The end of Bi-partisanship
The point of this entry isn't telling you who you should have voted for. The point of this entry is that people should vote for who they agree with most - not who is the lesser of two evils. In this election however it was very important (in my opinion) to get Bush out period - whatever it takes. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans who voted did feel that Bush was the best candidate and now we are stuck with him for four more years. If I had voted for someone outside of the two-party system, it would not have effected Kerry's chances of winning any more due to the electoral college system that is in place.
Also, this post isn't necessarily to convince you of either Nader or Kerry's views and plans. If you want to find out more, visit http://www.votenader.org and http://www.johnkerry.com. (Whether you agree with them or not, it's good to be educated on what the different candidates stand for. A lot of people who are against Nader don't even know what he's about, they just don't like that he's not Democrat or Republican or because they blame him for Gore losing in 2000. If you agree or disagree with Nader or Kerry, that's fine and that's your opinion. The point is people should be educated. And that I should have voted who I felt was best.
We need to get rid of the bi-partisanship. People should vote for what candidate they believe is the right candidate. Not just the lesser of two evils. Or just because they are part of a certain party. In 2000, that is why I voted for Nader. And even now that he is not a Green but is now independent, I still believe he would make an amazing President. It's about him and his beliefs - not political party nonsense. That whole bullshit with people saying Gore lost due to Nader is false. Gore lost because people didn't want to vote for HIM. It's not supposed to be the about the lesser of two evils, (Even though technically Gore did win but that's a whole other topic).
This year I did vote for Kerry - a decision that I kept changing my mind on , even at the last second. I actually feel that Kerry is a very good candidate (much better than Gore was) but not the Best candidate. My mind kept switching between him and Nader. I was very scared at the thought of Bush winning that at the last minute I decided to vote for Kerry. I am not sure if I did the right thing. Especially since Bush won anyways. And with knowing that Maryland is a Democratic state anyways I should have realized my voting for Nader wouldn't give Bush anymore of a chance. But I was scared at the possibility that Bush could still win Maryland. I think I should have voted Nader. Nader was the one I was for. Not who was the lesser of any evils.
There are so many reasons why getting rid of Bi-partisanship is important. The one obvious reason is that the more competition there is, the more the candidates are going to have to work harder. Another reason is because there are more than just two ways of thinking! Politics is so complex that I don't how if you believe one thing you automatically support everything else that fits into the category of that political party. Just like with religion. Could you imagine if there were only two religions and you had to choose one? How can your beliefs fit into one of two categories? And what's really important is that we grow and evolve. Our political party was not always Democrat/Republican. Many years ago it was the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. After that it was Federalists and Democratic-Republican Party. After that it was National Republican, Anti-Masonic Party and the Whigs. I could go on and on and on about the different parties and how they changed. It was because of the "oddball" candidates running that knew they weren't going to win this time around... fighting and having a grass-roots campaign that things changed and eventually turned into a "major" party. If it weren't for them, we'd still be fighting over decisions should be made by the state or the federal government. This is why it's so important right now to vote for who you think the right candidate is regardless of political party. We must evolve.
A co-worker of mine told me she is a Republican. But she still voted for Kerry this election because she said based on his plan and his history, she felt he was the best candidate and that's why. It didn't matter his party. She is appalled at Bush. She did the right thing. She voted for the candidate and not the party.
People don't realize there are the Green, Democratic Socialists of America, Libertarian, Natural Law Party, The New Party, The Communist Party, Reform, Socialist, The U.S. Taxpayers Party, and even more. It's not just Republicans and Democrats. And of course there are the independents.
Another reason why I voted Kerry is because I felt that change should be gradual. In 2000, we had a Democrat in office. Believing that another Democrat would win anyways I felt people would eventually change and Nader in several years would have a good chance of winning or if not winning getting a lot higher up in the polls. Well right now we have Bush in office and he won. Most of America sadly supports him. Getting Nader to get up in the polls is going to take a lot more work and a lot more time. But I do believe it's worth it and he did do the right thing by still running this year. However the reason I voted Kerry was because I felt like you can't convince someone who's drinking and smoking to quit both at the same time and expect it to work. You try to eventually get them to quit one first. Then they can quit the other one. I felt voting for Nader who is way on the opposite spectrum of Bush... when the majority of people are in favor of someone completely opposite of Nader would be pushing too hard and asking too much. And that Kerry was somewhere between that and that was more of a realistic goal - to get Kerry to win. (In 2000, I felt Bush and Gore were almost the same. And in some ways, so are Bush and Kerry. But that's a whole other topic). I knew no matter what - in 2000 or this year that Nader wouldn't win. That's not the point. Gradual grass-roots change and voting for who you believe is the best - not the lesser of two evils.
