Reply
Wed 28 Jul, 2004 03:48 pm
As many people here know, I am a Nader supporter.
I don't feel like either party represents me on important issues. I believe that if enough progressive liberal voters vote their conscience the Democrats would have to support progressive values instead of pandering the the middle. The fact that progressive voters feel obligated to support the Dems means their voice is never paid attention to. But enough of the soapbox.
I have an interesting question.
The argument against voting for Nader this year is that this particular election is too important. The implication is that in other years, voting ones conscience and asking a party to represent without taking your vote for granted is accpetable.
Here is my question.
Which of the elections in the past 50 years would you have considered it acceptable for progressive voters to not vote for the Democrats-- assuming the Democrats didn't represent them?
Here are the elections in question....
2004 Kerry vs. Bush
2000 Gore vs. Bush
1996 Clinton vs. Dole
1992 Clinton vs Bush
1988 Dukakkis vs. Bush
1984 Mondale vs. Reagan
1980 Carter vs. Reagan
1976 Carter vs. Ford
1972 McGovern vs. Nixon
1968 Humphrey vs. Nixon
1962 LBJ vs. Goldwater
1958 JFK vs. Nixon
1952 Stevenson vs. Eisenhower
How many of these elections would you consider too important to consider a third party vote assuming one didn't feel represented by either candidate?
Additional information. These were the number of Supreme Court justices at stake. Does this really make a difference?
Eisenhower appointed 4 justices.
Kennedy - 2
LBJ - 2
Nixon - 3
Ford - 1
Reagan - 3
Bush Sr. - 2
Clinton - 2
Re: When is it responsible to vote third Party.
ebrown_p wrote:As many people here know, I am a Nader supporter.
I don't feel like either party represents me on important issues. I believe that if enough progressive liberal voters vote their conscience the Democrats would have to support progressive values instead of pandering the the middle. The fact that progressive voters feel obligated to support the Dems means their voice is never paid attention to. But enough of the soapbox.
I have an interesting question.
The argument against voting for Nader this year is that this particular election is too important. The implication is that in other years, voting ones conscience and asking a party to represent without taking your vote for granted is accpetable.
Here is my question.
Which of the elections in the past 50 years would you have considered it acceptable for progressive voters to not vote for the Democrats-- assuming the Democrats didn't represent them?
Here are the elections in question....
2004 Kerry vs. Bush
2000 Gore vs. Bush
1996 Clinton vs. Dole
1992 Clinton vs Bush
1988 Dukakkis vs. Bush
1984 Mondale vs. Reagan
1980 Carter vs. Reagan
1976 Carter vs. Ford
1972 McGovern vs. Nixon
1968 Humphrey vs. Nixon
1962 LBJ vs. Goldwater
1958 JFK vs. Nixon
1952 Stevenson vs. Eisenhower
How many of these elections would you consider too important to consider a third party vote assuming one didn't feel represented by either candidate?
Ya know, after what happened after the 2000 election, I would have to say that it is NEVER a good idea to vote 3rd party and ASSUME it won't matter! Every election is too important!
I feel that it is okay to vote third party in all the elections mentioned. If your assessment of the candidates is that they do not represent your values, then you would be derelict to vote Democrat.
I've been considering Nader even though I usually vote libertarian.
Throughout history, when one rival political party takes too many votes away from the dominant political parties, the dominant political parties absorb some or all of the agendas of the rival parties to get more votes.
For this reason, voting for a third party is not throwing away your vote. You are helping to accomplish your political goals, and being honest.
Nader is being funded at this time almost entirely by Republicans.
So, think about it. Whom are you really supporting with a vote for Nader ?
I cannot speak to previous elections. However, in the upcoming election a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. I would consider that as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I would say this that in the past although I had a preference I was never overly concerned who won. The divide between the two candidates was never that great. However, we have never been faced with the likes of a George W Bush before.
Come On! Just answer the question.
This discussion is now evolving into any of the other Nader threads that have been fully debated. I seriously want an answer to my specific question.
If want to argue that this election is so especially important that I must suppress my desire to vote my conscience (i.e. withhold my vote from the major candidates who don't represent me) then please join the discussion.
If you just want to a general debate on Nader, please go to one of the 5 or 7 threads already on this topic.
This is a serious question and an opportunity for Democrats to convince me to give them my votes-- But please stay focused on this specific topic.
Thank you.
(P.S. Au, I am not biting at the pathetic piece of rhetorical bait you offer).
Brown
Quote:If want to argue that this election is so especially important that I must suppress my desire to vote my conscience (i.e. withhold my vote from the major candidates who don't represent me) then please join the discussion.
That is exactly what I am and have said before. To me the difference is voting for someone who I may not agree with on all issues vs. voting or essentially voting for someone with whom I totaly disagree and IMO is a danger to this nation and the rest of the world. However, if you feel that it matters little who is elected Bush or Kerry than by all means vote for Bush err I mean the third party candidate. That is the only answer I can give to your question.
I can't answer the question because I believe you're on the right track. Unfortunately, I can't vote for Nader. I just can't give Bush another run.
Sorry for being pathetically undereducated about Nader, but I don't believe he's held any elected office. Has he? Why doesn't he start there and prove to more and more people that he's worth a presidential vote? Swartzenager and Romney have taken that route (albeit maybe not to the presidency).
Brown
Are you looking for an honest opinion or someone to agree with you so that you can feel good about your choice. I would make the point that your vote is between you and your conscience and no one else.
Re: When is it responsible to vote third Party.
ebrown_p wrote:How many of these elections would you consider too important to consider a third party vote assuming one didn't feel represented by either candidate?
None of them. Your freedom to vote according to your conscience is more important than the result of any election.
Thanks Au.
I am looking for a philosophical discussion. Factually, right now I am undecided between Kerry and Nader.
(I stand by the rightness and value of a Nader vote, but I haven't made up my mind if Kerry is progressive enough to tip the balance. Kerry wins points with his recent statements on healthcare.)
But here I am interested in the philosophical discussion. The argument has been made that Bush is so extreme that a Nader vote is unthinkable.
Wasn't defeating Nixon and Reagan considered just as important? I remember the Supreme Court issue being raised in the Reagan elections. Progressives are routinely blocked out of presidential politics.
Is there ever a time for us to make a stand? Or is trying to work from inside one of the established parties the right course of action?
Is there truly something specially urgent about this election?
Progressives have to make their stand in every election, by voting for the candidate that advances their agenda the best. Sometimes that could mean voting for a lesser candidate (Kerry over Nader) then waiting another four years to correct the mistake if you are wrong. If you vote Kerry in and he advances Republican ideals as did Clinton, you will know you were wrong. I am voting Green this year, but I'm in Texas. I would have a tough choice if I lived in Florida. I am near to undecided in that scenario.
Brown.
Quote:
Wasn't defeating Nixon and Reagan considered just as important?
As unlikely as it may seem I voted for Nixon twice and Reagan once. My votes have never been based upon party but based upon the issues I believe in. My dislike of Bush is not the party he belongs to but what he stands for.
Quote:Is there truly something specially urgent about this election?
IMO the answer is yes. Bush when he talked about the axis of evil should have placed himself in that grouping. I feel he is whether through stupidity or design a truly devious individual that is leading this nation down a very dangerous path.
ebrown_p wrote:When is it responsible to vote third Party.
Whenever one thinks that doing so will be the best use of your vote.
Of course, one can get that accessment ass-backwards, like I think you do this time around.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace