For the most part-allowing for occasional lapses of taste-I don't write about politics, at least not about the horse-race aspects of which candidates are ahead, which will come out on top, which of their strategies did and didn't work, etc. I follow those matters with some interest but with a sense of detachment. I am not part of that process.
For one thing, there are plenty of other writers in the mainstream and gay press, and innumerable bloggers, television commentators and talk radio personalities who eagerly share their opinions and speculations. I doubt if I have anything new and significant to add, anything that some or all of them haven't already said.
So far as indicating a preference for one candidate over another, whether openly or between the lines, there hardly seems much point. To do that would be an exercise in egotism. I write for a limited-circulation newspaper. Nothing I write is going to affect the outcome of an election. Then too, I understand my job to be writing about gay issues, broadly conceived, and I figure that most people already know who the gay-supportive candidates are.
Nor do I have much enthusiasm for any of the candidates who are or have been running. They all have a few good points on gay or other issues and a large number of bad points: I generally tend to agree more with the criticism candidates make of one another than I do with the candidates themselves. The most that could be said of any of them is that they seem less bad than the others.
It is no secret that I am, on the whole, a libertarian, meaning that I view governments (city, state, federal) with deep suspicion. Government is a Borg, constantly grasping more power, more control, more of our money.
I am in favor of both economic and civil liberties. Economic liberties include lower taxes (for everyone), less government spending, and less government interference in the marketplace and our economic lives. Civil liberties include more freedom from government intrusion into our personal lives, free speech, personal privacy and property rights, abortion and drugs decriminalization. And this necessarily entails equal treatment of gays and heterosexuals.
None of the viable candidates believes anything like this. Which is not surprising because they are part of the government and have a vested interest in promising government policies using government power and government money (ultimately your tax money) for various constituencies.
So, I want there to be a line on the ballot that says "None of the Above." If that line got a majority, the parties would have to go back, find new policy packages and/or new candidates and try again in a second election in, say, three months. At the very least, "None of the Above" would be a safety valve for those of us who feel dissatisfied with the "choices" we are offered.
To be sure, there is the small Libertarian Party which espouses libertarian principles. And I have voted for its candidates pretty regularly in national elections since they first ran a candidate in 1972. The candidate that year was University of Southern California philosophy professor John Hospers who had just written a book called "Libertarianism." As I recall, he got about 6,000 votes nationwide.
I remember casting a write-in vote for Hospers that was almost not counted. A major-party election judge was about to throw out my ballot as a joke vote like Mickey Mouse when a friend of mine stepped in to explain that Hospers was a real candidate of a real party. Hospers also got one vote in the electoral college from a renegade Republican elector in Virginia.
People sometimes say, "But you're throwing away your vote. Don't you want your vote to count?" But I defy anyone to show me that their precious little vote made any difference in any election they have ever voted in. If it didn't, then their vote didn't "count" any more than mine did. They might as well have gone to Starbucks and had an espresso instead of voting.
In fact, we might say my vote "counted" more than theirs because my vote was a larger portion of the vote for the candidate I voted for than theirs was of the candidate they favored.
There you have it. I don't like the major-party candidates, so I vote Libertarian. Is that a protest vote? In a sense, yes. But, of course, I am also voting for what I believe. If I voted for "None of the Above" it wouldn't be clear what I was for. But "None of the Above" should be on the ballot for people to vote for if they aren't libertarian.
39 Comments for “None of the Above”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
While some might like to be able to vote “For None of the Above”, the gesture only serves to feed a cynical, bitter heart -something that is not consistent with the privilege to vote, to be engaged in our democracy, to work within each major political party for change and progress and to advocate candidates for office.
It’s unfortunate that you feel so disenfranchised from the political process that you’d choose to vote either Libertarian or None-of-the-Above… a choice without distinction, in my book.
Soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan make sure their participation in the political process counts -nearly 85% of them employed absentee ballots in the 2008 presidential primaries according to Pew. About 68% of non-resident federal employees stationed abroad do so in presidential election years (2004 was 69%, 2000 was 66%).
In a world where the daily headlines remind armchair American cynics that the privilege to vote is being fought for with real, true human sacrafice in a dozen countries –some alongside our military personnel– it seems strange that people who otherwise believe in the tenets of liberty, freedom and America’s promise would continue to treat the privilege to participate in the political process with such open disdain.
Maybe it’d be better for you and our democracy if armchair cynics like you stayed home? Frankly, something that is so fundamentally patriotic as voting should be treated so cynically by someone who purports to support liberty as a value, seems queer.
