However, I do vote based on principles, and I do so consistently, but in a little old lady sort of way. Mine aren’t political principles in the areas of taxes, economics, war. I’m sticking with the few personal things that I understand, and that’s how I determine who to vote for–people whose personal lives I admire, and who support social causes that I think are right. Besides, I think a candidate’s personal life may actually have an effect on their ability to do the job, silly me.

(Based on my own criteria, I’m thinking there may not be anyone to vote for.)

Even if your principles aren’t based on history, philosophy blah blah blah - at least be courageous enough to vote them (or not vote, if there isn’t anyone worth it).

Gurr8, I agree with your statement. I think that it’s tragic because some of the smartest people, who actually have a good idea of what they believe will so casually throw it away and plug their nose when they vote. It’s really insane if you ask me. But I think we can’t even begin to address values until we’re at least willing to have the courage to support them!

In elections, you’re faced with two choices, period. The reasons for that are long (gerrymandering, primaries, etc), but anyone who reads the paper knows the two major parties, in spite of having differences, agree on one thing - consolidating power to themselves.

Likely in the upcoming election, your choice is Hillary or Rudy. That’s it.

Thus, you don’t get to choose what you want, only what the major parties give you. Since that is reality, all you can do is choose the best of the worst.

In the end, voting for a 2nd tier candidate or independent (Ron Paul, et al) has the *real* effect of not voting at all. Sure, it makes you feel good, but in the end you might have well not voted at all, because that’s not really a choice you’ve been given.

Some ideas sound good in theory, but don’t work out in reality. Voting for 2nd tier candidates is one of them.

Hillary is almost a lock for the Presidency. Who can beat her? Rudy has a good chance, and maybe Huckabee (though he can’t win the primary). Romney can’t do it, and Ron Paul vs. Hillary would be ugly. Thus, the real choice you’re facing is Rudy or Hillary. Sure it might change in the next few months, but do you really think any of the 2nd tier can match her fundraising or political machine? Or even (gulp) her qualifications?

Remember, President Clinton won elections without a majority - most of the people wanted someone *else* to be president. But since they were fractured, Clinton won. You’re likely to see history repeat itself. And the one thing we learn from history is man learns nothing from history.

So what to do? You’ve got to work within the system to change it. Get the republicans back to a point where someone like Ron Paul has a chance - back to real conservatism. And the Democrats where Edwards/Clinton ideologies are thought absurd and they’re back to actually fighting for the little guy (the Democrats weren’t always like what you’ve seen the last 15 years - at one point they actually worked for the middle class).

If you’re a Democrat, get Tammy Bruce’s book “The New American Revolution”. Tammy is a lesbian, pro-choice feminist Democrat who is suddenly accused of being too conservative for the Democrats. *That’s* how far the Democrats have moved. When a lesbian, pro-choice, ex-president of NOW is outside the Democratic party looking in, you know how much they’ve changed.

If you’re a Republican, get “Conservatives Betrayed” by Richard Viguerie to see how far the Republicans have moved since Reagan. Today’s Republicans bear little resemblance to 20 years ago.

Both parties are a shadow of what they were, and need to return to their roots. Working within the system (whether you’re a Democrat or Republican) is the only way to get better choices.

That’s the only way we’ll ever get better candidates. Until then, vote for 2nd tier candidates all you want - the two major parties will be laughing all the way to the White House.

Funnily enough, if you vote for 1st tier candidates, and for one of the two major-party-candidates in the general election, the two major parties will still be laughing all the way to the White House.

But I do agree about working within the system to a certain extent. I’ll go to the local Republican caucus here in Iowa next year, and possibly the local and state Republican conventions (living in a caucus state = preposterously easy to get all the way up to state party conventions. I have no idea whether or not this is difficult in primary states), but when it comes time to vote in the general election, I’m not going to feel held to vote for the Republican candidate just because I’ve been involved in the process. At that point, if I’m not happy with the result of the process, it’s not going to make any difference anymore, and I might as well cast a vote I won’t be kicking myself over for the next four years, even if it does equate to ‘not actually voting at all’.

