in this country are held by a "Debate Comission" which currently only allows the Democratic and Republican party candidates to have debates. Make this commission be required to give equal debate time to any party that gets a x% votes or registered voters. (x% = some percentage like 3-5%)

I would also like to see a few more checks & balances on the president. One thought was to go back to the method of having the Presidency a Triumvirate (with 3 "presidents") of the top three candidates running in an election and make all decisions have to be ratified by at least two of the members.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

The problem with eliminating the Electoral College is that there would be no sense in people from less populated states voting. New York City (8 million people) alone can cancel out the whole state I live in (2.6 million people) and the one I work in (5.8 million). Yet, we have 17 electoral votes to NY state's 31.


As it stands now, winning California, New York and Texas only gets you half-way to the presidency. Winning the seven most populous states: the big three, Florida, Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania, only gets 209 votes. The winning number is 270.

There are 218 million people of voting age.
A majority is 109,000,001 people. That's the adult population of California, NY, Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania, with 3.3 million from elsewhere.

Five states completely deciding for the rest of the country is hardly fair.

[wyrdone.livejournal.com]

Personally I would rather have it the other way.

If you look at it from another perspective, in a popular election you are getting your say as much as any other person in this country. Your vote would count as much as any other person's in the US. We aren't voting for any particular state's agenda, we are voting on a national issue and therefore any one person's vote should count as much as any other's regardless of where they live.

Under the electoral system, since you live in a smaller state, your vote has more weight behind it due the difference in the number of votes needed in your state to "gain" an elector.

One person's vote should never count more than another person's vote. Personally anything else is unjust and unethical.