How will anything ever change if we keep voting for the same people?

[tomorrowsashes]

The country is in a sorry state today. This is not a phenomenon unique to the Bush administration, but one caused by years of politicians putting corporate interests above those of the people it is supposed to serve. It was a democrat, Clinton, who signed NAFTA, one of the most damaging policies ever enacted towards the third world. It was a democrat, Carter, who signed a bill increasing millitary aid to Indonesia immediately after their genocidal invasion of East Timor. Both parties supported the patriot act, and the war in Iraq.

My question is, if we keep submitting to the political system, and supporting the two party monopoly over the government, how will things ever change? I understand that some people just want Bush out. That's great, but then what. Will Kerry be the solution we've been looking for? I highly doubt it. So, how long do we wait? When do we stand up, and tell the politicians to shove their ballots? When do we demand real change?

I'm not saying that the two parties are exactly the same, but simply stating my opinion that neither is the best solution, and that they are both responsible for the ills in the country's domestic and foreign policy. It seems to me that if we keep voting for the democratic candidate, the pattern of neocollonial imperialism abroad, and loss of civil liberties at home will only continue. If now is the wrong time to show our dissillusionment, when is the right time?

[mike_c]

1. there has never been a better time to reject the status quo...

...than now. No one should demand that we squander our most fundamental democratic right to choose by voting for someone just because he's "not Bush." I expect a hell of a lot more from the Democratic candidate, and every other candidat for that matter.

[sendero]

27. And as soon as there is...

... a third-party candidate worthy of voting for, I might consider it.

[proud patriot]

2. three words - Run Off Voting -

Welcome Underground

[kiahzero]

12. Two words - BAD SYSTEM

IRV is the WORST system for elections, including plurality. It's got strategic voting issues, mathematical fairness issues... hell, it has implementation issues!

Condorcet and Acceptance voting are the two best systems (Condorcet being superior to Acceptance, but Acceptance being far simpler to understand).

[NMDemDist2]

3. when 50% of the populace doesn't vote and it costs

$200 MILLION dollars to get elected, what can we expect?

With out citizens who give a shit and election reform caused by the electorate screaming their heads off, we are getting the government we deserve.

As long as people have their MTV and SUV's and their comfortable little niche, things won't change.

While I am willing to work and give money and try to wake people up this country needs a bunch more of us to do these things and make it "hot" for the power elite.

Until then we get what we get

[Egalitarian]

4. Catch-22

would seem to be our present situation I agree. Voting for the lesser of two evils is how I think I'll feel at the poles. NOt exactly an empowering thing, nor one to get terribly excited about; that is being motivated by fear.

Obviously, voting alone will not save us, but it is an opportunity to steer the course we're on.

Vote Peoples Party 2008!

[kysrsoze]

7. Yeah, but one evil is FAR greater than the other

Much as I'd like to see a third independent party, this is not the time for two reasons:

1. A third party right now splits the vote and endangers us of having another 4 years of Bush (just think what that group will do knowing that would be Bush's last term - they'll get every shitty thing they can squeezed in).

2. Given the current situation, it's simply not possible for an independent to run and do well in this election.

I'm for change, but I'm afraid right now it will have to start slow.

[Gman]

5. Coming in here trying to run Kerry voters off to Nader

to get Bush elected? Is that the point of your disruption?

[tomorrowsashes]

10. I'm just asking a question

I'm simply asking the question that if now is not the right time for change, when is? I'm thinking that your comment might have been with a wink and a nod, though, as it would directly contradict the opinions expressed in the Abbie Hoffman quote below.

Honestly, though, I don't think that anything much significant will ever be achieved through the ballot box. The green party might gain power, but by then it will have sold out just like the democrats have. As Emma Goldman said, "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." People simply need to realize that voting for any candidate, especially one of the major two parties is not going to make anything much better. There might be minor surface change, but nothing that will really last. Go ahead, vote and campaign for whoever you choose, but don't mistake that with working for longlasting change.

"Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it."
-Henry David Thoreau

[Forkboy]

13. Dont mind some people here

If you think beyond November some will consider you a disrupting Freeper.

[kiahzero]

20. Hmmm...

Interesting.

Honestly, though, I don't think that anything much significant will ever be achieved through the ballot box.
...
There might be minor surface change, but nothing that will really last. Go ahead, vote and campaign for whoever you choose, but don't mistake that with working for longlasting change.

Maybe you missed the concept that America is a democracy... if you don't want to vote, don't. But don't expect rational people to say "Waaaah! I'm not getting exactly what I want right this second, so voting must not make a difference! Waaaah!"

Voting does make a difference, and there are entirely too many instances to point out. I'll give one though - civil rights acts. Do you think that would have happened with a Republican or Dixiecrat in office?

[tomorrowsashes]

23. Civil rights acts were not the result of politicians

The civil rights acts were not the results of politicians suddenly coming to their senses, but an effect of millions of people getting into the street and protesting. Those in control had no choice but to comply. If they had not, there would have be a revolution.

I doubt that if people supported their party no matter what it's policies were, and didn't bother to get out and protest, that anything would have ever changed.

[kiahzero]

26. No one is suggesting "support the party no matter what."

There's a difference between that, and saying "vote for the party, then push on them."

It is an undisputable fact that a Kerry administration would be more amenable to every issue progressives care about than a Bush administration. So you get Kerry in, then you lean on him to go the direction you want, with the understanding that it won't happen every time.

[tomorrowsashes]

32. ...or at all

The same thing was said about Clinton, and you know what, he went back on a lot of his campaign promises, and succeeded in destroying any of the progressive spirit in the democratic party that was left over. Politicians won't listen to any group unless they use their voting power as leverage. That is the only value of the electoral system, and that doesn't even work very well.

I do think that voting reform would help greatly, but it wouldn't solve the problem.

[kiahzero]

33. What are you talking about?

The same thing was said about Clinton, and you know what, he went back on a lot of his campaign promises, and succeeded in destroying any of the progressive spirit in the democratic party that was left over.

Clinton wasn't a progressive's wet dream, but he hardly "destroyed any of the progressive spirit in the Democratic Party."

As an aside, showing a little respect and capitalizing proper nouns goes a long way, especially when you're new and start off by criticizing the Dems. You don't seem to be a troll, but you must admit that you're not exactly a known quantity.

[tomorrowsashes]

34. Clinton was a republican by all other measures

Clinton promised to allow gays into the millitary, but instead went with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He watched over an economic boom in which the median wage did not go up a bit, and only the rich got richer. He encouraged economic globalization. He continued the embargo on Cuba, which has killed millions. He bought into pressure not to pardon Leonard Peltier. He supported NAFTA, the FTAA, WTO, World Bank, and G8, all weapons of economic genocide.

I would rather Kerry win than Bush, but I don't think it's worth compromising my freedom to criticize in order to achieve that. I simply believe that the ballot box, the way it's set up today, is not the place where progress is made.

BTW, it really doesn't help your argument when you criticize your opponents grammar. I'm not writing an essay, just having a discussion, and if you can tell what my sentences mean, then I have accomplished my goal. Maybe you were just trying to help me seem less troll-like, and I thank you for the thought if that's the case, but I'm not going to spend hours doing grammar checks on all my posts.

[kiahzero]

36. Not really...

Clinton promised to allow gays into the millitary, but instead went with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Blocked by Republicans. Look at the newspapers from the time period.

He watched over an economic boom in which the median wage did not go up a bit, and only the rich got richer.

Democrats tried to raise the minimum wage. They were hamstrung by the Republicans.

He encouraged economic globalization.

And?

He continued the embargo on Cuba, which has killed millions.

OK, I'll give you that.

He bought into pressure not to pardon Leonard Peltier.

