Notice to all politicians: I will only vote FOR a candidate, not AGAINST one.

[kelly1mm]

If you want my vote, you must earn it. If no candidate earns my vote, I will not vote for that position. That is all.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. Yeah, this "Lesser of two evils" shit just doesn't fly anymore

Cause it's still evil. :evilfrown:

[bigwillq]

60. Exactly

you said it, the lesser of two evils is, guess what, EVIL!
:hi:

[mod mom]

61. agreed.

I'm still regretting voting for Bill Clinton (repeal of Glass Steagall, Telecom Act of '96, MFN status w China, WTI in East Liverpool , OH) so no more. I will vote to support candidates that are progressive.

[drm604]

2. Yea, that'll work out well.

Sometimes in life you have to support the lesser evil if only to stop the greater evil.

It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. An idealistic insistence on all or nothing will get you nothing the majority of the time.

[kelly1mm]

4. I am not willing to accept that any longer. I will have a clear conscience

from here on out on all my votes.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. LOL -Not voting has as much of a consequence as voting does.

Voting for Darth Vader as a joke vote has as much of a consequence as not voting or voting for a candidate.

Taking the easy way out does not result in a clear conscience, just the illusion of one.

[kelly1mm]

8. I guess I will just have to live with the illusion of a clear conscience. nt

[tavalon]

40. That goes both ways

Treating your base like "fucking retards" has consequences. I will vote for these asshats because they are the lesser of two evils though certainly the more spineless of two evils. However, the "fucking retards" were the GOTV ground troops and I doubt many of us will have much of an urge to take out the walking shoes. The unnamed senior official and his boss need to think about that.

[drm604]

10. When the only two viable choices are a greater and lesser evil

the only responsible action is to lessen the evil in the world as much as possible.

How can you have a clear conscience if you don't do whatever you can to lessen the evil in the world?

Self-righteously claiming that you're above it all and won't participate is an irresponsible cop-out. It's nothing but a way of feeling superior and above it all while the world goes to hell in a hand basket. I could not have a clear conscience if I did that.

[Chef Eric]

54. If it gives you a clear conscience to vote for a lesser evil, then that's great.

I happen to be different. It doesn't give ME a clear conscience to vote for a lesser evil. It never has.

I get a clear conscience in other ways. Like donating to organizations that I believe in, such as the ACLU. In fact, I think donating money to the ACLU does much more to further our democratic values than voting for some second-rate Democratic candidate who is only a hair to the left of his/her Republican counterpart.

[Chef Eric]

52. I don't have to do anything but pay taxes and die. That's MY "fact of life." nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. Yep. All those folks who didn't bother voting for a President Gore sure showed everybody

President Bush was installed and the country moved left and everybody is happy and joyous now.

[kelly1mm]

6. I just cannot with a clear conscience vote for those that have not earned

my vote. I am not willing to do so anymore. I admit that may be selfish of me. I just have to be able to sleep at night.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. Oh the drama...

If you sleep better in a conservative country that you helped bring about by not participating, that is your business. I doubt it makes any difference to the people that have no unemployment insurance what your reasons are. They only know they don't have the help they need. But hey, at least you have manufactured nobility.

[frylock]

13. oh, the drama and the irony..

if we have to live in a conservative country, it will be the fault of the milquetoast dems and their enablers, not the people who are sick and fucking tired of a broken system.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. If the people take themselves out of the process, it is absolutely their fault.

Taking yourself out of the process only results in more and more conservative policies. This should be absolutely clear to everyone. Obama is not everything I want, but he sure as hell is a step back overall from the RW of the previous administration. I'll take every step back I can get.

Edited to add:

I'll take every step back I can get because allowing the more conservative guy to get in has NEVER resulted in moving the country left. The country did not move as far right as it is today overnight. It did so gradually until it seemed to people that it was always this way.

[kelly1mm]

22. So by voting for the lesser of two evils has moved the country to

the left over the last 40 years? Many of Nixon's policies were to the left of the current administrations.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. If Carter beat Reagan, yes-we would be further left than we are now.

If Gore had been president-yes, we would be to further left than we are now
If Dukakis beat Bush-yes we would be further to the left than we are now
If Mondale beat Reagan-yes we would be further to the left than we are now
If Kerry beat Bush-yes we would be further to the left than we are now

Since Nixon, we've had Ford, Carter, Reagan (2), Bush, Clinton(2), Bush(2) and Obama (.5)

That's 6 RW terms vs. 3.5 left of center terms. Why are you shocked that the country has moved to the right?