As a gay male, I first vote for the candidate who meets my concerns about nat’l security. Then I factor in issues about the economy. The third item I vector is how the candidate(s) apprises any special treatment for us gays.
It seems to me that Libertarians are tied up in knots trying to spin their special appreciation for liberty to the point where it reduces to simple silliness… like not voting or being able to vote for None of the Above.
When you offer: “But I defy anyone to show me that their precious little vote made any difference in any election they have ever voted in”… that smacks of contempt for our democratic process, institutions and values. Shame on you.
posted by LeBain on
“None of the above” is a failed Libertarian scorched-earth strategy. It reeks of ostrich-like, head-in-the-sand passive aggression. Someone has got to do the job. If voters don’t elect even a flawed choice, that leaves the policy decisions up to unelected, power-hungry civil servants.
There are only two reasons you may not like your choices on the ballot: you didn’t do enough work to get your candidate on the ballot, or you are so far out of the mainstream most of America does not agree with your reasoning.
posted by Bobby on
“There are only two reasons you may not like your choices on the ballot: you didn’t do enough work to get your candidate on the ballot, or you are so far out of the mainstream most of America does not agree with your reasoning.”
—Well, it’s not that simple. Some people vote out of principle, if Obama doesn’t win the nomination, some people will not bother voting for Hillary or anyone. Just like some republicans are not gonna vote because they don’t like McCain, maybe they’ll vote for Hillary instead. Voting is a choice, not a mandate or an obligation. If everyone was required to vote, imagine how screwed the country would be, imagine if people voted for Hillary because she’s a woman, or for Obama because he’s black, or for McCain because he was a POW. Yes, some people vote like that, some people vote for a name they like, even if they know nothing of the person, but they’re the minority because not everyone is required to vote. So let’s not criticize people who don’t vote, they’re doing democracy a favor.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bobby offers: “Well, it’s not that simple.”
Sure it is. You offer that voting in not an obligation. Since when? It is every citizen’s obligation as part of our democracy to be informed, get out and vote. It’s called a participatory democracy… and one of the long-standing tenets of our system is a shared goal of increasing voter participation.
Usually, people who don’t vote aren’t operating out of some aggrieved sense of opposition to the candidates or issues, they do it because they don’t believe their civic duty and sense of responsibility to society dicates their effort. Lazy, not principled is more like it.
And remember, nowhere in the US are there only presidential candidates on the general election ballot… if someone was not voting because of anger at the nominees or their parties, then what about the host of other candidates and issues on the ballot. I can understand someone not liking Senators Clinton, Obama or McCain… but I can’t understand that dislike becoming an excuse for shirking their civic obligation to vote.
Sometimes “simple” does answer it. Simply lazy explains it.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
MM: “It is every citizen’s obligation as part of our democracy to be informed, get out and vote. It’s called a participatory democracy…”
Hogwash, the USA is a Republic not a Democracy. It was never the intention of the founders to have an informed and voting majority of citizens, in fact the exact opposite is correct.
posted by Bobby on
“Sure it is. You offer that voting in not an obligation. Since when? It is every citizen’s obligation as part of our democracy to be informed, get out and vote. It’s called a participatory democracy… and one of the long-standing tenets of our system is a shared goal of increasing voter participation.”
—Where does it say in the constitution, bill of rights, or any of our laws, that we must vote and participate in our democracy? It doesn’t. This is America, you can choose to buy or not to buy a gun, you can choose to read or not read, to go to church or stay home, everything in this country is a choice. Even with the military there’s no draft, and you won’t find a single republican that supports a draft. However, liberals don’t always get that, in Florida they’re forcing students to particpate in community service in order to graduate. They don’t understand that when you’re forced to do something, you’re not volunteering.
And by the way, your vote doesn’t matter, it’s the electoral college that decides elections. Why? Because our precious founding fathers didn’t trust the majority, so they set up an elite to do the voting for us.
There’s more integrity in not voting when you don’t like any of your choices than voting when you don’t. It’s like my condo board elections, I just been given the names of 4 candidates, I haven’t seen their campaign fliers, they haven’t told me what they would do for me, so why should I vote?
I didn’t like who the GOP nominated, why should I reward him with a vote? And I also don’t like Hillary and Obama, although I admit Hillary is better than Obama. I could vote for a third party, but that would be a wasted vote, who cares about candidate X winning 0.025% of the vote? Look at Ralph Nader, he can’t win yet he keeps running, and probably getting our tax dollars to engage in his ego adventure.
Paying homage to South Park, between a “giant douche” and a “turd sandwitch” I would rather not vote.
posted by Karen on
“in Florida they’re forcing students to particpate in community service in order to graduate. They don’t understand that when you’re forced to do something, you’re not volunteering.”
