Time to look at Independents? (voters, Congress, generations, patriot) - Elections - City-Data Forum

MissingAll4Seasons · 09-15-2008, 07:12 PM

Right up front, I'll admit that I'm not the most politically aware person. I don't religiously follow the campaign speeches and debates or anything like that. I generally try to avoid political discussions; but got roped into one yesterday by friends - one is very Rep Conservative, another is very Dem Liberal, and one is somewhere in between and borders on Libertarian. I didn't contribute much to the conversation, but I sure did listen to what they were saying... and what they were NOT saying, in defense of their prefered candidates.

To be honest, the whole conversation scared the hell out of me because I see some major flaws in the positions of both major parties this time around. I think both tickets have some good ideas, but this year it seems (to me at least) that some of the bad ideas far outweigh the good. Both parties are advocating positions that are in direct conflict with upholding the Constition and our Civil Liberties -- just in different ways and for different reasons.

I know I can't be the only person who sees this. So, I'm wondering if maybe this is the year that more people will seriously consider one of the Independent candidates? As far as I could tell researching today, it looks like only 4 candidates are on the ballot in the majority of states (but none in every state): Charles Baldwin (Constitution Party), Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), Ralph Nader (Independent Party), and Robert Barr (Libertarian Party).

I know that Nader has been marginalized year after year... but some of his views make sense, especially given today's economic news. The other candidates also have some interesting positions, including some that align with the majority candidates' "hot topics" (lots of seemingly little "r" Republicans and little "d" Democratics in the mix).

I'm hoping this doesn't become another flame war; but I'm really interested whether anyone is considering/starting to consider any of these candidates? If so, why? If not, why not?

walidm · 09-15-2008, 07:37 PM

Personally I've watched Senator Obama and Congressman Paul the closest. As an Independent looking at the Republicans this year was just toxic from the start. Senator McCain has "evolved" so much from the past...where does one start. Their rants and raves regarding "big Government" are so disingenuous and fundamentally flawed it just wasn't even worth it. Perhaps one day when they return to the mantra of "limited" Government, fiscal responsibility, and intellectual honesty I'll reconsider turning that doorknob. The Libertarians are among my favorite form of representation but until the mantra can be progressed to a platform that recognizes the changes the Nation has undergone and is adjusted accordingly, I'm sticking with the Dems this trip.

Ultimately you're doing the right thing if you're seeking to inform yourself. It is what the Founders intended and thus, you are performing your Patriotic duty - which in layman's terms mean you're supposed to be doing this, because the rest of us are depending on you to become informed.

Slogging through tis place amy not sway you one way or another, but I can almost gaurantee you'll walk away more informed.

scorp200 · 09-15-2008, 07:40 PM

I think you have a great point, actually.

I'm still bitter about Nader's effect on prior elections.

I know very little about Barr - I guess I feel like a vote for a third party is basically a vote for McCain (at least, a vote against Obama) and I don't want to chance that.

It would be great if there were a viable third party candidate...would take lots of money to get them positioned...I think Bloomberg had a shot if he'd taken the chance.

MissingAll4Seasons · 09-15-2008, 07:53 PM

I'm not a big fan of "Big Government" but I'm equally not a big fan of "Big Business". I'm not a big fan of the government telling me what I can and can't do on a personal level... but I do see the need for Federal gov't to make sure the State gov't doesn't impose unconstitutional laws on it's peoples. It's just not enough for the candidates to brush their hands and say "we'll just let the States deal with it"... they have to support upholding the rights and liberties set forth in the Constitution (even if they personally disagree with one of those rights -- like the right to bear arms, or the right to religious freedom).

MissingAll4Seasons · 09-15-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorp200

I'm still bitter about Nader's effect on prior elections.

You have to admire the guy's tenacity though! He just keeps on trying and has spent decades researching and planning his position and ideas. Seems like maybe he was just a bit ahead of his time and previous public opinion is working against him now that the tides of social consciousness have started to turn?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorp200

I know very little about Barr - I guess I feel like a vote for a third party is basically a vote for McCain (at least, a vote against Obama) and I don't want to chance that.

That's one of the reasons I'm really in favor of the "run-off" election process... that way voters get to rate/prioritize the candidates. If their first choice is eliminated, their second choice gets counted, and so on until there is a clear majority winner. That definitely feels safer than this "one shot" system we have now. At least we could say "I'd really like X to be president, but if they don't make it, B is the next best... and I really don't want N in office, so they go last." It's really the best solution if they won't let you vote against a candidate instead of always for a candidate.... basically saying that you don't care who wins as long as it isn't that person! Wouldn't that be a kick if all the against votes were actually deducted from the for votes?

Of course, since the Presidential election isn't a direct election, it doesn't really matter much... the Electoral College will just do whatever it wants anyway (yes, I do believe it's a corrupt system).

camping! · 09-15-2008, 08:22 PM

The first thing that has to happen before a third party becomes viable, is that the people have got to give up their loyalty to a party. People must wake up and admit that their party (whichever it is) has sold them down the river for the love of special interests in whatever form it may have taken. Sadly, I know too many people who are actually proud that they can say my family has voted X for 3-4-5 generations.
The onus is on the voter to actually create change, but sadly most of us are happy being swept along with the cult of personality. Drinking kool aid, indeed.

MissingAll4Seasons · 09-15-2008, 08:26 PM

I think the exclusion of Independents from presidential debates and the expenses/difficulties of securing ballot space in each state, and just generally the huge expense of campaigning make it very difficult for the Independents to get their message out. If Barr or Nader had been out in the public eye like the Dem & Rep candidates, maybe more voters would have had that moment of epiphany a whole lot earlier. But no, special interest groups buy their candidates with "campaign donations" and we only get to hear them... all the Independents are gagged from the get-go.

pirate girl · 09-15-2008, 08:33 PM

I worry that a vote for a third party candidate is a waste. Over the years I've found myself voting more against someone I don't want in charge more than I vote for the other candidate.

I also think the electoral college is ridiculous. A person should win by popular vote.

calmdude · 09-15-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camping!

The first thing that has to happen before a third party becomes viable, is that the people have got to give up their loyalty to a party. People must wake up and admit that their party (whichever it is) has sold them down the river for the love of special interests in whatever form it may have taken. Sadly, I know too many people who are actually proud that they can say my family has voted X for 3-4-5 generations.
The onus is on the voter to actually create change, but sadly most of us are happy being swept along with the cult of personality. Drinking kool aid, indeed.

The 3rd party needs to start small - perhaps get a few seats and become the swing vote. It cannot start big by aiming to put someone in the WHouse. With the way the lobbyists have tied up both sides, democracy has become almost a sham. I would love to see a middle-of-the-road fiscally conservative, socially liberal party to start.

MissingAll4Seasons · 09-15-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pirate girl

I also think the electoral college is ridiculous. A person should win by popular vote.

You'd think with all the advances in our telecommunications, it wouldn't be so difficult to count and tally individual votes eliminating the need for the electoral college altogether. Heck, put controversial legislation through national referendum while we're at it!!