Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Do Not Vote

Rate this topic


Presidential Vote  

129 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you intend to vote for President?

    • Yes, for McCain
      22
    • Yes, for Obama
      9
    • No, I refuse
      65
    • No, just not interested
      7


Recommended Posts

I've noticed that increasing numbers of the Objectivists I know (Diana Hsieh, Myrhaf, possibly Gus Van Horn) are planning not to vote for president *on principle* this year. That's certainly my plan because I don't think there's any value to be had in sanctioning either presidential candidate, even as the lesser of two evils. I'm not sure that either one can be said to *be* the lesser of two evils.

So, I'm curious about how people intend to vote with the election so very close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I already filled out an absentee ballot, and I did in fact choose a President.

I picked "None of the above" :(

For the rest of the choices, my breakdown happened to be mostly Republican, although I went with the Democrat (or the occasional third choice) if the Republican choice was a loud proponent of any religious quackery.

This is also the first time I am voting, despite having the opportunity for the last 7 years. Needless to say, I would've liked my "first time" to be with a great presidential candidate, but oh well, maybe they'll get better with time...

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually pretty likely to vote for Obama -- because I do want him to win rather than McCain. Just for the record, here's what I wrote in my voting guide:

With respect to the presidential election, I'll likely abstain for the reasons similar to those given in Craig Biddle's essay McBama vs. America. Given the Republican Party's dangerous entanglement with fundamentalist Christianity, I will not vote for Republican candidates. (For my detailed reasons, see my 2006 essay Why I'm Voting for the Democrats.) However, McCain is particularly revolting. So if I vote for anyone, I'll vote for Obama. He's beyond awful, but I have some reason to hope that he'll be ineffectual. Plus, the Republicans might grow some cajones as the opposition party.

Far more interesting than my opinion is the fact that Leonard Peikoff plans to abstain for reasons outlined in his latest podcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the options given in this poll are valid for me.

There are more than two parties in the elections.

Yes, but I don't care if people are voting for Bob Barr or Ralph Nader, it's totally irrelevant.

I'm actually pretty likely to vote for Obama --

Sorry, Diana, I interpreted "I'll likely abstain" as you weren't likely to vote for anyone for president, but if you just couldn't resist you'd vote for Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Diana, I interpreted "I'll likely abstain" as you weren't likely to vote for anyone for president, but if you just couldn't resist you'd vote for Obama.

No problem, Jennifer. Or rather, the problem was mine, as I was in the process of shifting my vote -- from abstain to Obama -- when I wrote that post. If Colorado weren't a state in the balance, I'd likely abstain. However, since I do want Obama to win (UGH), I think I ought to vote for him.

In any case, I regard either abstaining or voting for Obama as totally legitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that choose to abstain: Go to the polls. Vote on ballot issues, other races, or turn in a *completely* blank ballot if you have to, or write in "Mickey Mouse" but go to the polls. A no-show is interpreted as apathy when they look at it, but going to the polls means you *do* care, you just do not want *either* of the alleged choices you were given. It's a message to both parties that they could pick up another vote with a better candidate.

Unlike Diana, I don't want Obama to win (he's a even bigger UGH than McCain, and that is a TREMENDOUS accomplishment on his part) but I will abstain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will repeat my #1 reason for voting against McCain (I still can't bring myself to say "I'm voting for Obama"):

Justice Stevens is 88 years old. Politically, McCain cannot nominate a secular Justice to fill his seat. Stevens' replacement will likely sit on the court for several decades.

~Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A no-show is interpreted as apathy when they look at it, but going to the polls means you *do* care, you just do not want *either* of the alleged choices you were given. It's a message to both parties that they could pick up another vote with a better candidate.
That might be the message you wish to send, but it might not be the message they receive. A voter who has left the top of the ticket blank can be viewed any number of ways. It might be that the voter simply forgot to vote for president, or was incapable of making up his mind. Either way, the voter has made himself irrelevant to the process. I agree with you, though, I dont want Obama to win either. So I am going to do what I can to prevent that from happening. The only way to do that is to vote for McCain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, I regard either abstaining or voting for Obama as totally legitimate.