A more effective way to have an impact is to work within the parties to get a good candidate nominated. That’s why it’s so vital to vote in the primaries, and to live in Iowa or South Carolina.

This bandwagon effect of the primaries has got to stop, by the way. Iowa shouldn’t count for more than Texas, but realistically it does. By the time the Texas primary rolls around, the whole thing will be all but decided.

I’m beginning to think that caucuses are better than primaries. I know primaries are supposed to be more democratic, but I’m not convinced that’s a good thing. I believe the parties, not the people, should nominate a candidate. A caucus at least attempts to preserve the idea of a party nominating a candidate.

Closed primaries are at least sort of reasonable, because you have to be registered as a party member. Open primaries are just ridiculous–do we seriously want to let anyone walk in off the street and vote in the party’s primary election? That is so open to abuse it’s not even funny. I know more than one Republican friend who has expressed an intention to cast a sabotage vote in the Democratic primary. Even I’m considering doing so. That’s not how the system should work.

You’ve got to work inside the major parties to effect change. Otherwise they’ll just ignore you, since your vote effectively doesn’t matter.

We’ve got to reform the Democrats and the Republicans from inside until we get better candidates. Until that happens, it really is a “lesser of two evils” situation.

But you’re correct if we get involved in the primaries, perhaps we can get better candidates.

You’re also right, a few states right now choose the candidates in the general election. By the time primaries are held in most states, the race is over.

Why can’t we have elections similar to Washington? All candidates run in the primary, the top two face off in the general. Both could be Republicans, or Democrats, or 3rd party. Everyone gets to vote in the primary, and all votes count. (Democrats and Republicans united to fight this effort).

Contrast with most races where one party effectively always wins (read: gerrymandering), so whoever wins the primary wins the general.

When I started, I could have applied Darius’ comment verbatum to the libertarian candidates and meant every word of it. However, I was forced to do more research and more contemplation into what voting meant to me, and just how important that single act was.

The first thing that changed in me, was the understanding that the vote was mine. Just like anything I owned, I am free to do what I want with it, even if it means not voting or voting a “loser.” I realized that this was a tremendous asset, and an even greater responsibility.

Nine months later, when it finally came down to it, I voted libertarian - my first ever vote for a non-major party. Even though I declared in print and on national television that I was sure of my vote - it was still very difficult to do, knowing that it did not have a direct effect on Bush vs. Kerry.

But, after sending my vote in - I was liberated. For the first time, I watched the election results with amusement and peace - not in fear of “such such evil candidate” winning. Thereafter, whenever Bush said or did something that I didn’t agree with, I no longer felt shame or the need to justify myself in voting for him.

Have you guys ever heard of people who turn off their tv’s for a month and lose their sense of fear over terrorism, the economy and the end of the world in general? They still use the internet and whatnot, but they get out of this soundbyte-barrage of fear. Well, the first time I voted outside the dotted lines of the mainstream - it was that kind of moment.

People have remarked to me several times since then that I seem less argumentative and a lot more “chill” about politics. It’s because of that moment - when I decided to take responsibility for my own vote - and take it away from the politics of fear. I don’t need to argue or stress over these things, because I’m not part of the problem anymore.

Me too, pretty much. My shift in thinking happened during 2002 and 2003. By the time the 2004 election rolled around, I voted Libertarian.

Most people agree the candidates aren’t very good, and haven’t been for a while. They question is, what to do about it? Vote your conscience, or vote for the best of the worst to avoid the *really* bad guy?

Voting for minor candidates might feel good, but have you made an impact?

Paul reminds us “Here, moreover, it is required of stewards, that they be found faithful.” We (voters) have been given stewardship of this country. I sympathize with people who vote their conscience knowing their guy can’t win.

But with this many people disgruntled with the current situation, we’ve got a chance to turn it around and get quality leadership.