But the bottom line is I should have voted for Nader. And I didn't. And I SUCK.
THE END.
Also, this post isn't necessarily to convince you of either Nader or Kerry's views and plans. If you want to find out more, visit http://www.votenader.org and http://www.johnkerry.com. (Whether you agree with them or not, it's good to be educated on what the different candidates stand for. A lot of people who are against Nader don't even know what he's about, they just don't like that he's not Democrat or Republican or because they blame him for Gore losing in 2000. If you agree or disagree with Nader or Kerry, that's fine and that's your opinion. The point is people should be educated. And that I should have voted who I felt was best.
We need to get rid of the bi-partisanship. People should vote for what candidate they believe is the right candidate. Not just the lesser of two evils. Or just because they are part of a certain party. In 2000, that is why I voted for Nader. And even now that he is not a Green but is now independent, I still believe he would make an amazing President. It's about him and his beliefs - not political party nonsense. That whole bullshit with people saying Gore lost due to Nader is false. Gore lost because people didn't want to vote for HIM. It's not supposed to be the about the lesser of two evils, (Even though technically Gore did win but that's a whole other topic).
This year I did vote for Kerry - a decision that I kept changing my mind on , even at the last second. I actually feel that Kerry is a very good candidate (much better than Gore was) but not the Best candidate. My mind kept switching between him and Nader. I was very scared at the thought of Bush winning that at the last minute I decided to vote for Kerry. I am not sure if I did the right thing. Especially since Bush won anyways. And with knowing that Maryland is a Democratic state anyways I should have realized my voting for Nader wouldn't give Bush anymore of a chance. But I was scared at the possibility that Bush could still win Maryland. I think I should have voted Nader. Nader was the one I was for. Not who was the lesser of any evils.
There are so many reasons why getting rid of Bi-partisanship is important. The one obvious reason is that the more competition there is, the more the candidates are going to have to work harder. Another reason is because there are more than just two ways of thinking! Politics is so complex that I don't how if you believe one thing you automatically support everything else that fits into the category of that political party. Just like with religion. Could you imagine if there were only two religions and you had to choose one? How can your beliefs fit into one of two categories? And what's really important is that we grow and evolve. Our political party was not always Democrat/Republican. Many years ago it was the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. After that it was Federalists and Democratic-Republican Party. After that it was National Republican, Anti-Masonic Party and the Whigs. I could go on and on and on about the different parties and how they changed. It was because of the "oddball" candidates running that knew they weren't going to win this time around... fighting and having a grass-roots campaign that things changed and eventually turned into a "major" party. If it weren't for them, we'd still be fighting over decisions should be made by the state or the federal government. This is why it's so important right now to vote for who you think the right candidate is regardless of political party. We must evolve.
A co-worker of mine told me she is a Republican. But she still voted for Kerry this election because she said based on his plan and his history, she felt he was the best candidate and that's why. It didn't matter his party. She is appalled at Bush. She did the right thing. She voted for the candidate and not the party.
People don't realize there are the Green, Democratic Socialists of America, Libertarian, Natural Law Party, The New Party, The Communist Party, Reform, Socialist, The U.S. Taxpayers Party, and even more. It's not just Republicans and Democrats. And of course there are the independents.
Another reason why I voted Kerry is because I felt that change should be gradual. In 2000, we had a Democrat in office. Believing that another Democrat would win anyways I felt people would eventually change and Nader in several years would have a good chance of winning or if not winning getting a lot higher up in the polls. Well right now we have Bush in office and he won. Most of America sadly supports him. Getting Nader to get up in the polls is going to take a lot more work and a lot more time. But I do believe it's worth it and he did do the right thing by still running this year. However the reason I voted Kerry was because I felt like you can't convince someone who's drinking and smoking to quit both at the same time and expect it to work. You try to eventually get them to quit one first. Then they can quit the other one. I felt voting for Nader who is way on the opposite spectrum of Bush... when the majority of people are in favor of someone completely opposite of Nader would be pushing too hard and asking too much. And that Kerry was somewhere between that and that was more of a realistic goal - to get Kerry to win. (In 2000, I felt Bush and Gore were almost the same. And in some ways, so are Bush and Kerry. But that's a whole other topic). I knew no matter what - in 2000 or this year that Nader wouldn't win. That's not the point. Gradual grass-roots change and voting for who you believe is the best - not the lesser of two evils.
But the bottom line is I should have voted for Nader. And I didn't. And I SUCK.
THE END.