That’s why it’s called “community service requirement”, not “volunteering requirement”.
Liberals aren’t as stupid as you wish they were. You may disagree that community service is an important part of public education, but don’t argue with strawmen.
For my part, I graduated from a private school in Florida and I don’t believe the community service was a requirement back then, anyway. I was required to perform 75 hours of community service in order to qualify for my lottery-sponsored scholarship to a state university, though. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Required community service is a learning experience: hopefully, kids will learn about the various volunteer options out there where their various talents are needed, and hopefully they will learn that unpaid work in the community can be a very rewarding experience. Learning experiences can be required of students.
posted by Bobby on
” I was required to perform 75 hours of community service in order to qualify for my lottery-sponsored scholarship to a state university, ”
—That’s different, if I want government welfare, I have to fill up forms. I understand that, but telling people you can’t graduate unless you perform community service is fascism, it’s what Hitler used to do in germany with young people.
“Liberals aren’t as stupid as you wish they were.”
“hopefully, kids will learn about the various volunteer options out there where their various talents are needed, and hopefully they will learn that unpaid work in the community can be a very rewarding experience”
—What about the people who are supposed to benefit from volunteers? Do you want homophobic kids helping AIDS patients? Do you want kids who hate the elderly working with old people? I’d rather deal with a happy volunteer than a grumpy volunteer. Who wants to work for Habitat for Humanity if you’re sorrounded by people who don’t want to be there?
I volunteered once for the JCC, I did secretarial duties and twice a week I saw old people come to a big room next to my office, sit down and sing songs. It was so depressing, and those people always sang the same crap, never anything different. Later on I voluntered for a theater and had to stuff envelopes all day long. This wasn’t my idea, my parents force me, it was their way of giving me money. I never enjoyed it, and I don’t think it’s fair to force people to volunteer. And before you tell me that life isn’t fair, let me remind you that part of living in a civilized society involved fair dealing. You pay for a hot dog, you get a hot dog, you drive at 60 m.p.h., you don’t get a speeding ticket. Forcing people to volunteer or “community service” for people who haven’t commited a crime and have no debt to pay to society, is patently unfair and un-American.
posted by LeBain on
High voter turnout for its own sake is a false goal. Voter apathy in a free democracy is a sign of a healty system, not a broken one. If a voter feels any of the candidates are qualified, why force him or her to cast a ballot? If a voter decides he hasn’t done enough research to make an informed decision on the right candidate, why should the choice an informed voter makes be diluted?
posted by Richard on
The first official election law reform issue posted on the IGF webpage and what is it about; none of the above.
If Americans want more viable choices, then they need to support campaign law reform; specifically a movement away from plurality-take-all voting method. A “None of the Above” option already exists; dont show up to the polls.
posted by Richard on
LeBrain;
I must kindly reject the ease at which you dismiss the problem of ballot access law. In many cases it is insanly difficult, expensive and complicated to qualify a non-major party candidate for one state, let alone fifty.
It is not a simple matter of people being to lazy to, “do enough work to get your candidate on the ballot.” Oftentimes the ‘work’ involved goes far beyond what would be reasonable to surve the legitmate state interest.
Instead, it would seem that it IS a matter of people being too lazy to work on campaign law reform issues. Heck, up until this point the IGF has totally ignored the issue and “none of the above” is something that gets peddled by people with little understanding of election law.
Baiscially it comes down to a question; do we want to have a two or a multi-party system. Agruably, America does not really have either. Specific laws, from elected legilsators, determine which voting method we choise.
How much of the failure of non-major party candidates is based on the simple notion that the voter-consumer does not ‘buy’ what the party offers is hard to say. Such candidates are often unfairly kept off the ballots, and out of debates.
While not a legal question, I have yet to find a consistent and reasonable standard among the mainstream media for dealing with non-major party candidates.
posted by Alpha on
‘Economic liberties include lower taxes (for everyone),’
‘Lower taxes’ aren’t any kind of ‘liberty.’
posted by KamatariSeta on
“” I understand that, but telling people you can’t graduate unless you perform community service is fascism, it’s what Hitler used to do in germany with young people.””
How, exactly, is it fascism? Schools make a number of other requirements to graduate, including a certain number of credits in various sorts of classes. Why is this so drastically different?
posted by Bobby on
“How, exactly, is it fascism? Schools make a number of other requirements to graduate, including a certain number of credits in various sorts of classes. Why is this so drastically different?”
