Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama

[Deleted]

Sept 26, 2012 15:36:48 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:35:44 GMT -5 elle said:

I think it's easier to take over a major party's platform than it is to run a successful third party. JMO, nothing to back it up.

that's ok. I won't demand a citation. ;D There isn't one out there anyway since this has never happened in the US system.

Except in 2010.

[doctordonna]

Sept 26, 2012 15:30:11 GMT -5 EllieArroway said:

I don't think we can get a viable 3rd party at the national level unless we get rid of our FPTP voting system & switch to something like a preferential/ranked system. Until then I won't be voting 3rd party in national elections because IMO it's a waste (even though my vote is a waste in this state anyway).

This is where I am and it bugs me a lot. My state doesn't matter in the big picture. I have a hard time voting for Obama just to ensure Romney won't get the win. That seems more like a wasted vote to me than voting 3rd party.

[heightsyankee]

Sept 26, 2012 15:40:56 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:34:43 GMT -5 elle said:

I know, but so do most republicans. Seriously, if Paul had not been so old, crazy, and inconsistent, he might have gotten some momentum.

Libertarian isolationists and Republican war mongers/defense spenders will never reconcile, and this is too big a component of both parties to skirt.

And Libertarians would be totes fine with gay marriage and abortion rights and also believe in the separation of church and state.

[heyjude]

Sept 26, 2012 15:49:41 GMT -5 doctordonna said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:30:11 GMT -5 EllieArroway said:

I don't think we can get a viable 3rd party at the national level unless we get rid of our FPTP voting system & switch to something like a preferential/ranked system. Until then I won't be voting 3rd party in national elections because IMO it's a waste (even though my vote is a waste in this state anyway).

This is where I am and it bugs me a lot. My state doesn't matter in the big picture. I have a hard time voting for Obama just to ensure Romney won't get the win. That seems more like a wasted vote to me than voting 3rd party.

It's only a wasted if you think a Romney WH is something you can live with.

[heightsyankee]

Sept 26, 2012 15:41:12 GMT -5 elle said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:36:48 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

that's ok. I won't demand a citation. ;D There isn't one out there anyway since this has never happened in the US system.

Except in 2010.

I assume you're talking about the Tea Party?

[doctordonna]

Sept 26, 2012 15:51:23 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:49:41 GMT -5 doctordonna said:

This is where I am and it bugs me a lot. My state doesn't matter in the big picture. I have a hard time voting for Obama just to ensure Romney won't get the win. That seems more like a wasted vote to me than voting 3rd party.

It's only a wasted if you think a Romney WH is something you can live with.

Well, not really. By the time the polls close here, the race is usually over. My vote will not matter.

[eclaires]

Sept 26, 2012 15:50:50 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:40:56 GMT -5 IIOY said:

Libertarian isolationists and Republican war mongers/defense spenders will never reconcile, and this is too big a component of both parties to skirt.

And Libertarians would be totes fine with gay marriage and abortion rights and also believe in the separation of church and state.

ahem, Goldwater Republicans. Just sayin'.

[heightsyankee]

Sept 26, 2012 15:52:46 GMT -5 doctordonna said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:51:23 GMT -5 heyjude said:

It's only a wasted if you think a Romney WH is something you can live with.

Well, not really. By the time the polls close here, the race is usually over. My vote will not matter.

Maybe but the way some candidates like to claim "MANDATE" after the election, I do think every vote counts. Even if it doesn't make a difference in the electoral votes, it makes a difference in the way they can talk about the election.

[heyjude]

Sept 26, 2012 15:52:46 GMT -5 doctordonna said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:51:23 GMT -5 heyjude said:

It's only a wasted if you think a Romney WH is something you can live with.

Well, not really. By the time the polls close here, the race is usually over. My vote will not matter.

Poll data is not supposed to be released until after all polls close so we don't have the media calling the race before half the country voted (eg 2000).

[Deleted]

Sept 26, 2012 15:51:39 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:41:12 GMT -5 elle said:

Except in 2010.

I assume you're talking about the Tea Party?

Yes.

But, also, historically, at some point someone wrested the Democratic Party out of the hands of people who thought discrimination was OK. So parties have been really, really, really wrong before and still been taken over.

[heightsyankee]

Sept 26, 2012 15:55:26 GMT -5 elle said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:51:39 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

I assume you're talking about the Tea Party?

Yes.

