![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
egypturnashSome thoughts on the election.
Stacey was looking at an article on some political website today. It was brief questionings of a dozen or so people as to who they were voting for and why. A depressing number of these pundits had pseudo-lofty reasons for Not Voting. An equally depressing number were voting for Kerry or Bush despite feeling like the candidate and party didn't represent them any more, but a vote for any other party would "spoil" the vote for "the one that matters". A few said they were in a state that always went the way they'd go in the donkey/elephant choice anyway, so they felt safe in voting their moral choice.
What if everyone in a 'sure thing' state did that?
The 2000 election, with the tie in Florida partially blamed on Nader getting a chunk of votes that presumably would've gone to Gore otherwise, was a major chunk of propaganda for the two-party state: you can't vote for a candidate who really represents you, we all think, because you're spoiling the vote for the lesser of the two major-party evils.
I live in California. The prevailing wisdom is that California is always going to vote pretty whole-heartedly for the Democratic candidate. So I can "throw away my vote" on a candidate who might actually represent me better than what the two major parties toss up.
I watched part of the debates. I try to avoid politics but I ended up watching some anyway. I'm not sure if Kerry's a liberal when he's not standing next to a right-wing God-talking war-loving business-puppet like Bush. I admit that I haven't really done much research into the other candidates out there, and there's not much time to do it in.
But what if everyone did that? What if all the reflexive Democrat voters took a look at what Kerry's saying, and what other liberal-leaning candidates are saying, and a huge chunk of us didn't vote for Kerry? And what if all the reflexive Republican voters did the same with Bush and other conservative-leaning candidates? And didn't vote for Bush?
Maybe there might be one clear winner. Maybe there might not be anyone with enough votes to take the race. Maybe just enough Republicans would vote on spinal reflex rather than any amount of real thought that Bush would win.
Look, I don't want Bush in office. He shouldn't be running anything in my opinion; he's a useless idiot playboy. He should just be out burning through Daddy's money. And he's allied with religious nutjobs who would rather I didn't exist at all, what with being agnostic, demi-pagan, queer, and transsexual. That nearly-apocalyptic level of fear I have may well keep my vote in the duopoly. Get rid of the spectre of four more straight years of that before we try to really make things better. But I've been feeling pretty disgruntled with and ill-represented by both sides of the duopoly coin of late.
It's going to be nagging me all through the final weeks of the election, and maybe on and off through the next few years, though. What if we all voted for what we most hope for instead of against what we fear the most? What if a significant percentage was crazy enough to vote for a Hubbard? (Not L. Ron, smart-asses. See the link.)
Because going with hope and dreams instead of avoiding the nearest fear has always done better things for my life so far. Like this whole damn transition thing.
Stacey was looking at an article on some political website today. It was brief questionings of a dozen or so people as to who they were voting for and why. A depressing number of these pundits had pseudo-lofty reasons for Not Voting. An equally depressing number were voting for Kerry or Bush despite feeling like the candidate and party didn't represent them any more, but a vote for any other party would "spoil" the vote for "the one that matters". A few said they were in a state that always went the way they'd go in the donkey/elephant choice anyway, so they felt safe in voting their moral choice.
What if everyone in a 'sure thing' state did that?
The 2000 election, with the tie in Florida partially blamed on Nader getting a chunk of votes that presumably would've gone to Gore otherwise, was a major chunk of propaganda for the two-party state: you can't vote for a candidate who really represents you, we all think, because you're spoiling the vote for the lesser of the two major-party evils.
I live in California. The prevailing wisdom is that California is always going to vote pretty whole-heartedly for the Democratic candidate. So I can "throw away my vote" on a candidate who might actually represent me better than what the two major parties toss up.
I watched part of the debates. I try to avoid politics but I ended up watching some anyway. I'm not sure if Kerry's a liberal when he's not standing next to a right-wing God-talking war-loving business-puppet like Bush. I admit that I haven't really done much research into the other candidates out there, and there's not much time to do it in.
But what if everyone did that? What if all the reflexive Democrat voters took a look at what Kerry's saying, and what other liberal-leaning candidates are saying, and a huge chunk of us didn't vote for Kerry? And what if all the reflexive Republican voters did the same with Bush and other conservative-leaning candidates? And didn't vote for Bush?
Maybe there might be one clear winner. Maybe there might not be anyone with enough votes to take the race. Maybe just enough Republicans would vote on spinal reflex rather than any amount of real thought that Bush would win.
