Options
How I Learned to Vote for Less Evil
kenny olav
Posts: 3,319
As some here may know very well, I was a hardcore Nader and Green Party supporter starting in 2000 and remained as such right up until this summer. I registered as a Green in 2001 and in 2005 I was even elected Communications Director by my state's Green Party (which was renamed the Green-Rainbow Party in 2002, a name myself and other "Green-Rainbows" find ridiculous. It's due to the merger of the Green and Rainbow Coalition parties... but it still sounds ridiculous... wtf is a Green Rainbow?). But anyway... once I got really involved in the party I realized how futile it was. The number of very active members is about 20, and the number of somewhat active members is about 500. I hear there are about 10,000 registered members, which is very low in a state of at least a few million voters. But the low number of active members is only one of many reasons I decided I could no longer waste my time and energy in this party.
In 2000, Nader only got 2.7% of the vote, but it seemed like there was a growing movement. But that movement has been eaten alive by the two-party system. In 2004, many Greens, including their own Presidential candidate, David Cobb, encouraged members to vote for Kerry in battleground states, rejecting Nader's 'damn the torpedos' independent run for the White House. Living in Massachusetts, I knew Kerry was going to win, and it didn't matter much to me if I voted for Nader or Cobb, but Nader somehow didn't make the ballot in Mass so I went with Cobb rather than doing a write-in for Nader.
I used to think that by voting for Gore, Kerry, or whoever the lesser of two evils may be, that you were essentially making yourself guilty of their crimes. However, at the same time, I was sympathetic to what I'd call "defensive voting" and when the TV networks jumped the gun to announce that Gore had won Florida I literally jumped for joy - and surprised myself when I had that kind of reaction. 6 years of filtering out my own stupidity later, I realize my gut instincts were right... a vote casted which can have no other result other than to make a statement REALLY IS A VOTE WASTED. No matter how small the differences between the candidates are, those differences matter. Voting to make a statement does nothing to prevent the crimes of whichever viable candidate gets elected, and not wanting to tacitly support extra crimes of the worse candidate, I am forced by reason to vote for the lesser of two evils.
This year we have to vote for Governor and other shit in Mass. The Green-Rainbow Party just barely got their candidate for Governor, Grace Ross, on the ballot. I know Grace very well. Served on the GRP administrative committee with her. Still have her # on speed dial. Nice lady. Smart. Very passionate. She'd make a great Governor. But I'm not planning on voting for her. Well, not unless something weird happens in the televised debate (if they keep their promise of letting all ballot-qualified candidates participate), she has NO chance of winning. So I guess I'll wait and see if it's worth it, but as of now I'm trying to figure out which Democrat to vote for in the primary and then support in the general election. In the case of the race for Treasurer, there's only the incumbant Democrat and the GRP candidate Jamie O'Keefe, so of course I'm voting for Jamie even though he's almost sure to lose.
Man, democracy really sucks sometimes. Actually, a lot of times. Why can't there be such a thing as benevolent dictator?
In 2000, Nader only got 2.7% of the vote, but it seemed like there was a growing movement. But that movement has been eaten alive by the two-party system. In 2004, many Greens, including their own Presidential candidate, David Cobb, encouraged members to vote for Kerry in battleground states, rejecting Nader's 'damn the torpedos' independent run for the White House. Living in Massachusetts, I knew Kerry was going to win, and it didn't matter much to me if I voted for Nader or Cobb, but Nader somehow didn't make the ballot in Mass so I went with Cobb rather than doing a write-in for Nader.
I used to think that by voting for Gore, Kerry, or whoever the lesser of two evils may be, that you were essentially making yourself guilty of their crimes. However, at the same time, I was sympathetic to what I'd call "defensive voting" and when the TV networks jumped the gun to announce that Gore had won Florida I literally jumped for joy - and surprised myself when I had that kind of reaction. 6 years of filtering out my own stupidity later, I realize my gut instincts were right... a vote casted which can have no other result other than to make a statement REALLY IS A VOTE WASTED. No matter how small the differences between the candidates are, those differences matter. Voting to make a statement does nothing to prevent the crimes of whichever viable candidate gets elected, and not wanting to tacitly support extra crimes of the worse candidate, I am forced by reason to vote for the lesser of two evils.