—Because this takes place outside the classroom. What if I’m a bad student, and need the extra time to do my homework? What if my family and I have plans on the weekends? What if both my parents work and they can’t drive me to wherever I’m supposed to volunteer? The job of a student is to be a student, it’s not to plant trees, build houses, clean rooms, stuff envelopes or anything else not related to the classroom.
“‘Lower taxes’ aren’t any kind of ‘liberty.'”
—Actually, they are. Freedom is keeping the money you make instead of giving it to the government who didn’t earn it. A tax is a form of theft. When this country was founded, there was no income tax, no federal tax, no state tax, no death tax. When George Washington needed money, he would set up lotteries and let people play numbers, or he would take loans. When you tax people, they have less money, thus they can’t buy as many things, thus they can’t help the economy, much less themselves.
When I was employed, the government used to steal $300 from each paycheck. So they stole more than $6000 and now that I filed my taxes, I only got back $1000. I was working 50 to 80 hours a week, what the hell did the government do to earn my money? Nothing.
The government doesn’t need a 30% tax rate, they should be happy getting 10% or 5%. Talk to the europeans, in Belgium it’s common for people to go on welfare and take a black market job. It’s just like cigarrettes, because of tax lovers, they’ve become so expensive that now europeans also buy it in the black market, for a dollar instead of 10 dollars.
Tax = death. High taxes destroy economies and create a population that expects the government to take care of them. Look at germany where the elderly march protesting for bigger government pensions. Look at England where cogestion taxes have forced Londoners to travel in expensive overcrowded subways. Ireland on the other hand, has very low taxes, which is why their economy is booming.
posted by KamatariSeta on
“”Because this takes place outside the classroom. What if I’m a bad student, and need the extra time to do my homework? What if my family and I have plans on the weekends? What if both my parents work and they can’t drive me to wherever I’m supposed to volunteer? The job of a student is to be a student, it’s not to plant trees, build houses, clean rooms, stuff envelopes or anything else not related to the classroom.””
That just means, if anything, it’s irrelevant to school, and even that is debatable. But I fail to see how it’s “fascism”.
posted by lubyrone80 on
Awe LGBT always stand in one line. “We do support each other to get more rights just as equal as others..” said on the forum of http://www.bimingle.com Anyway, we will get and learn more from it. Hope the world is beautiful for LGBT too.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
CP offers: “Hogwash, the USA is a Republic not a Democracy.”
America is a democracy, CP, and you know it. Democracies in the world take many forms… republic, etc. Iraq may even get to add one day a new democracy to the list, ie “Sharia Democracy”, if the Cut&Run crowd doesn’t win in November.
Just like Winston Churchill called Britain “Europe’s last great bastion of democracy” even though it was a parlimentary-constitutional monarchy FORM OF GOVT. It was still a democracy.
Your weak attempt to discredit the postulate that Americans have an obligation to engage the electoral process fails. It is a civic duty. You and the other None-of-the-above types owe that participation to society just on the simple basis of how much you complain forever and ever about how bad the system is in your cynical, jaundiced eyes.
Now, that’s not hogwash.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
MM: “Your weak attempt to discredit the postulate that Americans have an obligation to engage the electoral process fails. It is a civic duty. You and the other None-of-the-above types owe that participation to society just on the simple basis of how much you complain forever and ever about how bad the system is in your cynical, jaundiced eyes.”
What? Where have I ever said that I don’t participate in elections? Are you denying that the USA is a Republic? Do you even know how our system of government works? I think you need to take a civics refresher course. Hell, take a course in the history of American jurisprudence while your at it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
If that wasn’t silly enough, CP went on to add “It was never the intention of the founders to have an informed and voting majority of citizens, in fact the exact opposite is correct.”
Well, if by majority of citizens you mean every adult (slave or free, male or female) living in the US in 1776-1787, then I’d agree. If you are using the term “citizen” the way the Framers and Founders used it -to generally mean white males with property- then you’re WRONG again.
The Framers & Founders spent an inordinate amount of time trying to inform the citizens of our young democracy about the key issues of the day.
Do the “Federalist Papers” ring a bell? How about all the pro-federalist and anti-Confederation broadsides published during the period? Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Adams, George Clinton, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry and others spent their careers trying to “inform” the majority of citizens about the issues of the day.
Your 21stC backward looking claims are utter hogwash, CP. Maybe a little time spent reading Russell Kirk’s “Roots of the American Order” should be on your ToDoList. If you don’t have the time to think while reading, then just read Tindall’s “Culture of the Constitution”.
But don’t ever try to claim something as silly as the F&Fs weren’t interested in cultivating and nuturing an informed citizenry.