Not familiar enough with this to speak on it.

He supported NAFTA, the FTAA, WTO, World Bank, and G8, all weapons of economic genocide.

Despite your despicable rhetoric, NAFTA is not a "weapon of economic genocide." Not familiar enough with the FTAA to speak on it. While the WTO has problems, as does the World Bank / IMF, neither can accurately be called "weapons of economic genocide," either. Not familiar with your complaints over the G8.

BTW, it really doesn't help your argument when you criticize your opponents grammar. I'm not writing an essay, just having a discussion, and if you can tell what my sentences mean, then I have accomplished my goal. Maybe you were just trying to help me seem less troll-like, and I thank you for the thought if that's the case, but I'm not going to spend hours doing grammar checks on all my posts.

Yes, I was merely trying to help you seem less troll-like. I thought I had clearly expressed that, but maybe not.

[pansypoo53219]

6. as Arrianna Huffington said

we got to put out the fire before we think about redecorating.

#! get rid of bush and his minions, THEN we can consider change.

[krkaufman]

8. Right-oh

Yeah, Arianna nailed it.

Foolish, foolish, foolish.

[Eric J in MN]

9. Support a Green Party mayor or whatever, but

Support a Green Party mayor or whatever, but we need to get Bush out of the White House.

Do you want Bush appointing three Supreme Court Justices? If not, vote for John Kerry for President.

www.johnkerry.com

[tomorrowsashes]

14. I don't really want John Kerry appointing them either

I doubt John Kerry would pick the best justices either. I'm sure I would prefer his choices to those of Bush, especially in terms of abortion rights, but they would still probably favor corporate interest. This year, maybe a person will vote for Kerry because of the Supreme Court, but what about next election? Every election, a majority of the population says that it is not the right time now, but maybe the next one. Guess what those people say in another four years? What about the next election? Before we know it, our freedoms will be eroded, and our voice will be so silenced that we cannot work for any change. Every day I see another step towards 1984.

[kiahzero]

16. What freedoms are eroded by the Democrats?

Really, this is a serious question.

The only freedom I can think of that the Dems tend to 'erode' is the public domain. Are there other examples you have off the top of your head?

[tomorrowsashes]

18. they voted overwhelmingly for the patriot act

The democrats voted overwhelmingly for the patriot act. Many of them support surveillance in public places, and the fingerprinting of visitors to the country. They've voted for most of the policies people consider to be Republican, Bush inspired erosion of freedom.

[kiahzero]

24. Everyone voted for the Patriot Act

It was shoved through Congress before they had a chance to read it. Most Dems have since spoken out against the bill.

Many of them support surveillance in public places

There's alread surveillance in public places. Schools, government offices, ATM cameras, red light cameras, etc. Care to cite exactly what bill you are talking about, though?

and the fingerprinting of visitors to the country

Again, care to cite which bill you are speaking of?

[tomorrowsashes]

35. Patriot act, etc.

I do give credit to one democrat, Russ Feingold, for not voting for it. If they didn't have time to read it, it was irresponsible for them to vote for it. They are speaking out against the bill because it is politically profitable.

On the second point, it's not a specific bill, but they do support it. We should not be spied upon in public places. If the country isn't a police state, it sure makes it seem so.

On the third point, foreigners from most countries must be fingerprinted when they come into the country for "security purposes." I'm not actually sure if congress voted on this, but the democrats aren't speaking out against it, which they need to. There's a story about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/national/05CND-SECU.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=b89459e35984f391&ex=1082952000

You might have to register, but it's free.

[kiahzero]

37. Far more nuanced than you make it out to be.

I do give credit to one democrat, Russ Feingold, for not voting for it. If they didn't have time to read it, it was irresponsible for them to vote for it. They are speaking out against the bill because it is politically profitable

Perhaps I am too generous in giving politicians the benefit of the doubt, but I doubt it. If they were truly speaking against the bill for political gain, it would be far more effective to demagogue the issue, and continue to make it out to be completely evil, rather than the more nuanced position taken by most Democrats at this point.

