Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

The Evils of Lesser Evil Voting »

Posted by: populist 1 year, 3 months ago

9.6

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 54

Propped: 125

Comments: 162

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Understand this: Lesser evil voting is not courageous. It is a cowardly surrender to the disappointing two-party status quo. Voters have some remarkable opportunities to transform fine minor candidates into competitive major candidates - more honest and trustworthy people like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, for example.

Read Full Story at populistamerica.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 162

25%
populist1 year, 3 months ago

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right"
-H.L. Mencken
Reply
47 Replies
- 82%
  elzorro21621 year, 3 months ago
  
  Great quote!
  Z
  Reply
  18 Replies
  - 100%
    populist1 year, 3 months ago
    
    one of my favorites!
    Reply
    17 Replies
    - 83%
      buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago
      
      Great quote, I like Mencken too. How about this one from Alexander Tyler;
      "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
      Reply
      16 Replies
      - 83%
        populist1 year, 3 months ago
        
        another good one. the founders absolutely abhorred a nation-wide pure democracy.
        liberty should be the goal of government - not security, not power, not anything else. protection of liberty.
        Reply
      - 100%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        buckncindykill: It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure......always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury....to dependency...
        WOW....that sounds exactly like the typical Democrat party platform ever since LBJ or maybe even FDR, except maybe JFK........
        
        Reply
        14 Replies
        
        71%
        buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago
        
        precisely........
        Reply
        13 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
        
        Exactly what do you and KoT call tax cuts, if not looting the treasury? Particularly when given to the most powerful?
        Reply
        12 Replies
        
        27%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Tax cuts always increase revenues coming into the treasury....even JFK knew that....tax increases rape the treasury and slow down the economy....
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        89%
        Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
        
        They haven't yet. And if you have links to actual numbers (from the government) to back you up, I'd like to see them.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        100%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Many in the Washington establishment were shocked, when the Congressional Budget Office reported a surge of "unanticipated tax receipts" that will sharply push down this year's deficit. Those who had been proclaiming the Bush tax rate cuts would result in a big reduction in tax revenues tried to hide their disappointment. It was tough being proved wrong again after having said the same thing when Ronald Reagan cut tax rates in the early 1980s.
        We have now had three major experiments with tax rate reduction in the last half-century, and each time both economic growth and tax revenues have surged, despite the fears and cries of the anti-tax-cut crowd. How much more evidence will they need to understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenues? Most everyone, including most members of Congress, can understand that properly structured tax rate reduction, by decreasing the impediments to working, saving and investing, will lead to a higher rate of economic growth.
        
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Why then is it so difficult to understand that a bigger economic pie can lead to more tax revenue rather than less?
        The latest major tax rate reductions were enacted in 2003, and the first three-year results are now in. The increase in tax revenues, as in the previous two experiments, has far outstripped inflation, and the economy is close to full employment. The economy was already falling into recession when George W. Bush took office, and he made the mistake then of giving small tax rebates rather than cutting marginal tax rates on labor and capital as he did in the bigger tax cut of 2003.
        The question is always asked, did the "tax cuts pay for themselves?" If, by "paying for themselves," one means more tax revenue was produced for the government after several years than otherwise would have occurred, we can provide a reasonably certain answer.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        The Kennedy tax cuts led to a very high rate of economic growth and no reduction in tax revenue as a percent of gross domestic product over the period (average of 17.6 percent). Therefore, with a very high degree of confidence, we can say the Kennedy rate cuts paid for themselves in three years.
        The Reagan tax cut program also led to higher GDP growth than would have been expected; in fact, the U.S. economy grew in real terms by almost one-third during the Reagan years. Tax revenues as a percent of GDP fell slightly from 19.6 percent of GDP at the beginning of his administration to 18.3 percent at the end, but total tax revenues were far higher, and the tax cuts "paid for themselves" within four years. This is because the tax base was at least 15 percent larger than would have been expected without the rate reduction program.
        The Bush tax cuts also appear to be well on their way to "paying for themselves," despite the dire warnings of his critics.
        