Through most of the 19thC, America enjoyed voter turnouts for Prez elections in the upper 70-80%. Nawh, no one had the sense of civic duty in voting. Nawh, no one thought it was a democracy. Nawh, voters weren’t informed by leaders, parties and the press. Nawh.
posted by Karen on
“Because this takes place outside the classroom.”
So does homework. So does research for projects, which for some students would involve going to a library, which also requires transportation and free time.
Part of the job of a student is to balance the various demands on her time. There are enough community service opportunities (even at her own school) that plans with family, study time, lack of transportation, part time jobs, etc should not prevent a student from being able to meet the requirement. And if the student is having trouble graduating because of the requirement, there are guidance counselors and school staff whose job it is to find a way to help her.
There is also plenty of choice in what the student does – they don’t have to work with AIDS patients if they don’t want to, for crying out loud. It’s not assigned like that. That’s the beauty of it – the student has to think about what her talents and interests are as relate to community service.
Community service is not a strictly academic pursuit, and the argument could be made that it doesn’t belong as a graduation requirement. The same argument can be made for requiring classes in the arts, life management, health, etc. But most people realize that a well-rounded education includes things other than the classical academics.
Fascism? Get over it – you’re wrong. I’m sorry you had a bad experience with community service. I volunteered, even before I knew about the Bright Futures requirement, with the MS society – helping out with my aunt during their weekend fundraiser events. It was very rewarding and fun, and I still do it on occasion.
Exposing students, as part of the curricula, to the idea of selfless public service: the new fascism. Ha.
Do you like Israel? Do you think their required army service is fascist?
posted by ColoradpPatriot on
MM: “Your 21stC backward looking claims are utter hogwash, CP. Maybe a little time spent reading Russell Kirk’s “Roots of the American Order” should be on your ToDoList. If you don’t have the time to think while reading, then just read Tindall’s “Culture of the Constitution”.”
Done and done. I fail to grasp your point MM, what exactly is your argument here.
Since you brought them up, The Federalist Papers were near-failures if the intention was to inform the majority citizenry on the importance of ratification (which was going to happen with or without the Papers.) They were published for citizens around New York and weren’t widely read outside of that area (not to say that they weren’t distributed.) I would say that the Anti-Federalist Papers are of more importance historically speaking then the Federalist Papers.
MM: “But don’t ever try to claim something as silly as the F&Fs weren’t interested in cultivating and nuturing an informed citizenry.”
Regardless of how you feel, I will…the FF were not interested in cultivating a majority of the citizenry as educated voters. If they were, why would they set up the government as a Republic? What evidence do you have to the contrary?
posted by KamatariSeta on
Yeah, I’m still not seeing how this constitutes “fascism”.
posted by Alpha on
Bobby,
‘Freedom is keeping the money you make instead of giving it to the government who didn’t earn it.’
That is not what lower taxes mean. Lower levels of taxation are still taxation.
posted by Bobby on
“That is not what lower taxes mean. Lower levels of taxation are still taxation.”
—True, but change has to be gradual. You can cut taxes from 30 to 0, but you can take it to 20, then 15, then 10, until it’s 0.
Karen,
“There are enough community service opportunities (even at her own school) that plans with family, study time, lack of transportation, part time jobs, etc should not prevent a student from being able to meet the requirement.”
—My argument is that it should not be a requirement. There are some things I don’t believe a student should be forced to do. One is mandatory physical education, because it often involves trauma and ridicule from other students. The other is community service. You disagree because if something is “good” for society, you probably support it. I happen to believe that doing “good” for society at the expense of individual desires, is fascism. How would you feel if President Bush decided that you can’t drive your car on mondays? That monday is gonna be clean air day, and you’re gonna have to take public transportation.
“Do you like Israel? Do you think their required army service is fascist?”
—Actually, you can get out of military service in Israel if a psychologist writes that you’d be dangerous for the army, if you don’t fit certain health realities, or if you’re a very religious person and think that might interfere with military duties. I know one person who did it. Israel also has equality in the military, women and gays are allowed to serve. So in their case, I don’t think military service is fascist. I also believe that since Israel is a socialist democracy, there are different standards and expectations.
Right now we’re discussing fascism in America, America is the country where the individual is supposed to be above the state, where people in government are called “public servants,” which means they’re there to serve you, not for you to serve them, where women have the right to have abortions and you can get together with a bunch of redneck friends, form a militia, and unless you hurt somebody, the government is not supposed to touch you.