I'm in 100% agreement with this. Over the past 4 years my thinking on the threat posed by religion in the U.S. has changed to the point where I'm no longer willing to vote for anyone with a religious base--at least not for an executive position. I might conceivably be convinced to vote for Republicans for, say, legislative positions in the hope of achieving government gridlock, but that seems like a dangerous position and a fine line to tread. Since most politicians worship the principle of compromise, it's impossible to tell whether they'll stand on the principles they claim to espouse and actually serve as any kind of useful opposition.

It struck me that this election has made me start to experience some real personal anxiety about dealing with the government in any capacity. I always had some, usually around tax-time, but it's *never* been this bad before. I have to go to the DMV tomorrow to get my driver's license renewed and the prospect is really frightening me. I know from previous experience that it will probably only be a minor hassle, but the knowledge of what they *could* do to me is wearing on my nerves and making me unable to sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed that increasing numbers of the Objectivists I know (Diana Hsieh, Myrhaf, possibly Gus Van Horn) are planning not to vote for president *on principle* this year. That's certainly my plan because I don't think there's any value to be had in sanctioning either presidential candidate, even as the lesser of two evils. I'm not sure that either one can be said to *be* the lesser of two evils.

So, I'm curious about how people intend to vote with the election so very close.

One of our contributors wrote a post on the "principle" of note voting: http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=153

Its a topic that I personally debate with the author about a lot...but he always seems to win :lol:

Personally, I'll vote "no" on any tax issues, write in "Free Market" for president, and probably feel a dooming sense of immorality the whole time.

-Wes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama _all_ the way. (I've already given my reasons here and elsewhere... several times over...)

This poll (as is the case with some other polls) is boring and dumb, honestly.

We're all going to move on to other things come 2009.

At least, reciprocate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This poll (as is the case with some other polls) is boring and dumb, honestly.

Then butt out.

Its a topic that I personally debate with the author about a lot...but he always seems to win :lol:

Since he seems to be an anarchist or a libertarian instead of an Objectivist, I'm not surprised. See my comments on that post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since he seems to be an anarchist or a libertarian instead of an Objectivist, I'm not surprised. See my comments on that post.

Thank you for your comments on the post. I'll make sure Adam replies, as he has done with the others you wrote on that chain.

But, I'm confused :lol: . Wasn't it Ayn Rand herself that said Objectivism is not a political party but a philosophy...and that it was not associated with any political party? Furthermore, isn't the idea of a political party itself more-or-less against some of the non-collectivist ideals of Objectivism? Do you see anything on the site that would lead you to believe that we are not very big proponents of Objectivism?

We are reasonable, moral individuals and dislike the term "anarchist," which has gained several negative connotations such as "disorder" If you want to lump us into a stereotype, that is not the one we prefer. In fact, we have a post in the queue that will address that word and its unfortunate implications.

MOR represents Free-Market Capitalism as best as we can-- we are all capitalists that happen to be embrace the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of Objectivism more closely than any other life philosophy. In fact, it is the awesome power of this philosophy that makes me respect every different opinion and comment on this chain with a specific awe and pride that we all may have individual thoughts that we wish to express--all of which can be reasoned clearly and reverently in the realm of Objectivism.

Edited by MonopolyOnReason.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your comment on the post.

But, I'm confused :lol: . Isn't it Ayn Rand herself that said Objectivism is not a political party but a philosophy? Do you see anything on the site that would lead you to believe that we are not very big proponents of Objectivism?

Reading someone state that 'government has no proper functions' would lead me to believe this, yes. Philosophy has certain implications in the realm of politics, and Objectivism in particular is in direct opposition to Anarchism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading someone state that 'government has no proper functions' would lead me to believe this, yes. Philosophy has certain implications in the realm of politics, and Objectivism in particular is in direct opposition to Anarchism.
:lol:

I tend to agree that it is a very extreme statement; and, I have read the essays of Rand and Peikoff on the topic of government; but, please, remind me, where does the line get drawn then between what Libertarians, Objectivists, and free market capitalists think the proper functions of the government should be? May they all concede that the government will always exist but should be strictly limited as much as possible? Can Adam at least not dream (unrealistically in my opinion) that the free market may justly, efficiently, ethically, and effectively take over all the functions of the government that libertarians believe it should have?