        Reply
        
        100%
        buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Even JFK saw the benefit of cutting taxes to increase revenue for the treasury. Happens everytime its tried. As for your 'given to the most powerful' statement, 85% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners. Can I also assume then you back an alternative tax structure? Say the Fair Tax?
        
        Reply
        
        73%
        slate1 year, 3 months ago
        
        I must be a powerful monkey I got a tax cut,,, so did you
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
        
        We each got a free $300 in the most transparent buying of votes this country's ever seen. Other than that, I don't know how you know whether I got a tax cut.
        But aside from that, it's still looting the treasury, no matter who got them.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        89%
        nostalgia1 year, 3 months ago
        
        In April, Treasury reported record high tax collections of $383.6 billion, beating the old record of $331.8 billion in April 2001, even with the "tax cuts for the wealthy".
        http://newsbusters.org/node/12719
        "But aside from that, it's still looting the treasury, no matter who got them"
        I don't understand that logic! Washington "loots" your wallet every year when you pay taxes. Many of us just want the Feds to spend less and not see the American taxpayer as a piggy bank for their pet projects.
        Find out if you received a tax cut. Just calculate what you paid the year BEFORE the tax cuts went into effect. Then recalcuate your taxes with the same income after the tax cuts.
        That is the only way you will know if you recevied a tax cut. Stop spouting the "tax cuts for the wealthy" garbage until you look at your own taxes - unless you are one of the "wealthy" of course.
        Our taxes were lowered and we are NOT wealthy
        Reply
        
        100%
        slate1 year, 3 months ago
        
        All I know is my check has always been laeger since the tax break,,, even after the $300,,,, so yeah I got a tax break
        Reply
        
        100%
        NotVulgarName1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Voting themselves money from the treasury sounds more like the perpetual handouts that the majority of the people vote for themselves. the rich already pay the majority of the taxes for this country. Just why they owe the rest of us handouts I will never understand..
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        89%
        Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
        
        I'm sure you can guess that I disagree with your comment about the rich not owing us handouts.
        But still, I was responding to the comments of KingOfTruth and buckncindykill when I called tax cuts "looting the treasury."
        If you want to argue about whether the treasury deserved rich folks' money to begin with, that's another argument.
        Reply
- 0%
  Natureboy1 year, 3 months ago
  
  Lets take that a bit further. If, as I do, you see the US political/military/economic system as something requiring fundamental change, then it is merely a cult of personality to think you will achieve your ends merely by placing a few new faces at the helm of the status quo.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
    
    Natureboy:
    If, as I do, you see the US political/military/economic system as something requiring fundamental change...
    Most sane people do not see it that way.....neo commies do...
    Reply
- 100%
  CrazyRay1 year, 3 months ago
  
  An average article from Populist's website, spammed on Netscape once again...
  Reply
- 25%
  slowbox1 year, 3 months ago
  
  JUST VOTE. You do more harm than good by being SILENT.
  Pick the lesser of evils. Over the course of our lifetimes we can steer our country in a better direction. But filling in the name "Spiderman 3" on the ballot doesn't prove a point. However entertaining that thought may be.
  
  Reply
  23 Replies
  - 100%
    populist1 year, 3 months ago
    
    Well, I disagree. Over the last few decades our country has been steered in a worse and worse direction. The debt continues to grow, the power of the politicians continues to grow, prices grow, wars continue, and on and on and on....
    The lesser of two evil only guarantees that you'll get more evil.
    Reply
    22 Replies
    - 100%
      slowbox1 year, 3 months ago
      
      I would agree by your own point. Not enough people are supporting change. Not enough people are voting. I swear its the status quo that plants these seeds of voting dis-interest as a means to keep our population FRAGMENTED from simply agreeing on even small changes. Perhaps the lesser of two evils is as good as it gets, ever. Are you without flaw? What is not evil?
      Grab an oar and start paddling if you want to take this sinking ship to shore. That oar is your vote, and all you REALLY got.
      