However, fascism is creeping into this great country. That’s why I started
http://freedomphobia.blogspot.com/
My blog about fascism in America and the world.
posted by John Piccone on
For those who have condemned not voting, being lazy, responsibility to vote, etc. Voting “none of the above” is, in fact, voting. It’s your responsibility to vote, and registering your lack of approval of any of the candidates is discharging that responsibility.
posted by Brian Miller on
Paul, it’s no surprise that old-party partisans have rushed out to pour their scorn on you.
You expect a politician to EARN your vote? You idiot!
You want to vote for a candidate who matches your views! You’re ARROGANT!
You want the option not to vote for either of the big-government, PATRIOT Act supporting, Iraq War funding, anti-gay law supporting big party politicians? THAT’S A SCORCHED EARTH POLICY!
You see no difference between a Democrat who votes for an anti-gay law and a Republican who votes for the same anti-gay law? YOU’RE IGNORANT!
There is a better choice for voters. Vote for the candidate who best represents your views. Your loyalty is not to a party, or to the legions of old-party bullies who will blame Nader voters for a Bush victory (rather than Al Gore’s laughable campaign).
George Phillies is the candidate I am supporting. I will work to ensure he’s the Libertarian nominee and I will proudly cast my vote for him because he has earned it. He has stood against the Iraq War consistently (unlike Obama, Clinton and McCain, who either voted to start the war or voted to continue increasing funding of it). He stands for marriage equality (unlike Obama, Clinton and McCain). He stands for paying down the national debt (unlike Obama, Clinton and McCain).
If Obama, Clinton or McCain want my support, they can earn it by supporting those goals. Of course, they won’t — they’ll continue sending us careening down a path towards bankruptcy, spending like money is limitless. And all the while, their supporters will insist it’s the Libertarians, Greens, Independents and write-ins who are “deluded” and “harming the country.”
posted by htmry on
According to the investigation from http://www.bimatching.com, The Netherlands, South Africa, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain are the gayest countries. Not sure if true.
posted by Jim on
Hear, hear! Thanks Paul.
posted by Richard on
It is no surprise that minor-party partisans have rushed out to pour scorn on the reality. They would rather pretend that we had a different electoral system, then actually work on real campaign law reform initiatives.
America is a unique two-party system. Minor party candidates have had some limited success at the local/state level, but federal office remains the playground of the two major parties. Why? Election law, Election law, Election law.
Ballot access law, campaign finance law, debate inclusion, and pluraity-take-all voting method are all laws. They are enacted by elected lawmakers and ensure that political participation outside of the two major parties is without meaning.
If we hope to change such laws we will need to perusade elected lawmakers to change them, which almost always means Democrats or Republicans. The bottom line? If you want more meaningful choices then support campaign law reform interest groups.
America has made numerous changes to our electoral process since the time of the colonists or the founding fathers. We can still do so.
Paul, it’s no surprise that old-party partisans have rushed out to pour their scorn on you.
You expect a politician to EARN your vote? You idiot!
You want to vote for a candidate who matches your views! You’re ARROGANT!
You want the option not to vote for either of the big-government, PATRIOT Act supporting, Iraq War funding, anti-gay law supporting big party politicians? THAT’S A SCORCHED EARTH POLICY!
You see no difference between a Democrat who votes for an anti-gay law and a Republican who votes for the same anti-gay law? YOU’RE IGNORANT!
There is a better choice for voters. Vote for the candidate who best represents your views. Your loyalty is not to a party, or to the legions of old-party bullies who will blame Nader voters for a Bush victory (rather than Al Gore’s laughable campaign).
George Phillies is the candidate I am supporting. I will work to ensure he’s the Libertarian nominee and I will proudly cast my vote for him because he has earned it. He has stood against the Iraq War consistently (unlike Obama, Clinton and McCain, who either voted to start the war or voted to continue increasing funding of it). He stands for marriage equality (unlike Obama, Clinton and McCain). He stands for paying down the national debt (unlike Obama, Clinton and McCain).
If Obama, Clinton or McCain want my support, they can earn it by supporting those goals. Of course, they won’t — they’ll continue sending us careening down a path towards bankruptcy, spending like money is limitless. And all the while, their supporters will insist it’s the Libertarians, Greens, Independents and write-ins who are “deluded” and “harming the country.”
posted by Richard on
Agruebably one of the reasons that voter turn out might have been higher was tied up with one particular area of election law; ballot access.
For the first 20 – 30 years of colonial and republican elections, their were NO PAPER BALLOTS. Candidates self-nominated and were chosen by oral expression (1st Amendment) or a show of hands.
The first paper ballots were voter created write-ins, which slowly evolved into each political party printing up and distributing its own colorful ballots.