My point is that will never happen from people tuning out the process and voting for people who are irrelevant. Change will only come as (if) the major parties are forced to recognize and respect what the people want. That comes by participation, not dropping out.

Look at what the Democrats ran on last election - Iraq, ethics and so on. Have they done *any* of what they promised? Once in office, it’s so long, voters. (Republicans are no better)

Another thing I’ve noticed, younger people don’t remember a time when the political climate wasn’t such a disaster. Similar to the (now) oxymoron “honest lawyer”, a time did exist when politicians actually listened, and scandals didn’t break every Friday as the President “took out the trash”.

As to the Libertarians, their platform has changed considerably over time. They’ve been more or less corrupted by the legalize-all-the-drugs crowd.

And what the latter does is encourage candidates to move closer and closer to the ‘worst’, because they can get away with it. And then the worst get worse, and the least bad take that as a cue to edge a bit worse, ad infinitum.

Voting for minor candidates might feel good, but have you made an impact?

At least as much impact as voting for major candidates. One person’s vote doesn’t automatically multiply upon voting for top-tier candidates.

Another thing I’ve noticed, younger people don’t remember a time when the political climate wasn’t such a disaster. Similar to the (now) oxymoron “honest lawyer”, a time did exist when politicians actually listened, and scandals didn’t break every Friday as the President “took out the trash”.

Actually, no, a time like that never did exist. Politicians have been trawling for and creating scandals since this country started. For more information, see John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, and Alexander Hamilton, among many others.

As to the Libertarians, their platform has changed considerably over time. They’ve been more or less corrupted by the legalize-all-the-drugs crowd.

Or possibly the other parties have been corrupted by the ban-random-substances crowd. It’s all in how you look at it. But from what I’ve seen, drug legalization, or at least decriminalization, is a pretty integral part of both Libertarian and libertarian thought. The platform tends not to change as much as the issues of the day do.

Actually, it encourages the “worst” candidates to get closer to the “best” one. Voting Libertarian is like not voting at all. Change the parties, don’t make up your own party. Same principle applies to clubs, churches, cliques, etc. If you don’t like the way a church is headed, you don’t go form your own church. You work within the church to fix it to what you feel it should be.

Assume we have a Clinton vs. Giuliani general election. What should supporters of Ron Paul do? Voting for one of those two would be voting for someone almost the complete opposite of their views. They had try to change the Republican Party but were unseccesful (at least to this point), voting for Giuliani would just prove to the Republican leadership that they don’t need to change.

If they don’t vote it will be assumed that they don’t care enough about the issues to even vote. If however they vote Libertarian, and the Libertarian has a better than expected showing for a 3rd Party candidate, one or both of the major parties will have to consider adopting some libertarian ideas. Voting third party can be a way to force change in a major party.

Likewise I would advise Christian Conservatives in a Clinton vs. Giuliani to vote for the Constitution Party.

Actually, it encourages the “worst” candidates to get closer to the “best” one.

That only works if the best of the worst wins. Also we have to be careful not to mix references to party nominations and general elections. For instance, take a theoretical election between Giuliani and Clinton. Loads of Republicans don’t like Giuliani, but vote for him because they see Clinton as worse. Giuliani loses anyway. Come next primary season, do you really think potential Republican candidates are going to think “Wow, Giuliani lost the general. I should move back to core Republican values,” rather than thinking “Hey, lots of Republicans disliked Giuliani, but they voted for him anyway. Also, if I pick up this and this and this issue from the Democratic side of the aisle, I get more centrist votes. I just have to be marginally less offensive than the other guy. Yay me!” Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are all thinking “Hey, Clinton got elected last time. I wonder if there’s room for me to take positions Clinton did, but more so, and still win the general election?” Ideology comes into play, but generally after electability concerns; considerably further behind electability concerns for the party currently not in power. See also occasional current Democratic frontrunner tendencies to play themselves as more hawkish and current Republican frontrunner tendencies to play themselves as… more hawkish.

Voting Libertarian is like not voting at all.