      Reply
      7 Replies
      - 100%
        populist1 year, 3 months ago
        
        I like the analogy...I'll just make sure that I don't use my "oar" to poke any more holes in this sinking ship...
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        slowbox says:Not enough people are supporting change. Not enough people are voting. I swear its the status quo that plants these seeds of voting dis-interest as a means to keep our population FRAGMENTED from simply agreeing on even small changes.
        Actually what has happened is that too many people who have no clue as to the realities of government, economics, national defense requirements, or much of anything else of importance for that matter, are voting.....too many people who have no clue at all are voting.....just look at the mental midgets on segments like when Jay Leno goes onto the street and asks people simple questions....Sean Hannity and local shows like Rick Roberts also do the same things....from hearing the answers of 99% of the people to the simple questions posed, I would say that those 99% should never be voting.....
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        43%
        GWHayduke1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Count yourself among them.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Hey now...I know the answers to the questions.....most voters don't even know simple stuff like who is Cheney?
        Reply
        
        0%
        slowbox1 year, 3 months ago
        
        I dig the thought processes here. But King of Truth, lets pretend people felt more empowered to vote, and that our collective votes can help direct who takes office. Which is possible, if collectively we actively engage and challenge the government. Then perhaps the general populace would feel inclined to read more political news and less glamour magazine. Oh who are we kidding. Lets talk about something people are aware of...Paris Hilton is in jail! wowzers Fox headline news.
        
        Reply
      - 83%
        jaern1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Ross Perot's 18% of the popular vote in '92 should have sent a loud message to the 2 party system, but in the end it didn't.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        100%
        Ratskii1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Teddy Roosevelts 29% of the popular vote when he ran for with the Bull Moose party should have sent a loud message to the 2 party system. ;)
        Reply
    - 0%
      KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
      
      populist says:
      Well, I disagree. Over the last few decades our country has been steered in a worse and worse direction.
      Actually this all startedto happen in the 60's when the communist party started to infiltrate the US educational, media, entertainment, legal system and the DNC...just look at tht major damage the communist ACLU has done and all of the marxists/c... in the educational system and then look at the communists goals as entered into the Congressional Record in 1963.....you will see exactly why our country has been steered in that worse and worse direction.....
      Reply
      12 Replies
      - 88%
        MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
        
        If I didn't know that you were serious, I would say that was amusingly satirical. If marxists have been in charge of educating our children, how come so many of them are not communists?
        The media? entertainment? The legal system and the DNC? Those communists have been hiding really well for a long time huh?
        And since when is defending constitutional principles and civil liberties a communist activity? That's a little assbackwards ya think?
        Your "proof" is something someone read into the 1963 congressional record.....get a grip man!
        Reply
        10 Replies
        
        0%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Obviously since you have been brainwashed by them, you have not noticed them and what they have accomplished over the years.....lookup the ACLU...it was founded by a group of communists with communist goals...that is a fact.....most of their work still is focusing on those original commmunist goals....and my proof is that the left has worked so hard that about 95% of those communist goals read into the record in 1963 have actually come to pass.....look it up before you disagree....for once find out the truth....
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        33%
        MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
        
        From 1963 red scares to R. M. Whitney's hit piece from 1924, tsk, tsk.
        They certainly had some radicals and some avowed solialists, and Baldwin for a while was sympathetic to the Russian commies, however, the organization changed somewhat from the early 20's that you seem to be stuck on. Their original goals were defending conscientious objectors and anti-militarists opposed to WWI. Hardly communist goals.
        "Baldwin orchestrated a campaign to revise the ACLU charter. Henceforth,those affiliated with totalitarian organizations would not be allowed to serve on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. An organizational trial of Flynn ensued, resulting in her ouster and establishing a pattern for anti-communist policies and programs that flourished during the Cold War." This took place in the 30's I believe.
        You need to keep up with the times.
        
