Comments | trent__ford: There ARE more than two choices

trent__ford

There ARE more than two choices

Nov 02, 2004 00:06

I don't agree with a lot of the Bush/Republican platform. I also don't agree with a lot of the Kerry/Democrat platform.

I do, however, agree with much of the Badnarik/Libertarian platform. Individual liberty. Personal responsibility. Live and let live. The rights of consenting adults to do what they choose in their own homes. If it harm none, do ( Read more... )

Comments 6

natalie_portman November 2 2004, 00:53:27 UTC

While I respect your opinion, it seems a bit irresponsible to suggest NOT voting simply because some people can't be bothered to educate themselves and know their candidates. But that's just my opinion.

trent__ford November 2 2004, 01:40:49 UTC

See, that's what I don't understand. If a person just votes randomly, without really knowing what they're voting for, how is that better than not voting at all? I ask that with all sincerity; I'd like to be able to understand your point of view.

natalie_portman November 2 2004, 10:26:26 UTC

By no means am I suggesting that anyone should "just vote randomly." On the contrary, I'm curious to know why it's so exceedingly difficult to read up on either candidate and learn their stance on issues important to you when there are a plethora of public resources readily available. And I don't mean to sound as though I'm shoving my convictions down your throat here, but ignorance isn't an excuse to not vote. I mean, if you have this tool at your disposal, why not utilize it?

michaelpitt November 2 2004, 03:38:51 UTC

first, i have to agree with what natalie said above. the messages shouldn't be "if you don't know, don't vote", instead it should be, "get educated and go vote."

I'm not an advocate of Rock the Vote kind of thinking. If you aren't sure what you believe or which candidates most closely match your beliefs, then DON'T fucking vote.

i'm not sure why you'd ever blame rock the vote for promoting "voting for votings sake" when that's not what they're about. rtv's message has always been to vote to get your voice heard, vote because you want to evoke change. their specific angle is young voters (~18-25) and what they do is they go to places where young people are (i.e. college campuses) and help educate young people on issues that will affect them. issues that some people don't realized are linked to the presidency. then they encourage folks to look into the candidates to see where they stand on these issues and go vote. no apathy here.

trent__ford November 2 2004, 05:04:29 UTC

Obviously I was misinformed about RTV. Thank you for correcting that.

john_corbett November 2 2004, 08:21:13 UTC

I don't agree with either candidate 100% - but eventhough I'm a registered Libertarian, and in California like you. I do need to vote Kerry. The electoral college is what keeps it a two party process. If Kerry can win by a large enough margin - yet still lose to Bush - they will HAVE to do something. If they abolish the electoral college then a vote for a third party will truly count. Because with teh way it stands our votes in California don't really count for as much as a vote in W. Virginia - since one electoral college vote represents SO MANY MORE PEOPLE here than there, and that isn't right. It should be the same numner of people are represented by each vote - but it isn't so. I'm from West Virginia and while i love my hometown, I can't say that the votes coming from there should count more, or be stronger. California is the 6th largest economy in the world. I think her votes should represent that.

Not that it could happen but what would that do to the US economy if somehow California succeeded from the union?