Michael Badnarik: "Voting for the lesser of two evils is the coward's way out"

[kuan1]

I don't like his stand on the issue of public schools, but I tend to agree with him that we should vote our conscience.

[kvining]

My conscience says Bush is an asshole.

[kuan1]

So, an enemy of my enemy is my friend? Would you vote for Kerry just because he's anti-Bush even though you don't see eye to eye with him on most issues? Four years from today you'll still be cussing under your breath at the govt. because there's nobody representing you and your views. What happens in 16 years time when we're stuck with the same damn situation again with no viable alternative in sight? Think back to when you voted against Bush and not for Kerry. A third party candidate may 5% of the vote this year, maybe 10% the next time around.

[GermanStar]

I understand your point Kuan, but I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me that the way to empower a third party is to support their non-presidential candidates before focusing on the ultimate elected official. Elect a few libertarian congressmen and senators to legitimize the party before wasting a vote on a presidential candidate who cannot win, when a vote against an incumbent may serve a valuable purpose. Libertarians have tons of local candidates here in AZ this time around -- I'm very interested to see how they do.

[JimSmith]

GermanStar - 10/11/2004 9:50 PM
..... Elect a few libertarian congressmen and senators to legitimize the party before wasting a vote on a presidential candidate who cannot win, when a vote against an incumbent may serve a valuable purpose. .....

I have to agree with this. A Libertarian President would be meaningless in a legislative branch without any support for him. And, with a good, strong third party in Congress it is unlikely the qualities of these fringe political parties that offer an intellectual appeal by being different would survive intact.

I am not interested in investing my vote in this mission for the rest of my life while the likes of Bush run this country into the ground. It amazes me how the appeal of unadulterated selfishness can catch on so strongly. Clothed in faux patriotism this unchecked greed is alienating the rest of the world and polarizing Americans. A vote against Bush and the values based on exploiting lesser human emotions he promotes is vital to America's future. Jim

[Botnst]

JimSmith - 10/12/2004 2:21 AM

I have to agree with this. A Libertarian President would be meaningless in a legislative branch without any support for him. And, with a good, strong third party in Congress it is unlikely the qualities of these fringe political parties that offer an intellectual appeal by being different would survive intact.

I am not interested in investing my vote in this mission for the rest of my life while the likes of Bush run this country into the ground. It amazes me how the appeal of unadulterated selfishness can catch on so strongly. Clothed in faux patriotism this unchecked greed is alienating the rest of the world and polarizing Americans. A vote against Bush and the values based on exploiting lesser human emotions he promotes is vital to America's future. Jim

"Meaningless" means without meaning. You would say that electing a president not of the two major parties would be without meaning? It would have no historical significance? It would have no effect on the governance of this country to have the people reject the two major parties and embrace a minority party?

That is ludicrous. It would be the most meaningful event in American politics since the War Between the States.

But he couldn't get anything done. Wow. That would be a bad thing for a libertarian, right?

[JimSmith]

Bot, Jimmy Carter was a President without the political ability or support to make a difference. I don't think I have heard you suggest there is much to recommend about his term. A Libertarian President that does nothing in his/her term other than make some political statement by being there is meaningless. Merely making a "statement" and having no other effect does no good. If there is a national crisis that requires the President to actually lead and he can't because of his political party affiliation would render his term meaningless as well.

I also think by the time the Libertarian Party gets big enough to threaten the other two biggies, it will be too similar to be of any value. Meaningless in other words. The American public likes ketchup. And salt. And sugar. And other bland foods and spices. They like their politicians equally without any distinguishing flavor or spice. Jim

[GermanStar]

You guys are jumping the gun a bit -- my point is that without some sort of track record here, the possibility of electing a libertarian president is just about zero. The way to increase that number is to create a legitimate political power base on which to build. You know, elect a few local officials, eventually get a person or two in Congress, then add to that and make a run at the Senate or a gubernatorial race. Baby steps, baby steps. The chance of electing a libertarian president right now is about the same as that of electing a woman or a minority president 50 years ago. These folks have made exactly the type of progress I'm describing here, and look where they are now -- right in the mainstream where they belong.

[JimSmith]

I agreed with you German Star, and I took it a bit further. I am pretty cynical when it comes to politics and figure when the Libertarian Party gets the votes to win any significant power in Congress or the Executive Branch, they will be far less distinguishable from the GOP or the Democrats than they are today. I also noted, if by some aberration in the voting booths, a Libertarian Party candidate winning the Presidency without those baby steps you noted, meaning without a political base in the Congress, his or her ability to enact some change in policy would be nil, making his or her term meaningless. Jim

[Zeitgeist]

...well, actually libertarian ideas on economics and governence have already infected the body politic. The entire concept of a liberallized trade policy used to be considered political heresy, but now the two majors have both outsourced their common sense and fallen all over themselves in order to genuflect at the alter of "free trade". There was a time when both major parties bought off on the social contract embodied in Roosevelt's New Deal (which in large part was stolen from another third party--the Socialists). Now each party can't offer enough ammendments and legislative initiatives to dismantle that project. Libertarian theory is on the ascendency, with or without an organized party to carry its banner--see CATO institute for details.

I think it's important to break the two party stranglehold on our democratic principles, but I'm also sympathetic to the argument stressing the need to remove the Neo-Con machine in the White House. Given the absurd nature of our Electoral College, if I lived in a hotly contested "Swing State" I might just vote for the Ketchup Kid (and hate myself for it). Voting your conscience is sometimes a matter of both heart and mind, and may require a certain sense of strategic planning. Personally, I WILL be voting third party for president, but that's just me. I'll also be voting for several Libertarians down ballot in protest, because I don't like their entrenched incumbent opponents.