Clearing The Air — Page 4

Actually, that *is* the way things are, Roxy. You live here, and the system...flawed as it is...has given you the choice between two (okay, three) individuals. Like it or not, one of them will be running the country. Before the 2000 election, I would have told you to go write in an obscure candidate to your liking. But as we learned from the Florida debacle, every vote really CAN make a difference. So pick from your choices this time ... and vote for which guy is less likely to get us all nuked off the face of the planet so that there IS another election four years from now. You may not like the choices you have...I know I'm not that thrilled, either...but at least we have them.

To say "I don't like the candidates so I'm not going to participate" strongly resembles a little kid's "I'm taking my toys and going home" when he doesn't get his way.

---

Excellent post, Iflit. And to continue on that vein-if we don't go out and vote, what could happen is that we could get a president chosen by the few who did feel strongly enough to go to the polls, and it could be disastrous. If we want our president to truly be chosen by the people, we must vote-everyone-even if it's not the most desirable candidate, but sometimes you must vote against the most undesirable candidate.

---

Zola, I know what you're saying-a shamelessly small percentage of eligible voters actually vote. I guess we're just trying to point out the danger in this to Roxy.

---

i can't help feeling that chalabi is headed for a kruschev moment with the shoe on the podium and such. this all reminds me of a line from tequila sunrise, "ah, gee, hal. at least the cia does it on purpose."

---

Updated On: 5/23/04 at 10:44 AM

I have never voted based on whom I "like." This isn't the Miss America pageant. You're never going to like everything about any particular candidate and that is a ridiculous reason to stay away from the polls.

I have always voted based on the philosophical positions the candidates espouse. Example -- For me, this election is important as I would like president who will not nominate supreme court justices intent on overturning Roe v Wade or enacting what I consider to be deleterious social policy. I'd like to be represented by a president who believes that the government does have a role in alleviating poverty (and not in trickle-down). I'd like a president who wants to protect the environment in a way that fosters economic growth but is not subservient to it.

That's why I respect PLM so much even though Papa differs in the factors to select a president. I'm sure neither of us LOVES the candidates we'll vote for, but we'll cancel each other's votes out because the candidates we chose best represent the vision we have for America.

---

Updated On: 5/23/04 at 11:06 AM

I did just answer that question: for me, it's about philosophy and vision not a particular set of policies or personality attributes.

If you fundamentally believe (erroneously in my opinion) that there is no difference between the parties, then vote for Nader. That's exactly his philosophy.

---

Really! I'm with Jane. Who cares?

Let's let this thread die.

---

oh, no, zola, i love gw, with a deep and passionate man crush as deep and passionate as the grande canyon is deep...and passionate. ok, i'm done with this thread. i wash my fingers and i say good day to you!

---

I am going to vote. I believe everyone should. BUT:

I need to share my only cynicism with our election process---the electoral college. In swing states, your vote might make a difference. But, if you live in New York, all of New York's votes will be going to Kerry. If you live in Texas (as I did), all of your votes will be going to Bush. This just doesn't seem right at all. The perfect example is, of course, the 2000 election.

Let's just assume that all votes were indeed counted properly and all eligible voters were allowed to vote (I know it's hard to imagine that that is how it went down, but let's just assume). Gore had more votes, but Bush carried more electoral votes. Meaning, that when Gore lost a state, he didn't lose it by much. And, a few of Bush's losses were more substantial. I know our forefathers were brilliant men, but I do not believe that this system holds up. Why should the person who got more votes not be elected? Why should my vote for Clinton in 92 and 96 have felt meaningless when all votes from Texas went to the Republican candidates?

I already know from my friends, that most likely those of you who are Republican are going to staunchly defend the electoral college, while Democrats will more than likely share the same view as I. I have had aggravating debates on this with my Republican roomie. I wonder if he would feel as strongly if the shoes had been reversed. I know I would as I have never felt the electoral college was fair--well before 2000. It just always felt like a moot point as both the popular vote and the electoral college matched up.

The reason I am concerned is that this could be a very tight year again--in fact, the electoral college could even create a tie vote as the census changed things.

---

The quality of any candidate pool is more often than not formed by a minority of others as influenced by numerous factors. The choice/decision that we make in a voting booth, as in other matters that arise every day in each one of our lives, is a choice that we make wherein we have had no say in the options from which we must choose. Every decision we make in every hour of every day has an effect on every subsequent minute/hour/day of our lives. So, do we stop making decisions because we don't like the options presented to us by life?

The right to vote gives each American the option to influence the political decisions of the future. No candidate is ever the perfect candidate. The right to maturely make a decision even when presented with options one may not like is something to be treasured. By not voting one is disrespecting not only the principles on which the USA is based but also all the sacrifices made since the founding of this country by hundreds of thousands of other Americans who fought not only on battlefields here and abroad but also on the homefront to preserve the right to vote.

Rox, you may not think much of the candidates but value your right to make a choice. Exercise the courage of your convictions to vote for one candidate or the other as presented in the voting booth. The act of voting isn't a choice, it's an obligation.

I hope you consider that perspective as Election Day nears.

Cheers! Jose'

Updated On: 5/23/04 at 12:42 PM

I also agree that those who don't vote have no right to complain. Has there ever been an election that wasn't down to the lesser of two evils? By not exercising the right to vote, you are saying you don't care who runs the country or why. It would be nice if there was a candidate for every citizen's individual tastes, but it simply isn't possible.

---

Qui est Jose'?