But, also, historically, at some point someone wrested the Democratic Party out of the hands of people who thought discrimination was OK. So parties have been really, really, really wrong before and still been taken over.

I don't think the Tea Party really overtook the Republicans. People who are called TPers still ran as Reps. And now a couple years later their influence is seriously waining, so, again, not a take over IMO.

[doctordonna]

Sept 26, 2012 15:55:26 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:52:46 GMT -5 doctordonna said:

Well, not really. By the time the polls close here, the race is usually over. My vote will not matter.

Poll data is not supposed to be released until after all polls close so we don't have the media calling the race before half the country voted (eg 2000).

The media called the win at just after 8 PM PST in 2008. The polls in AK and HI hadn't closed yet and our polls had just closed. Like, minutes before.

I remember because it was my birthday and I was standing outside watching everyone pouring out of houses and having an impromptu street party.

[ESF]

I am not of the camp that blames Nader for Gore's loss. Mostly, I blame Gore for Gore's loss, with a healthy dose of blame for the electoral college, the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris.

I am sure that there were many people who voted for Gore who would have stayed home were they not afraid that Ralph Nader would spoil it. I'm sure there are many people who voted for Nader who would not have voted at all had Nader not been on the ballot. During that campaign season, I knew someone who advised Gore on his campaign strategy with respect to a certain demographic, and her take was that Nader's presence and threat forced Gore to be a better candidate. Was she right? Who knows. It's certainly a plausible enough theory for me to avoid placing the blame solely on Nader.

I do agree that the way to have a third party is to focus on local elections and things like Congressional races, and build support from the bottom up, and the Green Party hasn't done enough of this. But I also think that if you don't like the direction your party is taking, sometimes giving them the middle finger helps.

When you look at the 2004 primary campaign, in which Howard Dean (and arguably John Edwards too) got a significant amount of press and momentum, I do think part of that was in response to Nader's strength in 2000, and the realization of certain Democrats that we need a non-establishment Democrat. Then that brought us to 2006, when Dean got the Dems back the House and Senate, and 2008, when we got Obama. Despite how you feel about his presidency, his campaign was less-DNC establishment than any before it. I'm not convinced those things would have happened were it not for a wake up call among Democratic strategists that they were losing a portion of their base to Nader.

[heyjude]

Sept 26, 2012 15:57:44 GMT -5 doctordonna said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:55:26 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Poll data is not supposed to be released until after all polls close so we don't have the media calling the race before half the country voted (eg 2000).

The media called the win at just after 8 PM PST in 2008. The polls in AK and HI hadn't closed yet and our polls had just closed. Like, minutes before.

I remember because it was my birthday and I was standing outside watching everyone pouring out of houses and having an impromptu street party.

Well my memory could be failing me but this was supposedly an agreement between the networks not to call an election before voting finishes.

If the media called the election after 8 in your state and your polls closed at 8, your vote wasn't suppressed. AK and HI though...not cool!

[Deleted]

Sept 26, 2012 15:56:50 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:55:26 GMT -5 elle said:

Yes.

But, also, historically, at some point someone wrested the Democratic Party out of the hands of people who thought discrimination was OK. So parties have been really, really, really wrong before and still been taken over.

I don't think the Tea Party really overtook the Republicans. People who are called TPers still ran as Reps. And now a couple years later their influence is seriously waining, so, again, not a take over IMO.

George Wallace was a Democrat. Democrats filibustered the civil rights act. The Democrats weren't on the right side of history until maybe 50 years ago. So parties do change, and maybe that points to local politics, but it is easier to change your representative, or even your nominee for president, than it is for a third party to run a viable campaign.

[msmerymac]

Sept 26, 2012 15:12:43 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:09:58 GMT -5 winnied said:

Does anyone plan to support Gary Johnson or Jill Stein then? Obviously neither will win (and are very different candidates) but I've only voted in a few elections and I'm tired of choosing between two bad candidates.

Did any of the elections happen to be the 2000 clusterfuck that gave us W? Because that was my first election and it has seriously shaped the way I view 3rd party candidates.

That was my first election and I voted third party and I absolutely have no regrets. (I was not in a swing state, but I'd like to think I'd feel the same way even I had lived in FL - who knows if my vote would have even counted, though!)

Butterfly ballot, hanging chads, Bush v. Gore... we can talk about that all day long. I will never think that voting for your conscience over a calculated "best of the worst" vote is a BAD thing.

