What Political Party Do You Vote For?

[nimble]

I beg your pardon.  Dismissing an argument by psychologizing about and impugning the motives of one's opponent is an ad hominem fallacy.

First of all, I didnt dismiss any argument. I offered my OPINION, about the motives of those with that argument.

Second, the same can be said about libertarians regarding ideology. I said that republicans were religious, they wanted constitutional bans on gay marriage, and some other things, and your reply was "not all of them." Which is a perfectly valid argument. You are correct, I stereotyped them, and collectively grouped them, into something that not every individual republican does. But same can be said about libertarians. Are all libertarians against any type of war? No, because I am a libertarian and I think that self-defense of our nation is the governments number one priority. I just cant see how voting Bush, is a good idea. All it will do is either get him into office, which i dont want. Then that will cause a huge hatred for the republican party, because people for some reason just like to hate that man. And it will most likely cause the next republican candidate to lose, simply because the democrats will have so much ammo against the republican party it wont even be a close race.

So basically: vote bush=bad next 8 years.

[Montesquieu]

Who the heck votes for Green candidates? Either their is a communist in our midsts or someone was just screwing around.

[Capitalism Forever]

You are correct, I stereotyped them, and collectively grouped them, into something that not every individual republican does. But same can be said about libertarians.

"Libertarian" is an ideology. "Republican" is a political party.

If you vote Libertarian, you endorse the Libertarian ideology, an integral part of which is the opposition to the "warfare state." If you vote Republican, you simply say that there are more good guys (or at least fewer bad guys) among the Pubs than among the Dems.

[nimble]

"Libertarian" is an ideology. "Republican" is a political party.

If you vote Libertarian, you endorse the Libertarian ideology, an integral part of which is the opposition to the "warfare state." If you vote Republican, you simply say that there are more good guys (or at least fewer bad guys) among the Pubs than among the Dems.

Actually, the Republicans at least began with an ideology, and I believe that they still do have an ideology today (although it is a very contradictory one). I think that to endorse Republicans is to endorse all that which the Republican party supports, which isnt a good thing.

[Betsy]

I think that to endorse Republicans is to endorse all that which the Republican party supports, which isnt a good thing.

Why?

I don't endorse the entire Republican platform or historical agenda and neither do many Republican registered voters, candidates, or office holders. All being a Republican means is that

1) I can vote in the Republican primary where there tends to be more candidates closer to my views than in the Democratic Party.

2) I can work to influence the direction of the Republican Party from the inside and use their access to the media and the electorate to further MY agenda.

I totally discount the Libertarian Party because

1) They cannot elect candidates or even outpoll the Green Party.

2) They are also failures as a vehicle for spreading ideas since they can't get the attention a major party can and they often espose positions (anti-war, etc.) completely at odds with my own.

[Hannibal]

Of the 2 parties who actually stand a chance at winning, the Republicans are the lesser of 2 evils. If I had my choice of parties to be in charge of things, I'd choose the Libertarians but that isn't likely to happen in the near future.

[nimble]

Why?

I don't endorse the entire Republican platform or historical agenda and neither do many Republican registered voters, candidates, or office holders.  All being a Republican means is that

1) I can vote in the Republican primary where there tends to be more candidates closer to my views than in the Democratic Party.

2) I can work to influence the direction of the Republican Party from the inside and use their access to the media and the electorate to further MY agenda.

I totally discount the Libertarian Party because

1) They cannot elect candidates or even outpoll the Green Party.

2) They are also failures as a vehicle for spreading ideas since they can't get the attention a major party can and they often espose positions (anti-war, etc.) completely at odds with my own.

You're right in your logic of being Republican. I just choose not to vote it. This is my first Presidential race I can vote in and i refuse to vote Bush. I did get to vote in the lesser elections 2 years ago.

And I dont understand why any one would vote green party. They are basically socialists. Some green party members support a 4 DOLLAR GAS TAX to FORCE the market to create alternative means of fuel. This is insane that they would impose such a devastating blow to our economy just for the sake of causing less polution. Global Warming isnt even a concern anymore, since so many scientists think that it occurs naturally.

[AshRyan]

I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the religious right, particularly as I see the consequences of their ideas being played out in the war in Iraq. I do not think that this war (as it stands now) will be better in the long run for America than if it hadn't happened at all.

That said, I do not think that one should vote along party lines.

[Dagny]

wow...great replies...the debates going on are exactly the kind i have been thinking about.....republicans being so influenced by religion....should i vote for the lesser of the two evils or none at all etc. as i said earlier, i have voted mostly republican, but i also have voted democrat and libertarian.

wouldn't it be great to have an objectivist political party? an objectivist once told me that objectivists are not interested in obtaining power...hence we believe in limited government... but is that why there isn't any objectivist political party? i'm sure i'm not the first who's thought of it.

also, i am wondering who voted for the green party. it would be nice if they spoke up and gave reasons. so speak up people! from objectivist articles that i've read, most objectivists believe that environmentalism should fall under a concern for science not politics or they don't think it's a concern at all.