The secret ballot slowly came to America in the late 19th century, from down under, and has been misued to effectively kill off third parties.
posted by Karen on
“You disagree because if something is “good” for society, you probably support it. I happen to believe that doing “good” for society at the expense of individual desires, is fascism.
You overstate your case – I do not, in fact, support anything I think is “good” for society over individual liberty.
There is no requirement that every individual receive a high school diploma from a public school. If you do not wish to perform community service, or attend P.E., and it either is a requirement for high school graduation, you are free to not graduate, to get your GED instead, or to attend a private school, or (in most states) home school.
There are certain requirements for graduating from a public high school – you must have met the standards the state has set for that level of education. Good citizenship and fitness (along with the arts, health, life skills, etc) are valid parts of an education even if they are not classic academia. The state should be free to include some experience in those as graduation requirements.
I understand your aversion to fascism, but community service requirements for graduation from publicly funded schools are not fascism any more than math requirements are.
posted by Bobby on
” If you do not wish to perform community service, or attend P.E., and it either is a requirement for high school graduation, you are free to not graduate, to get your GED instead, or to attend a private school, or (in most states) home school.”
—Now you sound like the conservatives. “If you want to get married, you can marry someone of the opposite sex. If you want to serve in the military, you can keep your sexual orientation in the closet. If you don’t want to get gay bashed, don’t be obvious.”
You’re right in the sense that everything in life has certain requirements.
However, I disagree with this sizist statement:
“Good citizenship and fitness (along with the arts, health, life skills, etc) are valid parts of an education”
—So called “fitness” has nothing to do with “good citizenship.” There’s nothing wrong with exercize when it’s voluntary. Kids can play during recess and burn a few calories, they don’t need to be regimented like Aushwitzs prisoners and be forced to do sit-ups, pushups, and the like.
While fitness education is evolving, it has historically been demeaning to people, ridiculing them both in locker rooms and in public. My personal trainer believes most Americans don’t exercize because they had a horrible time with PE when they where kids.
I would also argue that it’s the role of the parents to teach “good citizenship.” Schools get in trouble when they try to impose political viewpoints, such as those schools that show the Al Gore’s global warming movie lie.
“I understand your aversion to fascism”
—Glad you do. Have a nice day.
posted by Karen on
Parallel sentence structure does not imply parallel logic.
Each of the alternatives I gave to a high school diploma is a real, valid, reasonable alternative that still allows the excercise of the fundamental right to an education and does not interfere with your freedom in any way.
“Not being obvious” is neither an effective way nor a reasonable or enforceable way to exercise one’s right not to be bashed.
There is no “right” to serve in the military – the problem is it’s just pretty stupid to deny or kick out qualified people because they’re openly gay.
And the fundamental right to marriage, as established in Loving, involves the right to choose your partner, as long as they meet some basic requirements. Of course, gender oppositeness could be considered a requirement, until you realize that the equal protection clause and accompanying jurisprudence forbid the use of gender – even gender relative to someone else’s – as the deciding factor in legal decisions unless there’s a damn good reason. And there is no damn good reason.
No such problems exist with the alternatives to a public high school diploma.
I didn’t say that good citizenship and fitness were related. Where did you get that? The good citizenship I’m referring to is community service.
Nor is fitness necessarily related to size. I know fit big people and unfit thin people – don’t you? Fitness is an unalloyed good. Slenderness isn’t. Your trainer sounds like an idiot. People don’t exercise because they are lazy, and because exercise is hard, and because they don’t realize that it doesn’t have to involve gyms, trainers, and special equipment. I’m sorry that you were picked on in P.E., but there are other ways of addressing that than forbidding physical education.
Good citizenship – in the form of community service – isn’t political in the slightest. Unless you subscribe to the politics of evil selfishness? Where serving the community is a bad thing?
Step away from the Ayn Rand.
posted by Bobby on
“Your trainer sounds like an idiot.”
I lost 40 pounds with that “idiot.” So I wouldn’t call him that.
People don’t exercise because they’re intimidated by the fitness culture, the mirrors in gyms, the beautiful people, the bad advice, the dirty looks, etc.
I was lucky to discover http://www.fitnesstogether.com It’s an entirely new attitude, a private gym with one trainer, one client, one goal.
That’s where I learned that fitness is personal. Americans have the wrong mentality, they think fitness is a public issue. They have stupid shows on TV like “The biggest loser.” People simply have no shame. Maybe we gays should have our own show, “The biggest penis.” If we’re going to treat people like objects, we might as well do it fully.
posted by Karen on
Your trainer believes that most people would totally exercise all the time if it hadn’t been for P.E. classes, right?