Look, I don't want Bush in office. He shouldn't be running anything in my opinion; he's a useless idiot playboy. He should just be out burning through Daddy's money. And he's allied with religious nutjobs who would rather I didn't exist at all, what with being agnostic, demi-pagan, queer, and transsexual. That nearly-apocalyptic level of fear I have may well keep my vote in the duopoly. Get rid of the spectre of four more straight years of that before we try to really make things better. But I've been feeling pretty disgruntled with and ill-represented by both sides of the duopoly coin of late.
It's going to be nagging me all through the final weeks of the election, and maybe on and off through the next few years, though. What if we all voted for what we most hope for instead of against what we fear the most? What if a significant percentage was crazy enough to vote for a Hubbard? (Not L. Ron, smart-asses. See the link.)
Because going with hope and dreams instead of avoiding the nearest fear has always done better things for my life so far. Like this whole damn transition thing.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 03:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 01:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 03:27 am (UTC)The Republicans and the Democrats are the only two choices in American politics, simply because people believe this to be the case. The moment people stop believing that, reality changes to one where there are other options.
Fear plays a big part in that, whether or not there is any basis to that fear. Ignorance of the system, how it works, or the choices avaiable also keep many people from casting a vote to anything but one of the two big parties.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 04:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 12:36 pm (UTC)I think the reason many feel that Kerry does not represent them is because Kerry is not going to waste time selling himself to a crowd of people that could not physically bring themselves to vote Bush - and that if they did give a damn, would research Kerry, and realize he has a record that is very pro-civil rights, pro-environment, and pro-productive social causes anyway.
It's a shame that Nader has taken advantage of Kerry's gaps in policy selling to gain a footing in a cause that would have been far better served if he had just campaigned for election reform to include several parties rather then trying to gain glory for himself.
Either way, they should understand that if they continue to take part in the political process, they can hold Kerry or Bush to term for their campaign promises - it's not just the votes this year that matter, it's the constant effort and attention of the public all the time that matters most.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-23 07:36 am (UTC)He's ignored the advice from every friend and former backer to stay out of the race for the greater good - and he has done so with hostility. He promised not to take Republican money to finance his campaign, but he has done so. He has taken endorsements and accepted signatures from Republican supported groups, even though he said he would not do so. He even took signatures from Sproul & Associates - the group currently involved in several swing state voter registration scandals (they tore up any registration cards that were marked as Democrat). His own Green Party rejected him. And I've heard some radio interviews with him: you thought Howard Dean sounded angry...
And all this time - his campaign platform of "giving people more options" would be better spent with a grassroots effort of reforming the election system so that it can work with more then a two party system. He's made great progress with business and finance reforms - one has to wonder why he thinks it's necessary for him to be president to accomplish his goals now. At this point, Nader has broken every pre-campaign promise, and has very little to show for it. He's not even on many state ballots.
In my opinion, he's become a little strange in the head as a result of a frustratingly futile grab for glory.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 06:09 am (UTC)Make one. Vote Bad! Vote Badnarik!
You two party Americans is so funny! Stop worrying what everyone beside you is going to do, and try that individualism thing.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 02:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 07:33 am (UTC)Dont get distracted by the two horse race, and we all know how much doctoring has gone on in it, its much more important to think long term and vote in honest congressmen and senators.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 12:40 pm (UTC)It will take some time, but those candidates, along with constant pressure from the public, will be able to change the system. Hell, if more people would care enough to take the effort to vocalize their desire for a different voting system right now, we could make great changes more quickly.
But I don't see people taking that kind of effort into account yet...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 03:10 pm (UTC)FYI, we were discussing the electoral college at work a few days ago. While it seems nonsensical and archaic, it serves as a "firewall" to isolate the voting process in each state. This reduces the incentive for voting fraud, as the best you can do is win that one state. With a nationwide direct vote, there would be intense pressure to commit fraud, as each fake vote would count directly into the total. (You'd also have a hard time passing that amendment, as all the states with 3 and 4 electoral votes would get screwed.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-23 02:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-23 02:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-23 10:00 am (UTC)Benefits of the electoral college. (http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/math-against-tyranny/)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-23 12:37 pm (UTC)2) His theory accepts that even in a two option system, that ocasional 'anomolies' arise. But its okay, because these just show its working, and they usualy get fixed four years later without too much damage to the republic.
3) If a theory holds conclusions contrary to the demonstrations of reality, that theory is invalid.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-23 12:40 pm (UTC)TIMECUBE!