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        This is the real goals of the ACLU.....
        The ACLU was founded in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman, described as a "progressive" and "the perfect feminist."
        Earl Browder was general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States from 1930 through its dissolution in 1944. When the party was reconstituted as the Communist Political Association later that year, Browder was chosen as its president. Browder proudly proclaimed that the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party. To deny the ACLU's founding was attached at the hip to communist organizations is to deny what can easily be proven as truth.
        For the past few decades, the ACLU has been on a major crusade to destroy Christianity in America, promote filth under "freedom of speech and expression," and of course, vigorously defend the homosexual culture of death.
        
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        100%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        On Jan. 10, 1963, a Congressman read a list of 45 communist goals into the Congressional Record. Below are the communist goals being implemented by the ACLU in their quest to destroy America's culture and traditions:
        # Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
        # Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
        # Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.
        # Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
        
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        88%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        # Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
        # Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television.
        # Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."
        # Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
        # Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
        # Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture, education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        89%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        # Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the communists took over. Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.
        # Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
        Anyone who has been following the destructive path of the ACLU can easily see how effective these communist goals have been implemented to "promote democracy" and protect your "civil rights." Lenin stated: "Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy."
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
        
        James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution":
        Democracy is the most vile form of government, democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
        It's time to recognize the ACLU as the American Communist Lawyers Union not by their disingenuous "civil rights" stage name.
        Organizations like Working Assets support the ACLU, which in turn uses that money to buy Congress, who vote to unconstitutionally fund the activities of the ACLU under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.
        We must demand these public servants in Congress repeal the unconstitutional funding of this subversive organization.
        There is no justification under Art. 1, Sec. 8, to steal from the peoples treasury to give money to the ACLU or other organization for "civil rights" lawsuits.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        80%
        MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Dang!! I knew I might provoke him into a cut and paste frenzy. A congressman in 1963 read a typical red scare diatribe (help getcha 'lected back then) and THAT is proof? ROLFLMAO!!
        Hey KOT, did you know the ACLU helped Limbaugh beat his drug rap? Dirty commies.
        Reply
        
        100%
        Ratskii1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Man, KOT, I get the feeling that you don't even know what Marxist-Leninism is. The MLs long ago betrayed the people they supposedly were helping. The MLs aren't even an issue anymore.
        From the list you provided above I note that using technical decision by the Supreme Court to weaken American Institutions, get control of the schools (NCLB and creationist propaganda), discrediting American culture, infiltrate the churches, support centralized government, belittle the teaching of history, sound an awful lot like the Republican platform. Do I understand correctly that you Madison quote means you don't support democracy? Why are we fighting in Iraq then?
        Reply
        
        100%
        quillyregnold1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Here we go ONCE AGAIN!!!! KingOfCut-N-Paste....Get a life dude!! Or maybe (I know this is especially challenging for you) get your own words!!!!! And you call other people brainwashed!! You don't have one single original idea in your pointed cut-n-paste head!! If we wanted a history lesson.....we would subscibe to the channel. DUH!!
        Reply
      - 83%
        scriblerus11 year, 3 months ago
        
        KingOfTurds: You have confirmed for the umteenth time that you are an absolute nutjob. I agree with the dude above that says you should count yourself among those who shouldn't vote.
        Get a clue, moron! There are very few communists in this country. You've been mainlining Rush and Michael Savage too long. You need detox.
        Reply
    - 100%
      sailr1 year, 3 months ago
      
      So we should vote for NADER!?? I think not!
      Reply
- 100%
  Locky121 year, 3 months ago
  
  Great quote, but the truth of the matter is, money and popularity get a candidate to where he/she is. There must be some kind of compromise. There's no such thing as the perfect candidate. Especially not in '08. That's for sure!
  Reply
0%
zplan1 year, 3 months ago

