Re: Peace & Freedom VT

Nick, seriously, arguing that the last 30 years of not having a third party candidate win national electoral votes is really short-sighted. I don't understand what the basis is for your belief that a two-party structure is inherent in our system. 

All of the arguments I've heard have been based on how parties function RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER - this has nothing to do with the voters. Obviously, it's easier to reach quick compromises when there are only two parties involved, so that's why government tends to push itself towards this - BUREAUCRATIC reasons.

The voters have been pushed towards this view simply because of the press, government, and party interest in keeping it that way, as mentioned before. Even Vicki admitted that a third party can displace one of the two dominant ones - does this just happen all of the sudden? I would think that they need at least 2 or 3 elections to become familiar to the ever-reluctant-to-learn American public. Is a party illegitimate UNTIL it becomes one of the two dominant ones? That logic's so circular it's rolling away.

And you say that organized pressure to change the electoral system could change it, but we'd need to revamp the constitution, which WILL NEVER HAPPEN on that count. I mean, this isn't nearly as serious as defining marriage so that the damn gays don't get it, or anything like that. Seriously, though, that's aiming too high for reform. Perhaps a run-off election, and that's a big perhaps - it's not as drastic a change, but you'd still need an amendment.

Things need to start at a ground level, meaning that someone has to get the ball rolling. Vicki talked about the Republicans displacing the Whigs in the 19th Century - how many people told the Republicans that they couldn't beat the Whigs, best guess? 

All I'm saying is that with everyone screaming "it's impossible!" you don't even seem to justify your own position. Vicki mentioned that she probably wouldn't be able to find a viable alternative to Diane Feinstein on her ballot, and yet is telling me that the only way to *win* is to work within the system as it is. Am I the only one that thinks that if you're so for the two party system, you should just take what you get for choices and not complain? Everyone is saying, "You can't do that! I mean, it'd be great if you could, but YOU CAN'T!"

So here's the ultimatum: give me one piece of evidence that our system forces 2 parties and only two parties. Just because the Republicans and Democrats are the strongest parties this country has ever known does not mean that the system says it has to be that way. And once again, I'm speaking in terms of the voters, not the bureaucrats who want to only have to deal with one opposing viewpoint. 

And, regardless of the feasability of electing a third party candidate, why should I vote Democratic? Everyone acts as if Nader is splitting the left when it is clearly the Democratic Party's responsibility to slide to the left if they want to pick up the votes that will go to him. A Democrat signed NAFTA, against the better wishes of the far left. the Democrats supported the Patriot Act immediately, although the far left was against it. The Democrats have yet to lay into Bush for this constitutional amendment bullshit he's putting out, while the far left hasn't let it drop. I'm sorry, these are centrists, and they are not my party. If they had bothered to separate themselves from the increasingly conservative Republicans instead of moving over and trying to co-opt their moderate voters and leaving people like me behind, it might be a different story. If Kerry changes his platform to ref
 lect what I want, I'll vote for him. I'd do the same for Bush if he did it first. Assumin!
g t
hat the Democrats have my vote is folly, and is in fact the same mistake they made 4 years ago. Nader can't steal a vote that belongs to whoever casts it for him - it's only the Democrats' to lose. 

I don't understand why everyone is so gung-ho to get Bush out of office for Kerry - yeah, he's not Bush, but he's far from an anti-bush: They're both Ivy League educated Skull and Bones members who have sucked corporate cock their entire careers (hence the shot at the Presidency). Kerry's in bed with at least as many, if not as dangerous and belligerent, groups as Bush is. I want Kerry more than Bush, but I also prefer the taste of my own vomit to someone elses. That doesn't make it scrumptious. 

But I see the option here to cast a vote for someone that I think could do a very good job, in Ralph Nader. I also see a paranoid Democratic party who doesn't want their centrism to be seen as the liability it is when facing an actual leftist as well as a conservative. Nader didn't "steal" 3.5% of the vote last year, 3.5% of the voters CHOSE him over GoreBush, and they definitely put a lot more thought into it then your average Dem or Republican did.

And once again, the futility of my vote lies only in the fact that my guy didn't win. But once again, I ask the question, did ANYONE here vote for a winner last time? And, for the people who voted Bush in, did they really WIN? I don't care about splintering the left, even if Bush wins again, since I'm speaking for something that I, and, evidently, 3.5% of voters feel quite strongly about. It's not my responsibility to heal the rift that the Democrats created for themselves. I mean, picture Bush and David Duke running against each other - Who would you vote for then? And would you still be angry with me for voting Nader because he's not David Duke? 

Just think about the limitation of choices, and who benefits the most from having this limitation in place. It's not the country as a whole, and it's most definitely not the voters. The corporations, who can narrow down their political subsidization to two parties benefits. The politicians who can work both sides of the fence, collecting cash all along the way, without any actual ideology, benefit. The parties themselves benefit most of all, from having suckers brainwashed into thinking that there SHOULDN'T be any more choices, and if there are, they are immediately deemed illegitimate by the government's pet press. 

The other thing that really bothers me is when Democrats tell me to vote democratic not to split the vote without realizing that they're basically just saying, "come on, just AGREE with ME already!" 

Seriously, though, why don't all of you guys compromise with me and vote for Nader?



____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/