Re: Peace & Freedom VT

Wow. I just got around to reading this thread and wanted to thank Adam
for articulatng what I have been trying to put in to words ever since
the last election, when I found myself voting for Nader.

A friend of mine during the 2000 elections had described to me their
strategy, which struck me as interesting.  A long time democrat, they
chose a republican ballot during the primary, and voted for John
Mcain, with the hope that he would gain the republican nomination
instead of Bush.  In november, they would vote for Gore...

-o

(voted left last time, this time, and will next time.)




* Adam Miller <[email protected]> [2004-02-27 13:31:58 -0500]:

> 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 reflect what I want, I'll vote for him. I'd do the same
> for Bush if he did it first. Assuming 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/
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/