Hats off to Mr. Joel S. Hirschhorn and Populist. The key IS a politically engaged citizen. The feeling of being powerless in voting for a minor canditate is what the ruling class banks on. I am wondering what percentage of voters have the attitude that a vote for a minor candidate won't matter. Today there is the capacity and means to see where elected officials and incumbents stand on issues and what they wish to achieve. Perhaps some (many?) voters should take a little of their TV viewing time and use it to see what their choices really are. Still, there are those who simply don't care as well.
Reply
9 Replies
- 100%
  populist1 year, 3 months ago
  
  Exactly!
  I think the quote in the article summed it up best...
  "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
  Reply
- 90%
  Charlson1 year, 3 months ago
  
  During the 2004 elections Ralph Nader siphoned away crucial votes from Al Gore and allowed Bush enough votes to grab the Presidency again. See where that vote of conscience got us. And to think Ralphie said there was no difference between Bush or Gore. History proves him wrong.
  Reply
  5 Replies
  - 0%
    populist1 year, 3 months ago
    
    if you think that Ralph Nader was the cause of the troubles we have now, you're being a bit shortsighted...
    The problem is not WHO is in office, but power. It's not the abuse of power, but the power to abuse.
    We've allowed our politicians to have far too much power for far too long.
    I don't understand how people forget the 1.4 MILLION innocents killed in Iraq by the policies of the Clinton-Gore regime.
    Reply
    2 Replies
    - 0%
      Charlson1 year, 3 months ago
      
      I see the problems we now have with Bush. Voting for the lesser evil might have eliminated this problem. But power isn't real power unless you use it. I'd rather have the less evil person using it.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        populist1 year, 3 months ago
        
        I totally see your point. But, some people don't see Bush as much worse. In my opinion, 1.4 million dead, plus a war in Serbia are enough "proof" for me.
        The fact that democrats voted for the Iraq war, the patriot act, the military commissions act, and most war funding bills doesn't help their case either...
        If we're ever going to turn this mess around we're going to have to take a stand someday....
        Reply
  - 79%
    KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
    
    Charlson says:
    During the 2004 elections Ralph Nader siphoned away crucial votes from Al Gore and allowed Bush enough votes to grab the Presidency again. And to think Ralphie said there was no difference between Bush or Gore. History proves him wrong.
    During the 1992 election, Ross Perot took enough votes from Bush 1 that Clinton got elected..btw...Gore ran in 2000,Kerry in 2004...and there always was a difference between Bush and Gore....Bush does what he thinks is right no matter the political consequences, Gore was, and still is, insane....
    Reply
  - 86%
    jaern1 year, 3 months ago
    
    I strongly disagree. Al Gore gave away his chance at the presidency all by himself.
    Reply
- 0%
  KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
  
  zplan Send says: The key IS a politically engaged citizen..
  Actually the key is a much better educated citizenry and especially one that has not bee brainwashed by many years of a leftist communist marxist socialist eduacational system....
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 100%
    quillyregnold1 year, 3 months ago
    
    CUT-N-PASTE
    Reply
palamaComment removed: User banned.14 Replies
- 100%
  populist1 year, 3 months ago
  
  Well, I think it's always best to vote FOR whatever you believe in - if such a candidate exists. If not, I would never give my approval, my precious vote, to someone I don't truly support....in an effort to keep "the other guy" out of office.
  Reply
- 100%
  PsychoHosebeast1 year, 3 months ago
  