On the second point, it's not a specific bill, but they do support it. We should not be spied upon in public places. If the country isn't a police state, it sure makes it seem so.

You can already be spied on in a public place... police can shadow you all they want, as can any sort of government official. What you're objecting to is simply a streamlining of that process. I'm not sure how I feel about the issue of cameras in public places, but it's certainly not a cut-and-dry issue.

On the third point, foreigners from most countries must be fingerprinted when they come into the country for "security purposes." I'm not actually sure if congress voted on this, but the democrats aren't speaking out against it, which they need to. There's a story about it here:

According to the story you sent me, the fingerprints are biometrics used to ensure the person carrying the visa is the person it was issued to. So long as there is no storage of the fingerprint data for, say, criminal investigations or such, I don't object to this. In such a case, it's no different than using a fingerprint for password verification.

[Eric J in MN]

22. The right time is after Approval Voting is established.

http://www.approvalvoting.com/

[kiahzero]

29. Well, Condorcet is better

But Approval/Acceptance voting is good enough.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. Trouble with approval voting is that is prone to ending in a tie

which means we have to have runoffs at a later date and greater expense.

I personally prefer Condorcet ranked voting at this point.

[kiahzero]

31. Really?

I've never heard that. What kind of a situation creates a likely tie with Approval?

(In case you hadn't notice, voting systems are a favorite topic of mine. Math and politics... mmmmmm.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

44. Well

it's only a small poll but check out the results on this one I am running: http://www.misterpoll.com/4288503890.html At times it has had a four way tie for first place.

I do have links to other types of ranked voting on my website, but since you are a math nut you ought to look at: http://cec.wustl.edu/~rhl1/rbvote/

:)

[kiahzero]

47. Interesting

One problem off the bat, though: Approval is far more susceptible to insincere votes than Condorcet. Let's say we're back in the primaries, and I'm still supporting Clark. Now, I don't mind Edward's policies, but I know it's going to be close between Edwards and Clark. So, voting strategically, I lie about my preference and do not vote for Edwards.

With Condorcet, fully expressing my preference does not lower the chances of the candidate I most support from winning.

[kiahzero]

11. Push inside the party for a better voting system.

How does NAFTA affect the third world, by the way? Isn't it just an agreement between Canada, the US, and Mexico?

My question is, if we keep submitting to the political system, and supporting the two party monopoly over the government, how will things ever change? I understand that some people just want Bush out. That's great, but then what. Will Kerry be the solution we've been looking for? I highly doubt it. So, how long do we wait? When do we stand up, and tell the politicians to shove their ballots? When do we demand real change?

Real change is incremental. The only way to get 'real change' overnight is through revolution, and that generally doesn't grant the kind of 'real change' one would hope for.

[tomorrowsashes]

15. Mexico is a third world country

Mexico is a third world country, and what happens there, effects every country to the south. It also set the stage for many more free trade agreements that more directly effected other third world countries. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it hurt the poorest people in the world.

[JPJones]

17. You represent a small minority

many of whom were seduced by Nader's siren song in 2000. If you want change, convince over 50% of Americans that you are right. Otherwise, anything other than support for John Kerry is support for George Bush.

I'm an intelligent person, and I think this whole corporatism argument is a bunch of vague bullshit.

[Deja Q]

42. You are correct

I've said the same thing. We need to encourage the lamentable 50% to give a damn about their country.

But corporatism is happening and is only going to get worse. A revolution is happening and you don't see it. I wonder how Marie Antoinette would feel... oh yeah, she lost her head...

[Guava Jelly]

19. I dunno but they cant stay the same

we have to start by getting rid of Bush.
Kerry is the best chance.
no matter what koolaide Nader is serving Kerry is better then bush.