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 09:22 am (UTC)In general, it's amazing that the major parties are considered to have such a hold on the electorate when only about half the eligible populace bothers to vote at all. Tens of millions of Americans, easily enough to swing the election, have basically declared the whole mess to be beneath their interest, not worth the hassle. Most of these people, apparently, are young, poor, not white, or some combination of the above. It's fair to say they probably lean left, and I suspect that a good number of them have simply realized that the party that has represented the poor and oppressed in the past has deserted them.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 09:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 10:51 am (UTC)The two main points that the US election failed on were 1) All qualified candidates should get equal advertising time in the media (and then he went on about US campaign contributions and 3rd party candidates) and 2) Paper trails for voting and recounts. The same companies that make US electronic voting machines make ones for other countries that spit out a paper copy when you've voted. You are supposed to visually inspect that and put it in the ballot box. Then if there is any question of the electronic ballots, the paper ballots are manually recounted.
There were several other issues with the american system that he talked about too but those were the major ones. Interesting to think about, isn't it? 'The Greatest Democracy on Earth'(tm)(r)(c) really doesn't even pass the qualifications for basic democracy in 3rd world countries.
In the UK, Tony Blair has to regularly face Parliment and the national press and really get grilled on his policies and actions right there in front of everybody. I'd like to see that implemented in the US. Can you imagine Bush in a weekly meeting with the press, stammering like Elmer Fudd?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 01:23 pm (UTC)I know, for me, it'd probably look something like:
Preferred candidate
Good candidate
...
Mickey Mouse
Kerry
Cthulu
Bush
;-)
What'd also be nice, for verification/tracking would be a double-count system. Not just a printed receipt (which would be nice) but two seperate tallies kept - ie, you select your vote on one system, it prints out a receipt, which you verify, then feed into a second system which reads it and stores the receipt for manual recounting later. The entry system and secondary system would maintain seperate counts, and be made by seperate companies. The receipt would be in a standard-specified format to garuntee compatability (and designed for error-free reading)
Or, for that matter, a two-part system - a voting unit, which has keys to select your vote, and a display unit, which displays the options. The two are again made by seperate companies, and they talk to each other using a simple protocol - the entry unit sending minimal data like 'start ', 'race ' 'select ' or 'select ABSTAIN', and finished with 'cancel ' or 'vote ' ... responses would be strictly ack/nak. At the end of the election, the tallies from each pair of machines should exactly match, and if they don't, the papertrail can be used. By keeping the input and output on seperate machines, made seperately, it prevents a programmer for either one machine from arbitrarilly changing votes, without it being visible right away (it's easy to record one number, and print another out, and count on the two never being reconcilled) ...
Bah, I'm babbling now. I'm a geek and think about these kinds of things. It's overkill - a single properly designed system can be built so that no single individual or individuals can tamper with the results, but putting two systems into the chain makes it more visible to laypeople, and makes it slightly harder to tamper with. Setting the machines up would probably also use a predefined format, and when the machines initialized, either the displays could be setup by the entry system, or they both could be setup seperately, and they verify they are configured the same via checksum of their data, this restricting the communication between the two to just the voting data.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 01:30 pm (UTC)I should also mention that while Jimmy Carter is nicey-nice now, he did sign off on arms shipments to Indonesia while they were busy raping East Timor.
I often think Ari Fleischer quit his job because he just couldn't handle having to constantly lie to reporters... you could sort of sense beneath the surface that he wasn't comfortable with what he was doing.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 12:29 pm (UTC)And yeah. Sometimes I really wish we had a parliamentary system which stressed the legislative branch a bit more by definition, and which would allow other parties to happen.
The Democrats are and have always been a conglomerate, so my hope is that at some point the Republicans will split, and there will be one group of not especially evil fiscal conservatives who are about economic prosperity, and another party of the scum of the earth.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 12:38 pm (UTC)the Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org) may well meet that definition, depending on what you consider "not especially evil".
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 12:45 pm (UTC)If that doesn't change, it won't matter how many parties we have - the one with the media monopoly, wins.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 01:26 pm (UTC)I'm not voting for them, but hey - they can be a political party and on the ticket for all I care.
Admittedly, too many others may vote for them, though. Stupid people, and people that want someone to think for them scare me.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-23 10:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-25 03:07 am (UTC)There are as many political parties as there are sexes
Date: 2004-10-22 12:32 pm (UTC)Approval voting
Concordet voting
I used to be a big proponent of instant runoff or proportional representation, but having seen a dissection of the method's problems, I really can't endorse it any more.
