Bush has taken the republican party down with him permanantly

I am a registered green, and voted Nader two elections ago. My thought at the time was that the Dems have to move towards my political persuasions if they want my vote.

Honestly, I regret my actions. The shrub is a nightmare come true. So now I vote Dem, which is actually just an anti-repub vote.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 24 2007, 10:17 AM) [snapback]411499[/snapback]</div>

My view is not that Bush is not worse than Gore. My view is that until we dump the Dems and elevate an alternative party to mainstream status, by voting for it, the country will never have good government, and the Dems will continue their several-decades-long slide to the right. Similarly, as long as the Dems can count on the progressive vote by default, they have no incentive to move back to the left. Voting for the lesser of evils guarantees that all the choices will be evils.

The dichotomy here is between short-term damage control (voting against the worst candidate) and building a viable future by abandoning a party that is part of the problem.

I respect your view. But I hold a different one.

 

I have no regrets voting for the Green Party in 2000 (I lived in California at the time, a "safe state"). Besides, if you go into your wayback machine, you'll remember that Gore isn't the cool movie star we know and love nowadays; back then, he was bending over backwards to appeal to as many right-wing voters as possible at the expense of the left wing (in case you doubt me: quick, who did he pick as his running mate?). I didn't picture it as a vote for Nader, but rather a vote for a viable third party.

I have no regrets voting for Kerry in 2004, because in 2000, we asked, "How bad could Bush be?", and by 2004 the answer was obvious: very, very, VERY bad. I didn't picture it as a vote for Kerry but rather a vote against Bush. Unfortunately, in 2004 the Green Party wasn't running a serious campaign, and Nader, running as an independent, was in it just for Nader, which is NOT why I voted for him in 2000.

Assuming the Democratic party keeps its cojones it found last year for another year and a half (which is a BIG assumption), I'll probably vote Democrat in 2008.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 24 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]411521[/snapback]</div>

To begin with, Gore would not have gotten us into Iraq; then there are the Supreme Court Appointments, the erosion of the Bill of Rights, the enviroment...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 24 2007, 02:30 PM) [snapback]411537[/snapback]</div>

Double negative. He's agreeing with you.

 

This is very interesting ... all the liberals here are noting various pundit's predictions of the "permanent" end of conservative politics, and are evidently saddened by it.

What else would explain the apparent contradiction of those that bemoan the electoral vote victory of a candidate who did not win the popular vote in 2000 ... but then savage one of their favorite sons for running as a third party candidate and throwing the election in the tipping point state? Surely, Florida would have gone to Gore pretty decisively without Nader's spoiling role there.

Third parties have a rich but sordid history in our country, and have never had a "good" impact in an election. They almost always weaken the major party that most closely matches their view. The election of 2000 repeated the role of third party candidates being "spoilers", with 2004 being the first election since 1988 where the President won over 50% of the popular vote. Ross Perot, a lifelong Democrat, may have been the first to leverage the third party spoiler role in two elections with his Reform Party by espousing normally-Republican ideals in what many conservative conspiracy theorists believe was a conscious attempt to weaken the more conservative party.

Unlike parliamentary systems, our type of electoral process isn't well suited to multiple parties. The most that third parties can aspire to is to have some of their less-wacky positions adopted by one of the mainstream parties (once they have "compromised" or "sold out" enough to attract more than the lunatic fringe).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 24 2007, 11:29 AM) [snapback]411536[/snapback]</div>

If you leave a space between the "b" and the close parenthesis, you no longer get the smily face. But I agree with you that using numbers or letters followed by parentheses is a bad choice for substitutions.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 24 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]411539[/snapback]</div>

Thank you Lively. Yes, I was agreeing that Bush is worse than Gore. But I think that a vote for Gore would still have been a vote to continue the downhill slide.

If the election were held now, I'd vote for Obama, if he was the candidate. I'd also vote for Kucinich. Clinton would have to work hard to convince me she wasn't just another Dem. A Rice-Clinton race would certainly be interesting, but I cannot see the Repubs nominating Rice, even for VP. I've been saying for a long time we need a Black or American Indian woman president. I'd look really closely at Rice before deciding not to vote for her. As a Repub "Uncle Tom" and toady to the shrub, she's utterly vile. But if she were the chief executive maybe she'd have a mind of her own. I would not dismiss her out of hand.