[tomorrowsashes]

21. Interesting article

Here's an interesting article I found at Infoshop.org

Why Bother To Protest The DNC?

Why should I bother?

Why should we protest the Democrats? I know I hate virtually all that Bush has done to this country and the world since his administration was placed into office. Why don't I like Bush? Because he is corrupt, doesn’t allow the American voice be heard, because he bases his policies on the ideas and visions that are only shared by the elite and mega-rich. He veils this agenda in a well-spun and calculated manner by which millions of Americans are deceived and the rest are intimidated.

For months now we have been inundated with the call of “Anyone but Bush!” But then who are we encouraged to support; who is it that is rallying this anti-Bush call? The Democrats. Are they REALLY the answer? Our gut tells us no, but out of fear and a lack of choice we turn to them. When we listen to them, we get angry. We get angry at Bush, at the Supreme Court, at Republicans, really at anyone who doesn’t agree with Democrats. Bottomline…we get angry. But is that what America is about? Anger? Not my America.

I’m tired of living in fear, living in anger, living in despair. I’m tired of hearing how this year the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is spending more on prisons than on higher education. I’m tired of walking down the street and seeing the homeless and feeling guilty that I can’t give them a dollar. I can’t give them a dollar because our government hasn’t created an environment in which jobs that pay a fair wage can thrive. We have a government of Democrats and Republicans that taxes me to the gills and lets corporations walk away with tax exemptions, tax credits and loopholes. Who has given us this state of affairs? The current structure of government. A two-party system. Republicans AND Democrats.

Where in the Constitution does it say that there should be two parties, let alone any parties? I’ll save you some time…it doesn’t. What the United States Constitution does talk about is a government by the people and for the people. At the time, that was revolutionary. Unfortunately, the revolution fell just short. We must continue the revolution of creating the
country and the world that the founders of this country envisioned.

The world I want to live in is one of hope - one where the rights of every individual are respected, validated and heard. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans do this. Sure they say they do and they craft elaborate policy schemes and deceptive rhetorical flourishes that appeal to the masses and gets them elected when the other side has power. But
once the power of government flips from one side to the other, they both act the same way. They go right back to the status quo (perhaps with some minor adjustments).

Well, I’m tired of the status quo and minor adjustments. The status quo SUCKS. Major adjustments are needed. We can be told that it’s the greatest thing on Earth, but then why do hundreds of thousands sleep on the streets without a home; why do millions go without basic healthcare; why are trillions spent on weapons and only millions on educating the future of our world? Why? Because our bastardized democratic government has been overrun by capitalistic and greedy corporations. Our government has slowly been stolen. And we must take it back. We will take it back. One day at a time. It has already begun. Come join us.

Everything we read in the media and are surrounded with tells us that everything is great. We should just shut up and go shopping. But our gut tells us that this isn’t right. That there is more to life than the movies, the stores, the cars, and sex, drugs and rock and roll. Not that those things are evil. I happen to enjoy sex, drugs and rock and roll, as well as the occasional movie, road trip and new shirt. But I know that there is more to life than those things. You know this, too.

Tired of things the way they are? Stop your bitching and do something. Be the change that you want to see. Volunteer. Organize. Mobilize. Educate. Speak out.

Come join us as we envision a better world and protest the powers that have gotten us to such a sad state of affairs.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/04/24/1779844

-------------------------------

I don't care if I'm in the minority when I demand change. Why should anybody be oppressed because the majority says that it's okay. A majority of the south, and the whole country, for that matter, at one point thought slavery was okay. We can't always trust the majority to be right.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Welcome to DU, you've brought up one of my fave

topics (see sig below)

I will say I am planning on voting for Kerry, but I am also writing to him to let him know I am NOT happy about that and that I will be watching to see if he works hard at instituting meaningful election reform during his term. If not, '08 will be up for grabs.

[Eric J in MN]

28. In 2004, if you want to vote

In 2004, if you want to vote Green for every office BESIDES the Presidency, go ahead.