Kristy
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 12:34 pm (UTC)Kristy
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 12:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 02:02 pm (UTC)I'm going to vote, and I'm sure as hell not going to vote for Bush. But I'm divided between researching and voting for someone who really matches what I want for the world, and voting reflexively/tactically for Kerry.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 02:26 pm (UTC)...since you phrased it that way, and because I'm curious, and because outside of politics - I imagine your answer is interesting...
what do you want for the world?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 01:26 pm (UTC)Yes, there's this conception among the public that someone like Nader can't win. Well, that conception isn't going anywhere. It's a reality that as a voter you have to accommodate. So then it's a question of what advantage you can get now within whatever outcomes are possible, and you imagine that sometime down the road, you can get in a third-party candidate when the culture has changed enough to allow one that's viable. And you go about changing the culture when the opportunity presents itself; you don't just spitefully vote for a third party and expect them to have a serious chance just because it's morally or ethically right to have it turn out that way. You could try praying to Jesus, too, or to Walt Disney.
In fact, this is why the Republican party has been working tirelessly to get Nader on the ballot in some places. They're political operators, and elections have clear and visible dynamics, just like games in Las Vegas do, and they project that votes for Nader can only help their boy, because Nader votes are even more intense protest votes than votes for Kerry. So the protest is made, and Bush wins. Where are the protestors when there's no election? Is it easier to spend five minutes casting a vote and living with the consequences than to work making others politically aware?
You make your move according to the reality of the playing field. If you think your interests are best suited by voting for an unwinnable candidate and making a statement, that's fine, but I would suggest that the impact of your moral statement is going to be negligible compared to the impact of the actual presidency which results.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 01:55 pm (UTC)And the Democrats, if they were smart, would be hassling him about this constantly, pitching to him, making all kinds of sweet offers; and if they're not then it's another example of why the Republicans are stomping them. Because the Republicans understand that the election is just another Vegas game and you do what's necessary to win it or at least get something out of it.
Everyone's got this idea in their head, drilled there since birth, that the American elections are fair and even-handed and you vote for whoever you want to get into office and the best candidate wins and so on and it's freedom and goodness and love... Stop it. It's just a fantasy. The reality is that it's a power struggle, it's a game in Vegas or a sporting event or a war. Just about no one takes a loss on principle in those games. If at all possible, they find a way to take a stand which doesn't involve suicide. Elections shouldn't be any different, especially considering the stakes. Does that cheapen democracy? Or does it cheapen its image?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-22 03:22 pm (UTC)Took the words right out of my mouth, but made them a little more cogent (and tactful).
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 03:34 pm (UTC)Yeah, I agree. I find it very frustrating.
But as you said, being in California, where it's assumed the lesser of the two weevils will be voted for in larger number, I am going to vote my conscience; I'm voting Badnarik for president! :>
If Kerry loses California by one vote, I may feel bad.. but the more I see of the guy, and hear him speak, the lesss I like him.
I like 'im a helluva lot more than dubya, but much though I believe that the American people are simple sheep, I can at least hope that they will vote their conscience this election rather than voting for one party 'just' to get rid of the other party. This year. Maybe. I doubt it. Strongly. But one can dream.
-Kysh
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 09:16 pm (UTC)What don't you like about him?
What bill did he support that you didn't like?
What stepped beyond your bounds for a compromise?
What was it, exactly?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 09:35 pm (UTC)There are large things with which I disagree with the entire democratic party (Gun control being a big one, but other civil liberties right in there with it, along with tort reform, etc).
I can't put my finger specifically on WHY I don't like Kerry, except that his answers are without exception extremely vague and .. well, rather useless. :> He's certainly better than Bush, and if California was close or slated to go for Bush I'd definitely vote Kerry. As it is, however, I feel a libertarian government could make a great deal of progress towards restoring the good parts of this country without bringing back the bad.
Civil liberties are my big issue, I guess. :>
BTW, hi! :> Long itme no see. How are you? :>
-Kysh
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 09:49 pm (UTC)A candidate can only promise or say so much, know so much about said issues.
...And if you've heard Kerry's positions, how about Badnarik's positions?
True, he hasn't the broad swell of support Kerry does; but every candidate had to get the signatures to get on the ballot, so someone out there believed in Kerry months and months ago.