[Areactor]

I was once a Libertarian.

Until I realized the only issue I knew about was the War on Drugs...

[Yes]

.........That said, I do not think that one should vote along party lines.

I thoroughly agree!

[Capitalism Forever]

I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the religious right, particularly as I see the consequences of their ideas being played out in the war in Iraq.  I do not think that this war (as it stands now) will be better in the long run for America than if it hadn't happened at all.

Don't forget that the media is actively trying to make the situation seem much worse than it is. While it is true that we have had many unnecessary losses courtesy of Jesus, the cost/benefit ratio of this war is still outstandingly positive.

Remember the bloodbaths of WWII, the Civil War, or the War of Independence. Compared to the magnitude of those events, it could be argued that the current hostilities in Iraq may not even qualify as a war.

[nimble]

i dont think he was talking about the casualties, which you are correct in saying that they are over publicized. I think there are a few more things wrong in Iraq and that whole situation, then the obvious stuff the media shows everyday. And by the way on a side note, why is everyone so critical of the media? Do they not have free speech? If Iraq sells papers, i say way to go media. If bush bashing sells papers, i say "way to go media." Whatever produces profits without lawsuits, i say they should print.

[jedymastyr]

I choose not to vote.

It's obvious why I won't vote for the Green party.

The Republicans are religious in nature, support bans on abortion (even Constitutional?), send AIDS money to Africa, and pass up Iran and North Korea for Iraq...

The Democrats support ethnic tribalism/racism with policies like affirmative action (or watered-down versions like Michigan last summer). As a white male college student, this is particularly annoying. Their foreign policies are disasterous

Either of the two major political parties violate fundamental rights (abortion, government-sponsored racism, failure to adequately defend the country). I feel that supporting either party is endorsing a major evil.

The Libertarian party has some good deregulation goals. However, if Libertarian ideals were actualized and failed (which is likely), it would destroy the momentum of the movement and be counterproductive in the long run.

There is a limit to the clothes pin vote, and in my opinion the potential political parties all go beyond it.

What I think would be helpful is to implement a new system of voting. Instead of picking a candidate to vote for, a voter could choose to vote for or against one candidate. This way, one could better the plight of the "lesser of the two evils" without sanctioning him directly. It would be nice to "vote down" the most evil, thereby being both practical [getting the "more logical" view(s) supported] and moral [not endorsing evil]. In addition, it would make obvious possible discontent in the political system. Other countries have systems where a certain percentage of the votes is required to get elected, with run-offs, and I think that would go along with this.

[Bondolon]

Voted "I Don't Vote" (odd irony)

I choose not to vote for 2 main reasons: I don't support any political party and I am (feebly) protesting the state of democracy in America.

A question to consider here, however, is whether capitalism (in its truest or current incarnation) could exist in a different political system (e.g. a Monarchy)

[Capitalism Forever]

What I think would be helpful is to implement a new system of voting.  Instead of picking a candidate to vote for, a voter could choose to vote for or against one candidate.

That's an excellent idea!

[Spearmint]

What I think would be helpful is to implement a new system of voting.  Instead of picking a candidate to vote for, a voter could choose to vote for or against one candidate.  This way, one could better the plight of the "lesser of the two evils" without sanctioning him directly.  It would be nice to "vote down" the most evil, thereby being both practical [getting the "more logical" view(s) supported] and moral [not endorsing evil].  In addition, it would make obvious possible discontent in the political system.

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?iss...022&n=1&id=3645

[William Morley]

republicans believe in small government = provided it is large enough to force their way of life onto everybody else$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[jedymastyr]

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?iss...022&n=1&id=3645

I would like to clarify, in case I was misunderstood:

Voting for a person would add one point to the candidate's score. Voting against a person would subtract one point from that candidate's score. You pick one--vote for one candidate or vote against one candidate.

If I understand _The Onion_ article, by voting "against Bush" they mean voting for Kerry as normal, and vise-versa.

I think there's an important difference: voting for one candidate and voting against the other candidate are two different things, and should be treated as such. If you don't want to support any of the candidates, but one stands out as more evil than the others, it would be nice to be able to vote against the worst one without any implication of moral acceptance of any other.

--

Also, thanks for your comment Capitalism Forever.

[nimble]

republicans believe in small government = provided it is large enough to force their way of life onto everybody else$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

i dont see your point...can you clarify?