[Pithlet]

55. It's the truth. It's why it's so frustrating and heartbreaking.

If we had never had millions "voting their conscience". We wouldn't have had Reagan and the Bushes. There have been times when I would have loved to have voted for who I personally would have thought the best. Or just felt angry and wanted to stay home. But then I stopped and realized that my actions have consequences for others. I'd give my right arm for a better system. But until we have it, I have to think of others. I wish others would and had.

I and others get smeared for saying it. But it's the hard, cold truth. It's a shame it never gets through. I wish it would. We could be a progressive country.

[kelly1mm]

59. I do not need "my candidate" to be perfect or the one I supported

in the primaries or who I would have liked to see run. The candidate just has to earn my vote, meaning that his/her policies are, in general, those I can support.

[Pithlet]

62. The problem with the "earn my vote" method

is that you're choosing to ignore the fact that you're also voting against someone with your voting choice. But just because you're ignoring that fact doesn't mean it goes away. The consequences of that aspect of your vote don't just disappear just because you choose to ignore it. You refuse to vote against a Republican? Well, they benefit anyway. And the rest of us suffer anyway. We have a two party system. It sucks, but there it is. And since it's Dems and Repubs, and I'm assuming you're not a right winger, if you're voting, you're also voting against the repub. If you chose to sit it out or vote 3rd party, it helps the repub. Earn My Vote is short sighted. It doesn't take into account and ignores the damage that can be done by allowing Repubs into power. Our country has been damaged because of years of Republican rule. Yes, I'm voting against Republicans as well as for my candidates. Because preventing Republican rule is that important. There are some who say that's a scare tactic, but I don't get how anyone can say that with a straight face afte 8 years of Bush.

[kelly1mm]

66. I just don't think I can answer the questions my grandkids will ask

25 years down the road when they ask why I supported and voted for a candidate that did not support X,Y and Z and did A, B, and C actions with "Well, he was not as bad as the other guy".

[Pithlet]

67. Why not? I think kids can easily understand that concept.

Someone else would have been much worse. I had to think of the people who would have been hurt by that person. Done.

[Pithlet]

68. And believe me, it's not as if I don't get how hard it can be. I live in a red state.

Talk about having to hold your nose. And it can really get frustrating and feel as though it's a losing battle. But it's worth it. We're still red but some have managed to actually turn blue. And that was done by some nose holding. You can count on it.

[frylock]

45. i honestly believe that things are going to have to get a hell of a lot worse than 8 years of bush..

evidently bush wasn't quite rock-bottomy enough for people to wake the fuck up.

[MattSh]

46. +1000 n/t

[City Lights]

48. I couldn't agree more.

America hasn't hit bottom yet. Not much will change until it does.

[Pithlet]

53. At least you admit it's selfish. That's refreshing.

Although I don't know why someone who understands that's selfish sticks with it. If you know it's selfish and do it anyway, how can you live with that decision? That I don't get.

[Selatius]

7. This may be true in a representative form of government, but ours is not that kind of system.

You must vote between two dictators. The only question is which dictator will do the least amount of damage. Obama has not been very good about civil liberties as far as certain policies left over from Bush, but I can't imagine things being better under McCain.

[kelly1mm]

12. I will not be a party to a not-so-bad dictatorship, over a really-bad

dictatorship, using your terms. I want to vote FOR somebody.

[Selatius]

18. You were born into it. It was never your question to answer.

But I will say this: I would think that those who voted for a poor candidate vs. someone who was several times as bad deserve to go to the head of the line as far as suffering the repercussions of the poor candidate's poor decisions in office before those who voted for the worse of the two and most definitely those who voted for neither. That's how it seems to me.

[Brickbat]

11. I've found that very generally I and mine do OK no matter who is in power, and this last election

showed me that voting for someone who would benignly neglect my interests instead got me someone who actively works against my interests. So I'm with you.

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. What's the point in even having a tree-house...

...if you can't just pull up the ladder anyways?

[gateley]

15. You're a better person than I. I'd do what it takes to keep someone who scares the

hell out of me from getting elected. I'm not willing to live with the worse results. But I sincerely admire your stance and integrity. :thumbsup:

[The_Commonist]

17. And this is the age-old conundrum, isn't it?

And both perspectives are valid.

What's a third way?

[Robb]

21. Both perspectives are valid? The deuce you say!

Next thing you'll be telling me to respect the viewpoints of those obvious subhuman morons who don't write songs of praise based upon my every utterance!! :D

[LWolf]

26. I hear the

Dingbat Blues in G-Major should be out by the end of the year.