No, it’s like not voting in a two-party system at all. It is (sort of) like voting in a multi-party system. Not voting at all imparts no extra information to the system than “I don’t like either of the current choices.” Voting third-party clarifies that a little bit more: “I don’t like either of the current choices, but I would like someone a bit more like X.” Of course, the main parties are not guaranteed to use this information, but at least it actually exists.

Anyway, for me it really comes down to breaking points. There is a point at which both the Republican and Democratic candidates are so abhorrent to me that I would consider it a betrayal of my principles to vote for either one. At that point, I vote third-party.

Change the parties, don’t make up your own party.

Again, I actually do think that’s a good idea, up until the national convention. But once party candidates for the general election are decided, there’s no longer any good way for me to change the party during the current election cycle. Ironically, at that point the best way I have of influencing the main parties is to vote third-party.

Same principle applies to clubs, churches, cliques, etc. If you don’t like the way a church is headed, you don’t go form your own church. You work within the church to fix it to what you feel it should be.

Annnd now you’ve lost me. Mostly since clubs, churches, and cliques tend not to fall into strongly dual systems. Also possibly since I’m never as attached to a particular political party as to any of those other things. Political parties are means to an end for me, not ends in and of themselves.

I think you’ve confused voting with betting. As a voter, it isn’t your job to choose who you think will win.

We each have ONE vote. Tell me, when was the last time you affected the outcome of an election? Has there been a Presidential election that was won with one vote? No? Then a vote for a power party is as useless as a vote for a third party.

“Politicians have been trawling for and creating scandals since this country started.”

Sure. But *nothing* like what we’ve seen in the last 10-15 years. Selling White House rooms for campaign contributions, bribes, extortion, etc. If you’ve only become involved recently, you don’t know it hasn’t always been this bad. Remember (in general) when a handshake was good enough to seal a deal? When it was your word and not the size of your lawyer staff that counted?

Let me just try and sum up my point. I understand (and share) the frustration of lackluster candidates. However, voting for a 3rd party or 2nd tier doesn’t accomplish much, because nobody’s listening. Sure, as you say, the data exists, but unless a 3rd party candidate breaks 20% or so, it won’t even register. The news outlets even drop them and round off the Republican/Democrat totals so they’re 100%, and ignore all others.

So if most people agree candidates are bad, we don’t agree on how to get better ones. Voting for a minor candidate won’t influence change, because the system doesn’t allow much outside the two major parties, so they can never break through with enough votes to gain traction.

You’ve got to work with the Democrats/Republicans to enact change and get better people.

Remember, you’re faced with only two choices (of winning). The choice most want (another candidate) isn’t a realistic possibility. The only way to get better leadership in the White House and elsewhere is to work to get two better people facing off in the general election. That comes from being involved in the Democratic and Republican parties.

“There is a point at which both the Republican and Democratic candidates are so abhorrent to me that I would consider it a betrayal of my principles to vote for either one. At that point, I vote third-party.”

So the solution is to work within the parties to get better candidates.

“I think you’ve confused voting with betting. As a voter, it isn’t your job to choose who you think will win.”

Not choose who will win, but pick one of the two candidates. The others aren’t really options. As an example, in today’s mortgage environment, suppose you try to get a loan, and with points/fees,etc you’ve got a choice: 12% with no down, or 10% with 10% down. That’s what the bank gives you.

But you saw on the Internet you can get 6% if you put 80% down. Is that choice really available to you? (Assuming you’re an average person, not the Donald).

So what you want, even though it appears, isn’t really an option. You’ve got to choose one of the two available to you.

Presidential elections are the same. Sure, lots of names are on the ballot, but only two matter. The actual effect of choosing other than the two main candidates is not voting at all. It may be an ugly truth, but that’s reality.

As to the power of one vote, yes your vote *DOES* matter.

For example, if the election comes down to Giuliani or Clinton, neither of those is a lesser evil in my book. They’re both equally undesirable. That’s not to say there aren’t differences between them–there are–but the differences are not ones that are meaningful to me.