  Well, you can't look at it as "throwing away your vote," as I see it. If more people voted their conscience, as opposed to some idiotic party line, we'd all be a lot better off. Bear witness to how often you hear about some Democrat getting in trouble with a gun, yet, to hear Republicans tell it, Democrats are all lunatic fringe, tree-hugging, anti-gun, anti-war (although at election time--when we aren't at war, the Republicans are happy to point out that "all" wars have been under Democratic administrations--interesting how the story changes to fit the need) activists. Any idiot knows that isn't true--people are people. Yet when time comes to vote, everyone falls into line like a good li'l Toby and votes how da massah tells them to. People died so you can write in that person's name and not be stuck with a ballot with no choices, as poor as those choices usually are.
  Keep in mind, if you don't like the choice, you can do what I do, don't vote for either.
  Reply
  3 Replies
  - 100%
    populist1 year, 3 months ago
    
    I rarely - if ever - find a politician that actually deserved my vote. I refuse to just throw it out to someone!
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 40%
      JustCallMeV1 year, 3 months ago
      
      I with you on that...
      -V-
      Reply
  - 89%
    KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
    
    PsychoHosebeast says:often you hear about some Democrat getting in trouble with a gun, yet,.... Democrats are all lunatic fringe, tree-hugging, anti-gun, anti-war activists....
    Well when you hear about some Democrat getting in trouble with a gun, it is usually because that particular Democrat has been vocally anti Gun for everyone else....and Democrats are, for the most part, lunatic fringe, tree-hugging, anti-gun, anti-war neo commie activists....
    Reply
- 0%
  el-jefe1 year, 3 months ago
  
  I usually vote for the best candidate that has any reasonable chance of being elected. If one candidate is a shoo-in, then I usually aim for being the most effective protest vote.
  For example, in the last Texas Gubenatorial election, Republican Perry was a shoo-in. Ordinarily I vote Republican, but I didn't feel Perry was providing much in the way of leadership and wanted to send a message to my party. I wasn't interested in Democrat Bell for any reason, if I had to pick between the two, I'd pick Perry.
  That left two independent candidates - Strayhorn and Friedman. I could actually vote FOR Friedman, but he was running dead last in the polls. Of the two, the only one who had a chance of making a dent in the Big Two was Strayhorn, so she got my vote. She ended up getting 19% of the vote, the best showing ever for an independent in Texas. Perry won (of course), but with less than 40% of the vote.
  It was the best I could do with what I had to work with.
  Reply
  8 Replies
  - 0%
    populist1 year, 3 months ago
    
    so you preferred Friedman, but voted for Strayhorn?? What did that vote accomplish for you?
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 67%
      el-jefe1 year, 3 months ago
      
      It was the only way that I could send a message to the Republicans who run the state (every single statewide office is held by a Republican). Pretty much every chance they had, Perry and his supporters squashed every Republican faction that disagreed with any part of his plan.
      That would be acceptable if the party was in a fight with the Democrats for its life, but when the party controls everything, it's a good way to alienate the base. Which is what they did.
      If the Dems and Bell weren't utterly bereft of any good ideas, I might be tempted to throw a protest vote their way. But that would only encourage the Democrats, and I need alternatives to the way things are done now in Austin, not a return to the way they were done 20 years ago.
      That left Friedman and Strayhorn. Either one would be an improvement on Perry and Co. The dumbest thing they did was to both stay in the race to split the "none of the above" vote.
      Reply
  - 0%
    MacR1 year, 3 months ago
    
    Yeah I voted for Kinky, he was the only one who had the intrest of this State. Perry, is a freaking moron who thinks that our open border is a good thing. Even though he is now trying to play lip service.
    I am tired of lip service I want action.
    Reply
    5 Replies
    - 38%
      populist1 year, 3 months ago
      
      Yup. I remember getting absolutely hammered by so-called conservatives when I would comment on articles in support of Kinky.
      Perry is all about the NAFTA superhighway, open borders, and on and on. Kinky is turning out to be right about a lot of what he said.
      That's a great example of how the lesser of two evils works against us...
      Reply
      4 Replies
      - 0%
        MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
        