[Sebastian Doyle]

49. The "third way" is what got us in this fucking mess in the first place

Or at least that's what they call it. In reality it's just the second way (corporatist Repuke horseshit) attempting in vain to masquerade itself as "new Democrats"

[drm604]

19. The problem with this plan of action is that it ends up with the greatest evil in charge.

But that's okay as long as your conscience is at ease.

Except that it's a false ease. It's an "ease" brought about by proclaiming that you're above it all and won't participate unless a perfect choice is made available to you.

If everybody thought that way, we wouldn't have some kind of near utopia, we'd have an anarchy or dictatorship of some kind, since no on would vote.

[kelly1mm]

23. I do not want a candidate who is perfect, just one that I can support.

What I will not do any longer is vote for a candidate I do not support simply because I dislike his/her opponent more.

[drm604]

29. As I've said, that can result in the worst candidate winning.

How can that ease your conscience?

We live in a very imperfect world. If I don't take advantage of a chance to help make it a little less imperfect (or at least keep it from becoming more imperfect) then taking advantage of that chance will ease my conscience.

Self-righteously declaring myself above it all and refusing to participate would make me feel guilty rather than easing my conscience, especially if the worst candidate won.

[kelly1mm]

36. Is your position that one should find the worst candidate then identify

the candidate most likely to beat that worst candidate, and support him or her no matter what?

Since candidate X is giving out ten lashes per day I will support candidate Y, since she is only giving out 9 lashes per day.

Sorry, I am not voting for less lashes. I will vote for the no lashes candidate. If there is not a no lashes candidate, I will not vote for that position.

[Pithlet]

57. "lashes" Cute. More like "Let the candidate win who will take away the benefits

that allow my special needs kid to lead a somewhat normal life vs helping to get the candidate elected who won't. Just for one example. But oversimplify it beyond all recognition helps to salve your conscience, doesn't ' it?

[kelly1mm]

58. A more apt analogy to what I have seen, using your example, would

be:


'I will vote against the candidate who will take away the all the benefits that allow my special needs kid to lead a somewhat normal life and help to get the candidate elected who will only take away some or most of those benefits.'


I would vote for the no benefit cuts candidate. I would not vote for one that would cut any benefits, even if it was less cuts than his/her opponent. If it helps to salve your conscience to vote for the lessor of two evils, go right ahead.

[Pithlet]

65. And I'm sorry, but that... I don't even know what to say to that.

You just live with your choices. That is what I'll say.

Actually yes. I change my mind. I do know what I want to say. This is what burns my ass about the "lesser of two evils" isn't good enough argument. You decide that the difference between those two evils doesn't matter to you. Your precious vote matters more. It may be a person's right to vote (or not vote) based on that rational. But it's my right to think that's pretty disgusting. Because any difference. ANY difference. Is worth it. Those benefits you so blithely discard? It could be the difference between whether or not our children lead independent lives. And replace that with anything. It could be jobs benefits. Or education. Or the homeless. Take your pick.

[Pithlet]

70. I'm sorry for the tone of my previous post.

I know that your intentions aren't to hurt anyone. It's just that in politics in this country the stakes are high, and I wish our side would stick together better. Republicans are better at that. I think that's one of the reasons the country has moved to the right. We're too splintered.

[kelly1mm]

71. No problem. Your words have been thought provoking and well

reasoned. I certainly understand you being passionate on the issue as my change of stance has been in response to my own emotional reactions to being "punched in the gut" repeatedly by "my candidates".

[Pithlet]

72. I know. I've felt those punches in the gut, too. Don't think I haven't been tempted to give in.

More than once. I've actually sworn I'd never vote again in the heat of passion. But then I cool off. I liken it to when I read about a child murderer and reminding myself why I'm against the death penalty. It's a tough fight to stay in sometimes but I feel it's important. I feel very strongly if more lefties like me stayed loyal and stayed in it more consistently, more candidates wouldn't move to the right and disappoint us so much. They panic and figure they have to go right. They've done it in the past.

[DevonRex]

20. So, if you lived in Nevada and you weren't thrilled w/Reid, you'd let that teabagger woman win?

She's a dangerous NUT. You expect anybody to give you a pat on the back for that kind of thinking? I won't give you ANY credit for it, I can tell you that. None at all.

[kelly1mm]

27. Did I ask for a pat on the back? In fact, up thread I posted that I admit

my stance is selfish. I do not want a candidate who is perfect, just one that I can support. What I will not do is vote for a candidate I do not support simply because I dislike his/her opponent more.

[drm604]

30. You didn't ask for a pat on the back

but you did state a position on a discussion board, so you should expect it to be discussed. And you should expect that some of those discussing it will disagree with you.