There are sometimes when a candidate truly is the lesser of two evils. If Candidate A says “I’ll murder a million innocent children” and Candidate B says “I’ll murder a thousand innocent children,” then maybe Candidate B really is the lesser of two evils. I’d vote for him. (Presuming that the candidates really would carry out their campaign promises, that is.)

But when it comes to the two major parties, there isn’t much difference right now, at least not in ways that are important to me. For some people, the Republican candidate may really be a legitimate lesser of two evils; for others, the Democratic candidate may be the lesser evil. Those people are probably a lot closer to the political center than I am, and that’s why the slight differences between the parties are enough to sway them. I’m pretty far from the American politic center, and the two parties are equally unsatisfactory.

So to ask me to vote for the lesser evil is a meaningless question. There is no lesser evil. Both are bad. I don’t care which one of them wins.

Thus, it is your duty to make sure that happens by voting for him/her. If you don’t vote for the best, you are in essence helping the worst win.

It’s not an either-or question. I can work within the party to get a better candidate, and then if the candidate who is nominated is still unsuitable for me, I can still vote for a third party in the general election. Voting for a third party candidate does not mean I am completely giving up on the two major parties.

I agree with you here, at least partly. In 1992, Ross Perot was leading in the polls at one point, and ended up with 19% of the popular vote. And what happened? The two-party system is as strong as ever.

I think Ross Perot had an impact in the 1992 election in terms of influencing the debate and the issues, but as far as breaking up the two-party system, he was a non-factor.

Thus, it is your duty to make sure that happens by voting for him/her. If you don’t vote for the best, you are in essence helping the worst win.

Hee. Here’s where it gets fun and complicated. Ideological changes don’t happen on a one-dimensional line. Instead, candidates attempting to follow up a victory in their party become ‘more-than’ their predecessors. The distinctives that set apart the previous winning candidate are seen as winning issues, even if most votes for the winning candidate were votes against the opponent.

So, according to Ardith’s All-Encompassing Theory of Electoral Politics, the ‘worst’ candidate will move towards the ‘least-worst’ candidate in that situation, but the ‘least-worst’ candidate won’t necessarily move towards more desirable positions on issues.

Thus, you can end up with a situation, like the current one as I see it, where a win by either candidate moves the ‘least bad’ position in a ‘wrong’ direction for the next election cycle. You actually made this exact point when you described why you’re not planning to vote for Giuliani if he makes it to the general election.

Sure. But *nothing* like what we’ve seen in the last 10-15 years. Selling White House rooms for campaign contributions, bribes, extortion, etc. If you’ve only become involved recently, you don’t know it hasn’t always been this bad. Remember (in general) when a handshake was good enough to seal a deal? When it was your word and not the size of your lawyer staff that counted?

No, actually, I don’t. So, there was a point in time when people sealed deals with handshakes and then didn’t follow that up with legal, signed, documents? Regardless, the exclusive use of handshakes has precisely the opposite effect from what you imply, as it’s a lot easier to make underhanded deals sealed with handshakes, than underhanded deals sealed with all that messy paperwork and hordes of nosy lawyers.

As for your “theory” regarding the move toward the centrist “worst” position, I think you do have some history that might back you up. Look at almost all European countries, their conservative parties are really just right of left of right of left of center, especially on social issues. But I don’t know if this is because of your theory as much as the fact that most Europeans are socialistic liberals, much like the media is in America. So the debate is not framed in conservative values vs. liberal values language, but how to best implement liberal values. Same with the mainstream media in this country… for example, anthropogenic global warming isn’t framed as a debate over the facts between conservatives and liberals, it’s merely a discussion on how to solve it, while anyone who dares to deny it is the same as a Holocaust denier, worthy of contempt as a lunatic.

I’m an old guy - I remember when we wrote papers on typewriters and there was no Iterweb thingy
It was different just 20 years ago.

Anyway, this is off-topic, so I’ll refrain from further comment.

I learned to type on a typewriter. And not one of those electric jobs either. It was a manual.