Barring any of the above, or someone equally unusual, I expect to vote for the Green Party.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 24 2007, 10:35 AM) [snapback]411539[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 24 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]411571[/snapback]</div>

Well, so much for my Evelyn Wood's method of reading PriusChat.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Mar 24 2007, 12:29 PM) [snapback]411536[/snapback]</div>

Just remember to click off the "Enable emoticons?" button. B)

 

so just for laughs and giggles. What if we all decided to vote for a non standard (dems/reps) party?

never mind how much money the other guys spend, if we voted for what we think is correct, it will make a dent. Having grown up in Europe, I am bit hazy on this subject but you cannot form a collation to create a majority in the US, no? I.e. Dems: 42% Reps: 42% Green: 9 % ID: 7%

Dems and Greens together: 51% ( this is just an example !! )

I would think that is probably the only way more people could be moved to vote outside the 2 party system. Else you are just taking away winning votes from the party you consider the lesser evil of the two.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar 24 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]411748[/snapback]</div>

Our winner-takes-all electoral system gives the lie to our claim of being democratic. It is true that we do not have coalition governments, as in the Parliamentary system. However, votes for an alternative party are NOT wasted. On the contrary, the problem as I see it presently, is that the entire political debate is moving to the right. The Republican party has been captured by false conservatives (called neo-conservatives) who have used the blind of "family values" to push an agenda of restricting individual rights while extending the power of corporations to determine the destiny of the nation. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, more concerned with its own power than with the direction of the country, has moved to the right as well, confident that everyone to the left of it will vote for it as "the lesser of two evils." The Dems count on expanding their share of the political spectrum by moving as close to the Repubs as they can.

As progressive voters find the Dems more and more unpalatable, and drop away, the Dems lose a percentage of the vote. But rather than seeing this as progressives "giving" the election to the Repubs, I see this as progressives refusing to prostitute themselves to the ever-worsening politics of the Democratic Party. Further, it is ONLY by refusing to vote for the neo-Democratic Party that progressives can ever hope to pull that party back to the left.

For me, voting for a hack Democrat is wasting my vote, because I didn't get to pick who the candidates will be, and both big parties are in the pockets of the same big business interests.

Voting Green serves two purposes: It sends a message to the Dems that they cannot take my vote for granted, merely because they are less evil than the repubs, and that if they want my vote, they have to move back to the left; and it helps build a party that may be able to become mainstream in 10 or 20 years, but never will if people don't start voting for it.

Voting for the lesser of evils is a bandaid that hopes to reduce the pain, very slightly, in the short run, but which assures that the illness will continue in the long run. It is short-sighted.

Voting Green is voting to accept some short-term pain in order to build a viable, just, and sustainable future for the next generation.

 

I agree with you in spirit, Daniel, but in reality, you will never see a 100% perfect candidate (or party, for that matter). Let's use cars as an analogy. You bought your Prius because it uses less gas and emits less emissions. However, it still uses SOME gas and emits SOME emissions? Why not hold your ground and not buy any car (or buy a true EV like some folks here)? It's the same with candidates.

Bush and Gore admittedly was like choosing between a Hummer H1 and a Chevy Suburban (at the time that's how Gore was; true, he's now a Prius), so I chose the Toyota Corolla.

Bush and Kerry was like a Hummer H1 and a VW New Beetle. True, it's not the best choice, but it's not a bad choice, and it sure beats the Hummer, so I went with the New Beetle and feel no guilt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 25 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]411887[/snapback]</div>

I'm not asking for a perfect candidate. I'm just asking for a candidate who is not a criminal. A candidate who, if elected, will make things better, rather than worse. I've already mentioned two (imperfect) Democrats I'd vote for, and one Republican I'd consider.

Here's my analogy:

The country is like a canoe headed toward a waterfall. The Repubs are saying: "Stay the course!" The Dems are saying: "There's a waterfall up ahead. Lets consider maybe paddling a wee bit slower." I will not vote for either, because either way we go over the waterfall. To get my vote, a candidate has got to say, forcefully and with conviction: "Hey, everyone, paddle hard the other way!" Bush, Kerry, and Gore, are all paddling toward the waterfall, even if Kerry and Gore are paddling slower than Bush.

Or, let's try your car analogy: Bush is driving a Hummer, running down and killing the poor of the world. Gore and Kerry are driving a Camry and a Beetle, respectively, running down and killing the poor people of the world. To get my vote, you gotta stop killing people, regardless of the vehicle you use to do it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 25 2007, 06:51 AM) [snapback]411860[/snapback]</div>

Daniel is actually right here. Positively. All Democrats should heed his call. We'll see you guys in 20 years!

After nearly 200 years with 2 parties, I doubt you guys are going to change this, but you should try. Really, follow Daniel's advice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 24 2007, 01:08 PM) [snapback]411521[/snapback]</div>

I think your reasoning is flawed .
The Green Party forces the Democrats to become even more right leaning.The Democrats have to make up for the lost leftist support ,by appealing more to the central swing voters.
Where else do they make up the lost votes ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 24 2007, 12:17 PM) [snapback]411499[/snapback]</div>

In the 2000 election "Bush was certified as the winner in Florida by a margin of 537 votes"
"Nader received some 97,000 votes in Florida"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Mar 26 2007, 03:02 AM) [snapback]412208[/snapback]</div>

And Pat Buchanan got 3,407 votes in a heavily Democratic district. Why not blame him?