        I voted for Kinky for the entertainment value. He would certainly do a better job than the bought and paid for idjit we have now. Strayhorn's karate choppin' tough grandma routine had me frazzled and Chris Bell was a little too milk toast.
        I think that the people who are smart enough to run our government, are smart enough not to subject themselves to the misery.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        100%
        populist1 year, 3 months ago
        
        i think you've got a good point there!
        Reply
        
        60%
        MacR1 year, 3 months ago
        
        Strayhorn thought she would be looked at like another Richards and we had enough of the old lady routines.
        Kinky well, he was for everyone here. And you have to admit that His straight talk would have worked more. If it was not for the two party system we have now. Strayhorn just did not get the picture of what was going on.
        When she came here to Dallas and we had to do the security I was forced to listen to that speach. I actually was amazed at what she wanted to do. And we have enough nanny programs already, we did not need anymore. And now I hear Perry is thinking about implementing some of things she wanted to do.
        Man I wish Kinky got elected. At least he would have done some work and showed that he will not allow the Feds to tell him he can not close the border. And that Highway, well that would be scrap paper right now. Actually he just might have used it as toliet paper.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        83%
        MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago
        
        The highway idea has got to go. It'll be running right through my front yard. Toilet paper would be a good use for that plan.
        One thing's for certain, with Kinky as the gov, we could easily "Keep Austin Weird."
        Reply
100%
Natureboy1 year, 3 months ago

History tells us that few important changes have been made in this country by the vote. From women's suffrage to the end of slavery to the end of segregation to basic rights for workers, meaningful change has been won in the streets through direct action.
So, vote if you wish, but if you wish to make the world a better place, find like-minded people and just work to make it happen. "Leaders" enjoy their positions of power by virtue of the status quo. Don't ask them to upset the apple-cart upon which they are riding high, they just won't do it.
Reply
0%
Beeboppin711 year, 3 months ago

I vote for the person that I feel is most qualified for the job. It's better than not voting at all.
Reply
30%
vor1 year, 3 months ago

I believe the "lesser evil" view is what motivates the vast majority of voters. Certainly Limbaugh voters do not just vote Republican because they love their talking points. Instead they are baited with arguments about what the Democrats will do if they are in power. They think they are voting Republican to save the country from itself. And of course the Democratic view is the same from the opposite spectrum.
The Americans I have known in my lifetime for the most part do very little research on politics. They vote on pure feel and emotion. Neither Kerry, Gore, or Dole, was able to register emotionally with American voters. Bush certainly did, both positively and negatively. If we don't have an educated electorate how can we expect positive results from our elections?

Reply
1 Reply
- 100%
  stephen-johnson1 year, 3 months ago
  
  "Neither Kerry, Gore, or Dole, was able to register emotionally with American voters. Bush certainly did, both positively and negatively. If we don't have an educated electorate how can we expect positive results from our elections?"
  Did you feel this way about Clinton? Just curious
  Reply
67%
Amazing11 year, 3 months ago

There are essentially two parties. The incumbents always talk about experienced, seasoned leadership. The challengers talk about bold new ideas. These phrases are used interchangeably depending on whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in or out of power.
We, as citizens, need to throw them all for a loop and vote in massive numbers for other parties, depending on what we believe is best for the country.
I also favor the "none-of-the-above" ballot. Should "none-of-the-above" receive the most votes, have a new slate of candidates or don't fill the position.
Reply
5 Replies
- 0%
  populist1 year, 3 months ago
  
  agreed. Whether it's ron paul, or mike gravel, or dennis kucinich, or the green party or the libertarian party, or none of them....the two-party system is ruining this country.
  I watched the "pregame" to the debates on CNN yesterday and Lou Dobbs was talking about the high % of independents in N.H. He alluded to the notion of people being unhappy with the 2-party system...
  The response he got from the democratic party pundit was "the two party system is perfect for this country"
  I think that says it all....
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
    
    populist: two party system
    Having seen what happens in countries with more than two parties who always end up in an unstable coalition government, the two party system looks a lot better....
    Reply
  - 50%
    deathray1 year, 3 months ago
    