I apologize deeply if this is at all seems confrontational. I really do value all of your opinions on this topic. I would like to proudly call myself an Objectivist, first and foremost, ahead of any political party or affiliation. Help me to understand the antagonism and suspicion of these posts to Adam's very similar views?

Edited by MonopolyOnReason.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Lithuania's parliament(seimas) elections, many people showed their creativity as a kind of protest against money wasting made by the bureaucratic machine. Some of them even brought pens of different colors and wrote what they felt about it. Or, some of them just crossed out all the members in the list, while others wrote some other person, like Chuck Norris, for example. Those who abstain could do something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree that it is a very extreme statement; and, I have read the essays of Rand and Peikoff on the topic of government; but, please, remind me, where does the line get drawn then between what Libertarians, Objectivists, and free market capitalists think the proper functions of the government should be? May they all concede that the government will always exist but should be strictly limited as much as possible? Can Adam at least not dream (unrealistically in my opinion) that the free market may justly, efficiently, ethically, and effectively take over all the functions of the government that libertarians believe it should have?

Regarding the question of whether libertarians (including anarchists) are the political allies of Objectivists, I recommend two sources:

(1) Ayn Rand's Q&A on Libertarianism

(2) Paul Hsieh's essay "The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon"

Also, here's something that I wrote on the FRODO discussion list in response to someone who suggested that libertarians and Objectivists might agree on various issues, and so work together:

(1) Libertarians don't agree on anything between themselves, precisely because they reject the need for any philosophical common ground, except a single slogan taken out of context. So take any statist policy -- and you'll find some respectable libertarian in good standing in the movement who endorses it. So the idea that "libertarians" might agree with anyone on anything is a farce.

More importantly:

(2) Any agreement between Objectivists and particular libertarians is incidental and insignificant. The fact is that libertarians are not allies in the struggle for liberty; they are a threat to liberty. So to the extent that a person promotes libertarianism, they are actively undermining my political goals.

Just consider: Walter Block is a libertarian in good standing. He's publicly said that -- come the libertarian revolution -- anyone who ever worked for the government, in any capacity, ought to be executed. That means me -- I'm currently an employee of CU Boulder. It means my friend Bill Perry, who was a prosecutor in Arizona for many years. It means Tara Smith, as she's an employee of UT Austin. The list goes on and on. He's just as much an advocate of liberty as Robespierre.

Other supposedly respectable libertarians actively seek the destruction of government: they want to make America into Somalia. Without a doubt, that's a much, much greater threat to my liberty than America's run-of-the-mill welfare statists.

Not all libertarians are vile. Some are good people, and some are my friends. Yet none are my allies in politics. That's because even the better ones undermine the cause of liberty by willing involving themselves in an anti-principled movement heavily populated by statists and nut-jobs of various stripes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will repeat my #1 reason for voting against McCain (I still can't bring myself to say "I'm voting for Obama"):

Justice Stevens is 88 years old. Politically, McCain cannot nominate a secular Justice to fill his seat. Stevens' replacement will likely sit on the court for several decades.

~Q

The Dems will likely have a supermajority, and McCain will be forced to consult with them, so that #1 reason smells more like #2.

Diana's argument that Obama will be less effectual than McCain fails for the same reason.

We don't even know who Obama is. His history fades to murk before 1990. No Harvard transcripts, no Columbia transcripts, not one classmate at Columbia who remembers him. He was nominated for acceptance to Harvard at the urging of a radical muslim, even his birth records are still in dispute. He hasn't even released medical records. His grandmother is on death's door, and when she goes, all of his closest family members will be Kenyans.

And the question is less who is Obama, than who is behind him. Ayers, the self-described marxist anarchist, Wright the fundamentalist racist, almost certainly Soros and the rest of the international socialist community.

You really want to vote for a blank screen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...