20 replies to this topic

[Evil Rudekker]

So today is election day for us in Wisconsin. We get to vote in the Presidential primary, and we get to vote for city and county officials here in Milwaukee County. The vote to recall (or not recall) our jerk governor happens next month, but we in Milwaukee get to vote in the mayoral election now.

Because of Wisconsin's open primaries, I get to vote in the Republican primary, even though I've never been a Republican. I plan on voting for Ron Paul because he's the only pro-peace and pro-sensible-drug-policy candidate. Also, I think he's at least asked himself what freedom means (although I suspect he and I have different answers for that).

Here's my quandary: What is the freaking point?

Have a look at the ballot I get to use. [First of all, the non-incumbent running for my aldermanic district was on the Daily Show. John Oliver came to Riverwest for the interview. It was pretty cool. Also, she came off as pretty daft.]

In none of the races do I get to immediately choose someone besides a Republican or Democrat. Which sucks for me, because I'm not a Democrat, either. I consider myself a Socialist, like the mayors who ran Milwaukee for most of 1910-1960 (and by all accounts, they ran it pretty well, too). There is zero chance of a Socialist--or Green, or Libertarian, or whatever else, getting in office in 2012 in Milwaukee.

So some have said my vote is wasted. But I consider voting Republican or Democrat equally a waste.

So do I swallow my pride, and write in candidates I know have no chance of winning? Or do I follow my conscience, and refuse to be part of a horribly undemocratic system?

Edited by Evil Rudekker, 03 April 2012 - 11:41 AM.

[Chancellor Gunn]

Not sure, guess its up to you. But Ron Paul

[Thrash]

Santorum.

[Evil Rudekker]

There are some things I've had ruled out for awhile. One of those things is voting for a mainstream Republican. Because if you want to be non-white, non-Christian, and non-traditional, you should be free to be.* Plus I like my gay friends.







*Also, I am white, Christian, and traditional. But I'm not that great of a guy, so I don't think personal quality correlates with any of those.

Edited by Evil Rudekker, 03 April 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Do you want to make a principled statement or do you want to be pragmatic? What you do depends upon your answer to that question. But understand that if you choose the former, odds are no one will pay any attention. Unless a third party candidate has enough support to affect the outcome of an election, voting for them probably is "throwing your vote away," at least in the sense that there is no realistic chance that they will be elected. If they do have enough support to affect the outcome, then you might be faced with another difficult choice: Do you vote for the candidate you like best, even if they have little chance of winning, and thereby take a vote away from a more mainstream candidate who may not be everything you want, but is still better than the alternative? In a three-way (or four-way, etc.) race you always need to consider who your "independent" vote might be hurting. I'm sure a lot of Nader voters in 2000 wish they had voted for Gore instead.

People often complain that elections come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils, and many people throw their hands up in frustration and do not vote at all as a result. But the lesser of two evils is still better than the GREATER of two evils.

Anyway Rud, if you want to vote Socialist, maybe you should consider moving to Vermont.

[Chancellor Gunn]

Santorum.

Ron Paul.

[Thrash]

Ron Paul.

no chance of getting the nom.

[Chancellor Gunn]

no chance of getting the nom.

More of chance than Santorum.

[Evil Rudekker]

If you continually vote the lesser of two evils, eventually even the lesser of two evils is still pretty bad. Eventually you just have to stop this shit.

UPDATE: So I went and voted. I did indeed vote for Ron Paul; the rest of the candidates were write-ins. I voted for myself for Alderman.

Mrs. Rudekker voted for some incumbents, saying they were doing their jobs pretty well. But I don't think that's good enough. Politicians need to do something to actually improve conditions, instead of just hanging on to the status quo. I honestly think it's about time for a democratic revolution.

Edited by Evil Rudekker, 03 April 2012 - 03:35 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

If it makes you feel any better, people have been griping about having to choose between the lesser of two evils for as long as there have been elections. Yet still we have been able to produce leaders like Lincoln and Roosevelt. As for Ron Paul, as far as I am concerned his "good" positions are more than outweighed by his rabid opposition to abortion, support for mandatory school prayer, and blatant racism. He's just as much of a fascist as any other right-winger, he just likes his fascism at the state level.

[Evil Rudekker]

Don't get me wrong: I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul in the general election. But if I have to choose the least objectionable Republican, I'm going to go for the Libertarian.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Hmm. In that crowd it's a toss-up which is the least threat in terms of electability. Probably Gingrich. But if they were actually to become president I'd consider Romney the least damaging, if only because at least he wouldn't really shake things up very much. Not that the status quo is great, but the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. All the others would try to turn the country into their own personal vision of utopia, all of which are terrifying.

[Phate]

Hmm. In that crowd it's a toss-up which is the least threat in terms of electability. Probably Gingrich. But if they were actually to become president I'd consider Romney the least damaging, if only because at least he wouldn't really shake things up very much. Not that the status quo is great, but the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. All the others would try to turn the country into their own personal vision of utopia, all of which are terrifying.

I'm agreeing with you on a scary number of things lately.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

That makes sense. I'm right about a scary number of things.

[Haflinger]

Lincoln was a greatly overrated leader who first presided over the breakup of the country and then refused to free the slaves until his generals forced him to.

Roosevelt you have a point about. Of course JFK also got elected, but then the usual American cure for decent leadership got him.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Read Team of Rivals and then come talk to me about Lincoln. He well deserves his place in the American pantheon.

[Phate]

I've heard an interesting argument about a basic flaw in our system of government. Which is that it's reliant on the people to determine the best leader, but people on the whole have a difficult time identifying above-average leadership material, and so even if there is an excellent candidate, (s)he won't be recognized for h(er|is) abilities, and will get passed over. I would go on to say that that this is furthered by the difficulty third party candidates have to actually succeed.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

As Winston Churchill said, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

[Haflinger]

That's mostly just Churchill being bitter about losing the election after the war when he wanted to take Britain back to the 12th century.

The Brits put him in because they wanted a good war leader, then ... they didn't. It's one of the better examples of democracy at work IMO.

[Evil Rudekker]

The silly thing is that we have to elect leaders to lead for us, when we really ought to just do it ourselves. That's what I like about OWS, is that they refuse to take leaders.