Fitness is personal… so are your finances. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be taught valuable skills like how to write checks and balance your checkbook and create a balanced budget – like I learned in 7th grade social sciences and 10th grade Life Management.
You’re getting all worked up over nothing, and I can see it’s because of this personal issue you had. I lost 20 lbs – for a short girl like me, that’s a large percentage of body weight – without your trainer, your program, or their “insight” into why I wasn’t exercising before. Just so you know. Different things work for different people, but it’s not ridiculous to teach children how to do many different kinds of exercise, to have them PRACTICE and learn what it means to exercise and why it’s important. It’s supposed to be physical EDUCATION, not physical WORKOUT – the education should be the imporant part. I don’t know that a particularly good job is being done with that, but that doesn’t mean that P.E. is fascist.
For what it’s worth, I think the Biggest Loser is an awful show. But I don’t think it’s some kind of sign. For some people, maybe it’s helpful to be public with their journey. Hence, Weight Watchers support groups, diet buddies, and online weight loss/fitness communities.
posted by Karen on
I also don’t see how the Biggest Loser treats people like objects or is anything like The Biggest Penis. I think you’re veering off into crazytown there.
P.S. I really didn’t mean any disrepect to your trainer – I don’t seriously think he’s an idiot, I just think that particular “insight” is ridiculous. People don’t exercise for many reasons – mostly because it’s work, and it takes time they’d rather spend doing something else. Blaming it on a traumatic P.E. experience just sounds like an excuse.
I’m disappointed that that particular line is the only one in my response that you addressed 🙁
posted by DailyDishReader on
Obama’s Open Letter To Gay Americans…
“As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples ? whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”
Pretty interesting reading at http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/obamas-open-let.html
posted by Brian Miller on
Agruebably one of the reasons that voter turn out might have been higher was tied up with one particular area of election law; ballot access.
Richard ETJB keeps repeating this canard — but it’s inaccurate at best.
In the presidential election, which Paul was writing about, both the Libertarian and Green parties will have candidates on almost every state’s ballot.
The idea that people shouldn’t cast a vote for one of their candidates due to ballot access is therefore completely laughable. Both parties will offer almost universal ballot access for the presidency.
While it’s true that ballot access is often a problem for state and federal offices apart from president, that’s also far from a universal problem. Third party and independent candidates are often on the ballot, and are perfectly capable of winning elected offices, as over 1,200 elected Green and Libertarian officeholders nationwise prove.
The Democratic Party that Richard ETJB supports has been a major driver of voter disenfranchisement. It has worked tirelessly to create higher barriers to entry in Pennsylvania for Libertarians and Greens (both official parties) than Democrats and Republicans for the same races. It also sued to stop a Green candidate for running for Senate, and Democrats like Barack Obama are working tirelessly to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan from the ill-named “Democratic” primary process.
If you give them your vote due to these shenanigans and buy into the same old excuses, you’re saying that their misdeeds are A-OK.
posted by Richard on
Brian/MM;
Ballot access plays a direct role in the number of candidates on the ballot, and thus impacts both the rights of voters and candidates.
To suggest that ballot access is not a civil liberties issue and not relevent factor in voter turnout, shows how little you know about voting rights and election law reform issues. Shame on you!
Simply getting on the election ballot does not make you – as a candidate or party – a meaningful choice.
We use the winner-take-all pluraity voting method in America as does every other two-party nation. Nations that use this voting method tends to offer voters only two meaningful choices.
We been using this voting method, with few exceptions, since the time of the founding fathers. They used it because that was all they knew, and we continue to use it, because voters have expressed little interest in alternative voting methods.
The Federal Constitution does not provide a right of citizens to vote, or to be a candidate and its pretty vague on the whole subject of political organizations.
It has been a LONG TIME since a third party launched a Congressional campaign in every single district, and even longer since a non-major party won a single Electoral College vote.
Few of the third party people whom actually hold office are federal, most tend to be very local, even non-partisan officers.
Again, I make no claim to be a Democratic party member or this “ETJB” person that you seem to be rather obsessed about (Whats the matter? Did he forget your birthday?)
If you are serious about election law reform, then you would be involved in interest groups such as Fair Vote or COFE. Their is a reason why the NRA and the AARP get taken seriously in Washington DC.
One of the biggest obstcles to election law reform in this nation Democrats and Repulicans do not have much reason to believe that voters care about these types of issues.
Not when the major election law reform interest groups get little or no support. Not when people like Nader care more raising money to run for office, then raising money for election law reform.