This year we have to vote for Governor and other shit in Mass. The Green-Rainbow Party just barely got their candidate for Governor, Grace Ross, on the ballot. I know Grace very well. Served on the GRP administrative committee with her. Still have her # on speed dial. Nice lady. Smart. Very passionate. She'd make a great Governor. But I'm not planning on voting for her. Well, not unless something weird happens in the televised debate (if they keep their promise of letting all ballot-qualified candidates participate), she has NO chance of winning. So I guess I'll wait and see if it's worth it, but as of now I'm trying to figure out which Democrat to vote for in the primary and then support in the general election. In the case of the race for Treasurer, there's only the incumbant Democrat and the GRP candidate Jamie O'Keefe, so of course I'm voting for Jamie even though he's almost sure to lose.
Man, democracy really sucks sometimes. Actually, a lot of times. Why can't there be such a thing as benevolent dictator?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
If more people started to think like that, america would be even more fucked, don't yeah think? If everyone in america just did that, if the naders and the like did'nt exist, now imagine america.
I agree it is a vote wasted to some extent and at the rate it's going it would take a nader a thousand years to win an election, but if you are fine helping america go down it's current path then that's up to you, it's your choice.
Your reasoning is like this, you a have a person, someone tells you that you need to make a choice, rip both arms off said person or just one, ripping just one arm off is perhaps the lesser evil, I mean you have left the person with another arm yeah? But really, is that the choice you would make? I'd rather walk away which translates into leaving the country.
Now check this out...It's true that said person would be in many ways better off having at least one and not having both taken off, but I mean, is their really no other solution?
al gore would not have been a bad president. he'd have done an excellent job and while ideologically, i might have been closer to nader, voting for al gore to me would not have been evil. i admire him. i deeply regret being so stoned in 2000 that i actually thought him and bush weren't any different. this country would be so much better off today if nader had pulled out and gore had taken that election.
If that's the case and it really was nader that lost it for gore, perhaps gore should've done more to differ himself from Bush and his policies in the first place?
I mean kerry and other dems were worried about 2004 and nader, yet what did the dems and kerry do to gain more votes or take away votes from nader?
well for one they tried to get him off ballots.
Nader did'nt take away any votes from gore, gore gave nader the votes by being too similar to bush and for having the charisma equivalent to a garbage can.
gore bungled his campaign. no doubt about it. that does not change the fact that he was a strong candidate and would have made an excellent president. it's a shame it took me 4 years to see that.
john kerry sucked though. worst presidential choice ever.
Perhaps gore is not the worst, but was'nt his running mate liebrman? (sp?)
I think that say's alot about his (al gores) judgement.
well we for sure agree 100% on kerry,
I think the best solution is to dismantle the federal government. there's too much power there. we should divide america into small countries, which by nature will be less corrupt. i'd be shocked if this could actually happen in my lifetime, but I guess it's not impossible.
I do have to credit Nader with making me aware of many things I was not previously aware of before his campaign. so there is a victory there. but there's other ways rather than running for president to raise awareness. for example, the WTO protests in Seattle.
I also REALLY doubt a guy like Nader can ever win, even with popular support - power is too entrenched in DC. the same people have been ruling this country for generations.
if we abolished the Federal govt, all these giant corporations who hire politicians in DC to misuse our tax money would be fucked.
so instead of getting a few million people to vote for Nader or whoever, let's get a few million people to march into Washington DC, convert all the government buildings into historical museums and make the whole city a part of Maryland. i'm sure the Pentagon won't fight back against us... no no no... it'll be easy as pie, no doubt about it.
