Voting: 2004 Presidential Election
 

I was wondering how many of you are planning to vote this year, if you live in the US and are of age to vote. If you do not live in the US, are you going to vote in the next major election for your country? If you're not of age, would you vote if you were?

If you're not going to vote, why not?

I'm going to vote for John Kerry, but it won't be one of my proudest moments.

I would vote for Ralph Nader but the bipartisan conspiracy won't allow him on the ballot in most states. So there's really no point in even registering... will only get me called up for jury duty.

I think the major issues that will decide this one are issues like social security and gun control. One of the reasons I think Gore lost was because of his stance on gun control which lost him alot of votes in his own home state of Tenn.

Well don't live in the US but i am counting on the politicians to not call for an election(in denmark the prime minister decides when to hold the election, however it can't be more than four years since last election) before the 8 of feburary. if they do that i can vote if not i will have to wait till the next election.
BTW i understand what you fell about having to vote on eather bush og kerry, in Denmark we have 9 parties (seven of wich can be expected to get in the pairlement after next election) and none i could vote for (so i will have to vote blank)

hve an election coming up in canada, they haven't realesed a date though

I don't understand why you just don't vote for the lesser of the two evils in your opinion then. Voting is your duty as a citizen.

I won`t be voting for Tony blair, that`s for sure (uk) there was a viewers poll on the tv tonite and most of the uk think he should stand down as prime minister.
If I was a US citizen I wouldn`t be voting for Bush either.
Not getting into my reasons why cos don`t want to start a political view debate. Just thought I would answer the main Q.

I'll vote for who I want or not at all. Talking heads like James Carville were predicting Nader would garner 1-2% of the vote at most. The last CNN poll (that included him) had Nader at 7% of registered voters. The following week CNN removed him from the questionnaire entirely. Seems democrats only like democracy when it works in their favor. They never treated Ross Perott this way, and I supported his campaign too BTW.

A vote in support of the two-party system is a wasted vote. :p

I couldn't have said it better myself. I second that.

It seems to me that you've missed the point behind the "adversarial" system. It is human nature to see things from your own perspective, and to only voice protest against things that go against you. That's human nature and that's never going to change.

That's why democracy never works in a one party system. You need at least two adversaries so that at least one side will attack the flaws of the others. Our system works because you can't change human nature--the best you can do is work with human nature with checks and balances.

Now, you believe you are protesting the two party system, but why? And to what end? What alternative are you promoting? Are you even promoting it at all, or could you be hurting it by throwing away your vote?

If your protesting the hypocrisy of human nature, then prepare for a lifetime of disappointment. There's no such thing as the objective human, only humans who delude themselves into believing they are objective (watch out for them).

Have you checked the differences between a republican and a democrat recently? They're not much different at all, so this fault-checking of opposite parties seems like a fallacy to me. George Bush signed in the most massive health care bill in known history. Sound Democrat-like to you? You betcha. Do you remember our involvment in Somalia? Clinton was acting quite Republican. How much longer do you think it will be before there really aren't any differences between the two parties? We will be a single-political party country. Or how long will it be before one president finds a massive and critical threat to the United States and signs in "special emergency powers" of the government, designed to only be temporary, but end up lasting forever? (like the Patriot Act of Bush, or Hitler before him). Our founding fathers demanded that the citizens of the US of A be diligent against a tyrannical government. They wanted a government constantly in fear of its citizens overthrowing them, not a citizenry constantly in fear of its own government. Those that created this country, if they could see us now, would be ashamed and would wonder how we let it get to this.
I am protesting the two party system because it is hardly two party, as I would like it to be. The alternative I am proposing is educating America about the other parties. I bet you over 50% of Americans don't know that we have active Communist, Nazi, and Socialist parties, the latter of the three is doing the best, with the Green Party winning all their votes. Americans are democrats or republicans simply because they are cattle, and do not know better. My end? One could ask the question, to what end do we do anything?

the Green Party gets my vote.

It's simply a fallacy that the Republican and Democrat parties are so similar. It's true that both parties have evolved, but NOT closer to each other. The Republican health care bill, like other Bush promoted spending programs, amounts to "corporate welfare"--benefiting big drug companies at the expense of the taxpayers and consumers. While traditional Republican fiscal conservatives are content with merely lowering taxes on the wealthy (and others), the neo-conservatives actively handout taxpayer money to corporations. That's not in any way closer to the Democrats--that's further away.

Fundamentally, the Republican party remains the party of "big business" while the Democratic party remains the party of "the little guy". If you can't see the lines anymore it's only because you're choosing to blind yourself to them.

As for Bill Clinton with Somalia, it's hard to see how his actions were particularly Republican or Democrat. They were merely clumsy and inexperienced. He had inherited the Somalia occupation from President Bush while it was still a well received humanitarian mission. Unfortunately, his administration failed to understand the significance and nature of Adide's threat until far too late.

BTW, if you really feel that the gravest threat is from our government following the way of the fascists, and that our founding father's greatest hope against this was the counterthreat of our nation's citizenry, you should be more supportive of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. THAT is the one which, more than anything else in the Constitution, ensures the final recourse against government oppression. The Green party is completely on the wrong side of this one. Neither Bush nor Kerry support the RKBA (Bush provides at most lip service to gun rights, but actually acts against them). Take a look at the Libertarian Party.

Of course, if you're so far left that you can't see the difference between the Democrats and Republicans, the far right Libertarians probably aren't your cup of tea...

Solve the problem by voting libertarian.

--John Galt