    Ultimately in order to wield power, a political party requires a plurality, if not a majority. More parties may offer more choice, but they also dilute the electorate. That's why we see coalition governments in these situations.
    That works better in parliamentary structured governments, where coalitions can be built, and where the executive is subordinated to the legislative, and not our form of government. That's why the Unity '08 movement is doomed, because constitutional power is vested in the President, and not the Vice President.
    Reply
- 0%
  lvrofwolves1 year, 3 months ago
  
  I agree Amazing1- I usually am at the 'none of the above' pick, the problem is..SOMEONE will be voted in, why not the lessor of the 2 evils? If that's called cowardly surrender, so be it, is it better then not voting at all? I personally don't think so..to me not voting at all is just a giving up attitude. Regardless of how much research a person does, it may or may not bring you closer to a decision on who to vote for that a person is happy about. Surely people don't vote for a person that they agree with EVERYTHING that person stands for, and I mean in reality, not just saying they believe in this or that because they think they will get more votes by saying certain things. I want to be saved from the feeling of being close to the giving up attitude- why can't they all tell the truth? so people can make a real decision? when politicans lie, they are stealing choices, and decisions from us.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    Amazing11 year, 3 months ago
    
    I don't really mind if I don't agree with everything a particular candidate espouses. If I can get a sense of integrity (seldom happens) it is more important than my agreement on all issues.
    Reply
0%
NelsonR1 year, 3 months ago

Polictical machines have always played a major role in dictating who the candidates for elected office will be.
The two party system is in the accepted American psychi and change including a elected third party president is years away, if ever.
Then the sheep (Majority) vote for whoever makes the most promises while repeatedly failing to keep most, year after year. It's realism, nothing changes and our future elected officials will be of the same mold.
Positive side, just maybe things will change where true public servants will materialize without the need for power and greed a by product of their running for office.
Reply
5 Replies
- 27%
  lvrofwolves1 year, 3 months ago
  
  Just a Question: did lesser evil voting put Bush into office???
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 100%
    populist1 year, 3 months ago
    
    i think it's played a strong part of virtually every presidential campaign...
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 100%
      lvrofwolves1 year, 3 months ago
      
      yeah :'/ I think you're right.
      Reply
  - 75%
    KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago
    
    lvrofwolves:
    Just a Question: did lesser evil voting put Bush into office???
    No. Insane Al Gore did....
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      Beau78901 year, 3 months ago
      
      KoT, if you're going to make that argument, you shouldn't say "No."

Hello!

The Evils of Lesser Evil Voting »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Read Full Story at populistamerica.com

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 162

populist1 year, 3 months ago

elzorro21621 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago

Beau78901 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

Beau78901 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

buckncindykill1 year, 3 months ago

slate1 year, 3 months ago

Beau78901 year, 3 months ago

nostalgia1 year, 3 months ago

slate1 year, 3 months ago

NotVulgarName1 year, 3 months ago

Beau78901 year, 3 months ago

Natureboy1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

CrazyRay1 year, 3 months ago

slowbox1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

slowbox1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

GWHayduke1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

slowbox1 year, 3 months ago

jaern1 year, 3 months ago

Ratskii1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago

Ratskii1 year, 3 months ago

quillyregnold1 year, 3 months ago

scriblerus11 year, 3 months ago

sailr1 year, 3 months ago

Locky121 year, 3 months ago

zplan1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

Charlson1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

Charlson1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

jaern1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

quillyregnold1 year, 3 months ago

palamaComment removed: User banned.14 Replies

populist1 year, 3 months ago

PsychoHosebeast1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

JustCallMeV1 year, 3 months ago

KingOfTruth1 year, 3 months ago

el-jefe1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

el-jefe1 year, 3 months ago

MacR1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago

populist1 year, 3 months ago

MacR1 year, 3 months ago

MonkeyBiz1 year, 3 months ago