[msmerymac]

Sept 26, 2012 15:16:39 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Basically I don't believe the time to experiment with 3rd parties is during the presidential. Because at that paint all you are doing is fucking w/ outcomes at the highest level with the most at stake.

I also don't necessarily think that the POTUS is more important for my individual well-being than, say, members of congress, or local executives who do things like approve or deny building project/infrastructure in my area, or have a huge hand in how our school district is run.

[heyjude]

Sept 26, 2012 16:14:37 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:16:39 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Basically I don't believe the time to experiment with 3rd parties is during the presidential. Because at that paint all you are doing is fucking w/ outcomes at the highest level with the most at stake.

I also don't necessarily think that the POTUS is more important for my individual well-being than, say, members of congress, or local executives who do things like approve or deny building project/infrastructure in my area, or have a huge hand in how our school district is run.

It's not about who has more power or what position is more important. It's about fostering a party so that it has the foundation to compete on the national level.

[heyjude]

Sept 26, 2012 16:13:22 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:12:43 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Did any of the elections happen to be the 2000 clusterfuck that gave us W? Because that was my first election and it has seriously shaped the way I view 3rd party candidates.

That was my first election and I voted third party and I absolutely have no regrets. (I was not in a swing state, but I'd like to think I'd feel the same way even I had lived in FL - who knows if my vote would have even counted, though!)

Butterfly ballot, hanging chads, Bush v. Gore... we can talk about that all day long. I will never think that voting for your conscience over a calculated "best of the worst" vote is a BAD thing.

I'm not asking anyone to regret their vote. I'm saying watching the 2000 election as a first time presidential voter shaped the way I view third party candidates.

[Deleted]

For myself, I find America foreign policy deeply disturbing. Obama and Bush are hardly any different in that aspect, likewise Romney I think.
So that way I see it, it comes down to the less important stuff that doesn't matter as much as life and death, such as gay marriage. Its ridiculous that these are the things to consider when voting - they are important in themselves of course, I am not diminishing the importance of it, only in the importance of it compared to people dying. But the whole war thing is off the table as it makes no difference who you vote for. America just loves wars.

[msmerymac]

Sept 26, 2012 16:21:11 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Sept 26, 2012 16:14:37 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I also don't necessarily think that the POTUS is more important for my individual well-being than, say, members of congress, or local executives who do things like approve or deny building project/infrastructure in my area, or have a huge hand in how our school district is run.

It's not about who has more power or what position is more important. It's about fostering a party so that it has the foundation to compete on the national level.

I do agree that 3rd parties have more ability to "break in" on the local level and can actually be more influential that way. But it's not one or the other. I can vote third party all day long!

I was also taking issue with your statement that people shouldn't vote 3rd party over something as IMPORTANT as a POTUS election. People built up the POTUS to be the most. important. thing. ever. and (s)he's really not. It's one branch of government, not a dictatorship. It's just that the POTUS is semi-directly elected (moreso than in a parliamentary system) and therefore easy for the media to feed us.

[heyjude]

Sept 26, 2012 16:41:16 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 26, 2012 16:21:11 GMT -5 heyjude said:

It's not about who has more power or what position is more important. It's about fostering a party so that it has the foundation to compete on the national level.

I do agree that 3rd parties have more ability to "break in" on the local level and can actually be more influential that way. But it's not one or the other. I can vote third party all day long!

I was also taking issue with your statement that people shouldn't vote 3rd party over something as IMPORTANT as a POTUS election. People built up the POTUS to be the most. important. thing. ever. and (s)he's really not. It's one branch of government, not a dictatorship. It's just that the POTUS is semi-directly elected (moreso than in a parliamentary system) and therefore easy for the media to feed us.

But that's not what I said.

I said voting for a third party candidate during the presidential does nothing but fuck with outcome.

[cookiemdough]

Sept 26, 2012 16:33:30 GMT -5 @reeve said:

For myself, I find America foreign policy deeply disturbing. Obama and Bush are hardly any different in that aspect, likewise Romney I think.
So that way I see it, it comes down to the less important stuff that doesn't matter as much as life and death, such as gay marriage. Its ridiculous that these are the things to consider when voting - they are important in themselves of course, I am not diminishing the importance of it, only in the importance of it compared to people dying. But the whole war thing is off the table as it makes no difference who you vote for. America just loves wars.

Agreed

[Deleted]

And also, gay marriage is not some little unimportant thing. Obama has not been perfect but he is better than Romney in almost every way.