[kelly1mm]

33. Not only do I expect people to disagree, I hope they do and that

an informative and enlightening discussion results. I would hope that what could be avoided is the personal attacks and questioning of motivation of the poster.

[DevonRex]

47. And I say your kind of thinking is as dangerous as some of our opponents' thinking -

say, that of the teabaggers. If teabaggers get elected because you and others like you can't bring yourselves to vote against them, then you have helped put them in office just like the people who actually voted FOR them.

[LWolf]

24. .

The lesser evil is still evil.

If I can't find anyone to vote FOR on my ballot, I'll write someone in.

[Curmudgeoness]

25. Sorry, I can't do it that way. In fact, I think I usually vote against candidates

instead of for them. But I did this in one election, and have lived to regret it to this day. I voted for Nadar because that was where my conscience was even though I knew he would never win, and Bush won. I have kicked myself in my ass ever since. So good luck with this.

[LWolf]

28. That wasn't your fault,

and you, and every other voter in the nation, has every right to vote their conscience, which I hope means voting for the person that most closely represents them.

Nader voters didn't elect Bush. He wasn't elected at all. Election fraud helped the Supreme Court select him.

[kelly1mm]

31. I think I will need the good luck. All I know is that I am tired of having

to rationalize to myself what those I have voted for have done when I had the information beforehand that was what they would do. If I feel worse after going with my conscience then I may reevaluate my stance. This is where I am now. We will see after the next few elections. I certainly hope I do have a candidate I can support. I want to vote FOR someone.

[Curmudgeoness]

34. Ah, so do I want to vote FOR someone. Sigh. nt

[stray cat]

35. Excellent - someone who agrees I was right not to vote in 2000!

regardless if it meant I helped the nation get 8 years of Bush - glad to be off the hook! To think I felt bad because I thought one person could not destroy the economy and reputation of the US and the future of most of us. I sure hope the GOP isn't smart enough to actually vote -otherwise progressives are screwed if the conservatives act intelligently enough to vote to avoid a dem in office!

[kelly1mm]

38. I think all eligible voters should vote for candidates they support. If

you did not have a candidate you supported for the 2000 Presidential election then, yes, I feel it was at least your right not to vote then. I certainly hope that both of us have someone to vote FOR in every upcoming election.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WCGreen]

39. I like that sentiment....

[Forkboy]

42. Whatever works for ya.

:)

Personally, almost all my votes have been against someone and not for. It's not as fulfilling, mind you, but it seems to keep working out that way.

[scheming daemons]

43. What if you don't like any of the candidates? What then?

Don't vote? Or vote "lesser of two evils"?

[kelly1mm]

44. I would not vote - I thought that I made that clear in the OP. In no

candidate earns my vote I will not vote for that position. I want to vote FOR someone. I hope I will have candidates I can vote for in the upcoming elections.

[JonLP24]

50. I think this quote applies

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."-John Quincy Adams.

[bornskeptic]

51. I wish millions of others felt like you do.

I'd prefer that they all be Republicans, though.

[NNN0LHI]

69. Recommend that post

[BzaDem]

56. You of course have every legal right to aide and abet Republican power to help your "conscience"

but that doesn't mean you (and people who make similar decisions) should be respected or coddled.

If a Democrat loses because of you, they won't feel anything. They will join a corporation, make 10 times as much as they ever did as a Congressperson, and laugh at all the people who whine about "earning votes." It is YOU who will be the loser from your strategy, NOT the Democratic candidate you don't for because they didn't "earn" your vote.

It isn't in a candidate's interest to try to "earn" your vote from the left. It is much easier for reality to do the trick all by itself. Eventually, you will be running to the polls to vote for an even more conservative Democrat. It's just a question of how much self-inflicted political pain you endure before capitulating like clockwork. Normally, I wouldn't care about the pain you knowingly inflict on yourself (as in, I wouldn't shed a tear if your Social Security and Medicare benefits are cut, and your taxes were raised to fund tax cuts for the rich, all because you felt your "conscience" was somehow important or relevant). Actions have consequences, and you would feel them up close and personal. But unfortunately, your actions have consequences on other people (not just yourself).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. What a quaint thought. Do you think that you own your vote? Not a party or politician?

Tsk. Tsk.

[VMI Dem]

64. I refuse to vote for another homophobic candidate.

I don't care if they have a D by their name.

[Nye Bevan]

73. Interesting. So you would not vote AGAINST Sarah Palin?

If Sarah Palin was running against an inoffensive bland candidate who you did not consider had "earned" your vote, you would not vote AGAINST Palin?

[AtomicKitten]

74. I'll alert the media. nt