You dont need to divide the country. What we need is more viable parties that have a chance, which at this point we dont have. But other than that, we also have 2 parties that dont differ much. I think the solution would be for the democrats to quit acting like republican lites and actually have two opposing parties with different ideals and just duke it out, and stem real debate.
you say you wont vote for the green party cos they can never win then advocate dismantling the federal government? how is that any more realistic?
easy as pie! no doubt about it,
However, I think people really need to understand that voting and elections are not what drive change. Activism drives change. That'll always be 1000 times more important than voting. Every major change that has happened has come from organized public pressure on the government. It never came a politician who decided to change things.
activism doesnt drive change. lobbying does. it has to be focused, strategic, and consistent. this takes money. it's the chief source of my disenchantment with american liberalism. they're the ultimate add children. they cant pick a goal and work towards it, they have 19 goals and give half assed attention to them all... pursuing one until some OUTRAGEOUS offense occurs in another area then they scamper off to scream about that one, forgetting the other one and letting all the work on its behalf go to pot. there's no measured effort, it's completely reactive to perceived outrages, which makes it always seem scattered and confusing to anyone not on the inside. it's why the republicans are kicking the dems' asses. at least they know what they're getting with republicans. nobody's really sure what anyone on the left stands for anymore becos their message is so reactive instead of proactive.
Right, lobbying is organized activism...it's people organizing resources to work for whatever change they want to make.
That's just when I'm in doubt -- I actually do a bit of homework and look beyond the party affiliation. I've voted for candidates of all parties, i wish more people could say the same.
And I think we need a lot more choices than Coke and Pepsi. Third parties need our support.
Wow, now Lieberman is a piece of #$#% because he doesn't fall in line with your views? In hindsight I might add.
Clinton was revered by liberals and still is, and Lieberman is more like Clinton than anyone else that has run in the past two elections. You guys amaze me!
Vote your concience, if Democrats were worth electing you wouldn't want to elect anyone else. It is a market system and the market is demanding new ideas. Our problem is the corrupt control the 2 parties have over our government, and our government is US.
Democracy, eh?
naděje umírá poslední
I'm transformed!
well, what's left of it... ...and it wasn't much of a democracy to begin with.
yeah, you know, both plans are on the outer fringe of what's possible. much more idealistic than realistic.
so if i'm going to advocate one, I might as well advocate the one i like the best.
And maybe if people talk about it now, it may happen in 40 years. I'd love to spend my golden years in either the Second Vermont Republic or the Republic of Cascadia.
what are my views now? and did you know me back whenever?
Lieberman was more like clinton than anyone else to run in the past two elections? now how is that a good thing?
"Clinton was revered by liberals and still is", I'm not even gonna touch that one.
OK, I have to totally agree with this. So I would no longer say casting a vote to make a statement is a wasted vote, but a misused vote.
I would agree with that if you're in a swing state, because there your vote can actually make a difference. But if you're not in a swing state, then you really don't have a chance to affect the outcome. I'm not in a swing state, so I usually vote for Nader (or a 3rd party candidate) to make the statement that I'm against both republicans and democrats. If I were in a swing state, I would've voted for Kerry. When you're in a swing state, THEN it becomes a choice of 2 evils.
Right, and myself living in Massachusetts, I felt very comfortable voting Green, however if I had lived in Florida in 2000, I know I still would have voted for Nader. In 2004, I was less sure about voting that way and I'm not sure what I would have done if I had lived in a swing state... I didn't have to think too much about it.
This year we have what could be a very close governor's race. Since I'm registered independent now, I'm going to vote in the Democratic primary. Still haven't figured out which one of the 3 assholes I'm going to vote for. (I've pretty much ruled out Gabrieli, and now I'm split between Patrick and Reilly)
I haven't given up on trying to change things. I know the best way to change things is to change our government - but I don't think that can happen until people want to change it. I don't see much sense in running a campaign unless you know there's a chance of victory. So what I want to work for is spreading information to convince people there is a better way of organizing our societies. That might take awhile...
A good way to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming
...time to listen to some music on my headphones and forget all about it.
so first you decided to vote for the lesser of two evils and now you are learning to become apathetic, dude, you are quickly becoming the perfect American voter. Well as far as the "systems" concerned anyway.
Of course I say all that half jokingly knowing that you are a smart guy and know what's right and all that stuff.
im down with that. ive kinda wanted to die in a revolution ever since my irish history class...