[Some Funny Name]

Sept 26, 2012 15:10:06 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

Sept 26, 2012 15:04:56 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

I'm horrified by a lot of the military actions of the last 12 years. I'm disgusted that both sides are corporate owned.

I'm more horrified by continuing the same under someone who's also anti-gay, anti-woman, and thinks all rich people are job creators.

Small tweak up there and this is where I stand.

This is exactly where I stand! I'll take the shit sandwich between Door #2 for $500, Alex...

[Deleted]

Sept 26, 2012 16:33:30 GMT -5 @reeve said:

For myself, I find America foreign policy deeply disturbing. Obama and Bush are hardly any different in that aspect, likewise Romney I think.
So that way I see it, it comes down to the less important stuff that doesn't matter as much as life and death, such as gay marriage. Its ridiculous that these are the things to consider when voting - they are important in themselves of course, I am not diminishing the importance of it, only in the importance of it compared to people dying. But the whole war thing is off the table as it makes no difference who you vote for. America just loves wars.

But isn't part of the problem there that the world also loves to follow them in blindly or not?

[Deleted]

For what its worth, Canada has historically had 2 major parties - Liberals and Conservatives (the Cons have had a few changes, but stayed relatively the same).

Last election, a "3rd party" became the official opposition (The NDP). They had been building momentum for years, people got tired of the Liberals (didnt like their leader) and many people voted NDP.

So its entirely possible to see a 3rd party eventually.

[IIOY]

Sept 26, 2012 18:36:30 GMT -5 @maggie78 said:

Sept 26, 2012 16:33:30 GMT -5 @reeve said:

For myself, I find America foreign policy deeply disturbing. Obama and Bush are hardly any different in that aspect, likewise Romney I think.
So that way I see it, it comes down to the less important stuff that doesn't matter as much as life and death, such as gay marriage. Its ridiculous that these are the things to consider when voting - they are important in themselves of course, I am not diminishing the importance of it, only in the importance of it compared to people dying. But the whole war thing is off the table as it makes no difference who you vote for. America just loves wars.

But isn't part of the problem there that the world also loves to follow them in blindly or not?

I feel like that is part of the deal. The US does the heavy lifting as the world's policeman, and our allies follow us with minimal pushback.

[Deleted]

Sept 26, 2012 15:07:14 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Lots of things Obama has done have made me mad. I just think life under Romney would make me madder. This is not lofty thinking here. It's a pretty mundane way of voting.

Yep, I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for Obama, but I have even less for handing over the Presidency to the Republicans - particularly when the House is Republican and the Senate could swing that way, and when the Republican candidate is just SO eager to bend over backwards to prove he's a 'real' conservative.

We really do need more than two viable parties, particularly when they're not as different from each other as they pretend to be.

As to not protesting about drones in Pakistan - I think people have become almost desensitized to the violence, and so beaten down by fear of the Mideast and terrorism that they choose to dwell on anything else.

[msmerymac]

Sept 26, 2012 18:44:09 GMT -5 @lauriergirl28 said:

For what its worth, Canada has historically had 2 major parties - Liberals and Conservatives (the Cons have had a few changes, but stayed relatively the same).

Last election, a "3rd party" became the official opposition (The NDP). They had been building momentum for years, people got tired of the Liberals (didnt like their leader) and many people voted NDP.

So its entirely possible to see a 3rd party eventually.

A lot of the issue is the bullshit ballot access. As noted, Gary Johnson is currently on the ballot in 47 states, which is really quite good for a single third party candidate. Otherwise, hard core supporters have to try to do write-ins. It would be unthinkable for a Dem or Rep candidate for President to not have ballot access in any state (see the controversy over Kansas thinking about denying access to Obama - although that was mostly birther crap).

Money has traditionally played an important role. Especially with the public financing option. You have to have a certain percentage of votes in an election in order to qualify for public financing for the next election cycle. This is why Ralph Nader's goal in 2000 wasn't winning the White House, necessarily, it was getting 5% of the popular vote. That would allow the Green Party to run TV ads in the next election.

However, public financing is almost a moot point now, since both candidates in this election declined it. Because accepting public financing comes with strings, and limits, and if they can raise more money on their own without the public match, they will. Third parties would LOVE to get access to even the public match! So they're really being left in the dust.

However, I do wonder how social media and more alternative types of advertising and PR will affect campaigns moving forward. No one can accuse politicians of being early adopters of social media... but I wonder if third party candidates can really start to use it to their advantage, which would make traditional forms of advertising less important?