But please, help us get Bush out by voting for John Kerry for President.

[LoZoccolo]

38. If we jump to a third party, how will things ever change?

I think a lot of I-don't-like-the-Democrats sentiment comes from people that want to be served up a ballot every two years, check off a box, and that's kind-of it. But participating in democracy is a lot more than that, and one way to get involved - which requires a lot more work - is to try to influence the people voting for the parties. If you want change, you'll have to pick some issues and try to get them well-known enough that the Democrats can't ignore them. Otherwise your 3% or 7% or whatever will vote on it, the whole left risks losing on a bunch of stuff outside your distinguishing issues, and things possibly get worse. Like gay and lesbian rights groups have been very successful at getting their issues more into the mainstream while being a small group within society. But a lot of other more-fringe activists like to complain about the choices they're given while they're not successful at getting their message out enough to get consensus, and that's what you have to do in a democracy. I don't think the stone-in-the-shoe strategy works, as you saw in the 2000 election.

[tomorrowsashes]

39. ummm... did you read any of my posts?

If you read any of my posts above, you would see that I don't believe that the ballot box is an effective way to encourage change. I think that one way to use your vote as leverage is to not vote, in rejection of the current system. If enough people do this, a change must be made. Of course, this has to be used in conjunction with direct action, demonstrations, and strong displays of our anger. I would lump voting for a third party candidate in with not voting, as they both achieve the ame effect.

People who deny that economic globalization harms the poor people of the world would most likely change their mind with research. You might want to start hereL
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wbimf/faq.html

I don't believe that organizations can be reformed, just as I believe that capitalism cannot be reformed. That's a separate issue, though.

[LoZoccolo]

46. "Don't vote" bahahahaha.

Yes. "I have no opinion on almost all other issues."

This is worse than third-party voting. At least with that, you espouse some opinion on where you'd like to go.

If enough people do this, a change must be made.

No it won't. How?

Yes, let's just cede power to the people who don't share our opinions for however-many-years it takes for things to change! Not like anyone'll starve to death in that time or anything! I wan't real change! Real change involves letting the other side get it's way indefinately on dubious premises!

:eyes:

[Christ was Socialist]

40. like i say When your house is on fire

You finally get a chance to move to another location.

[Deja Q]

41. It all started with reagan, but Clinton did not reverse the workers' trend

of doing more work for less money.

Clinton balanced the budget, which was nice, but he was no saint in my eyes.

NAFTA was also discussed under poppy bush, but Clinton did happily sign it.

Nor did Clinton reform corporate welfare, as he happily did for welfare for people who fucking NEED it. x(

Not to forget DOMA or DMCA, the 1996 telecom act...

And firing Jocelyn Elders, quite possibly the ONLY Atty General who anybody bothered to listen to.

Clinton was a repuke enabler - look how they repaid him too. Evil does to its own what it does to those who help it. Repukes are evil.

http://www.stoppoliceware.org/ is showing how more "Dems" are DINOs, readily helping the repukes.

I agree with you mostly, though I'm going to have to research Carter. It's odd that a man who helped ruin his presidency when speaking of oil conservation in 1980 would help in some idiotic military coup, but nobody's perfect...

[gpandas]

43. sad but true...

we need to get rid of electoral college, and the senate and have true representative government, but i say the only way is by educating enough people that repugs are led by greedy, wealthy, white men who are owned by corporations. not to suggest that some dems are not equally guilty, but the writing on the wall is clear to me.

[Vladimir]

45. When there is an opportunity

now there plainly isn't one - there is no 3rd party candidate with a hope of winning. My attitude has always been that between elections one should campaign for a 3rd party shift as much as possible. But if the election is coming close and one sees that not enough has been done to give a 3rd party a genuine shot at winning, one then votes for the non-RW candidate with the best chance of winning - i.e. a Democrat.