Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who are you voting for?

Rate this topic


Who are you voting for?  

76 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you voting for?

    • Democrats
      14
    • Republicans
      13
    • Libertarians
      11
    • Mixed ticket based on individual candidates
      12
    • Other
      1
    • Not voting this election
      7


Recommended Posts

For the Senate, definitely Bill Nelson because he is a Democrat who is relatively strong on foreign policy and he is not Katherine Harris, who is running for the Republican party.

With regards to the Florida gubernatorial election, this is not so clear to me as Jim Davis and Charlie Crist appear to be roughly equal. I am leaning towards Jim Davis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone can enlighten me, but I really don't understand the

point of this thread. Each politician is an individual, and can and

does vote based on their own individual philosophy. Now, an individual

philosophy can lean towards either "Liberal" (which makes up the

majority of the Democrats) or Conservatives (which makes up the

majority of the Republics).

To say that "All Republicans vote X" or "All Democrats vote Y" is

collectivism.  Collectivism is grouping people based upon common-ness,

and assuming that because a member of the group behaves X, that all

members of the group behaves X.

If you want to know who I am voting for, I am voting for the best

person for the job, based on that individual's past, and if he (or

she) is the best person for the job regardless if there is an "R", "D", or "L" next to his or her name. Of course, I can name names and give my justification for everything that I will vote for, if you are interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still Republican. I agree with Peikoff's assessment of the situation, but not yet convinved of the urgency, and timeframe. I may change my vote in 2 yrs.

Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. If you agree with Peikoff, then you are convinced of the urgency and timeframe. If you are not convinced of the urgency and timeframe, then you disagree with Peikoff.

I voted Democratic because uniting church and state is not at the top of their agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ended up not voting. Firstly, the polling place I thought was mine is apparently not a polling place anymore. Secondly, I'm moving out of Texas, so I don't really think I have the right to be voting for state politicians. Thirdly, all the federal races in my district will be blowouts. Lastly, I don't know that I'm still registered here...I filled out a change of address form in May and went to Ohio, not realizing that I would be coming back.

Having said that, I feel a little guilty for not voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted the best I could to maximize individual liberties & minimize government. Here in Ohio we had 5 "Issues" on the ballot as well. Minimum wage hike (no), Banning smoking in places of employment & most open to the public (no, even though I hate smoking), etc...

In my opinion, one should do the best they can to understand a candidates position on individual rights & vote for candidates who will support those rights. This is not always easy & involves somewhat ranking the freedoms important to you. I have no problem abstaining when I think both candidates are fascist or don't have enough information on them to make an informed decision.

Good resources for digging into voting records & stances on issues are:

http://www.vote-smart.org/

and

http://www.smartvoter.org/

What about a choice on the ballot for "None of the above" & if "none of the above" gets equal or more votes than either candidate there should be some kind of re-election race. Talk about a way to bring government to a halt. :)

Demetrius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ended up not voting. Firstly, the polling place I thought was mine is apparently not a polling place anymore. Secondly, I'm moving out of Texas, so I don't really think I have the right to be voting for state politicians. Thirdly, all the federal races in my district will be blowouts. Lastly, I don't know that I'm still registered here...I filled out a change of address form in May and went to Ohio, not realizing that I would be coming back.

Having said that, I feel a little guilty for not voting.

I am curious Moose about something. Why do you feel a little gulity for not voting? It sounded like you were very much justified in your decision not to vote, so why do you feel bad about not doing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. If you agree with Peikoff, then you are convinced of the urgency and timeframe. If you are not convinced of the urgency and timeframe, then you disagree with Peikoff.

Let me clarify. Agreement is not digital.

I agree with his characterization of the forces in play. (hence "I agree with his assessment")

I have yet to see a convincing argument for the way in which my vote one way or the other will have any bearing on how those forces play out. (I don't yet agree with his recommended action, given his correct assessment)

Better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious Moose about something. Why do you feel a little gulity for not voting? It sounded like you were very much justified in your decision not to vote, so why do you feel bad about not doing it?

Because by voting Libertarian, it just would have added to the number of people that the Republocrats know are sick of big government. It just didn't occur to me until sometime earlier today that I had to figure out where my polling place was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Ohio we had 5 "Issues" on the ballot as well. Minimum wage hike (no), Banning smoking in places of employment & most open to the public (no, even though I hate smoking), etc...
I found the Ohio ballot initiatives quite humorous, especially 4 and 5. 4 was a constitutonal amendment to ban smoking in 90% of publications, leaving certain establishments some freedom of choice in allowing smoking. 5 was a simple statute to ban smoking in 99% of public places, and even in some private homes (where a family business runs out of the family home, but employs at least one person not part of the family). If they were to both pass, the less restrictive ban would rule because of its more prominant legal standing.

With 76.85% of Ohio's precincts reporting now:

Issue 4 - Total public smoking ban with some exceptions

64.73% - No

35.73% - Yes

Issue 5 - Total public smoking ban with almost no exceptions.

58.04% - Yes

41.96% - No

Actually, 4 isn't really a ban on smoking. It would, when enacted, do nothing to ban smoking. It would give the Ohio Statehouse the power to ban smoking uniformly throughout the state, trumping any previously enacted local options (e.g. the one passed in Columbus two years ago). The significance of this is that the exempted establishments list is much longer, including the very broad category of "places where minors are not generally permitted." And these exemptions also preempt any local state actions. I would have voted for it, if it hadn't given the statehouse the power to ban smoking.

I propose we make the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (The Day After) "What the explitave have we just done?" Day, where the American people reflect, not on our own votes, but on the results in general, and try to figure out for ourselves what they mean and where we will go from here.

BTW, I voted for all Democrats, even though in the important races, they would have one anyway: Ken Blackwell and Mike DeWine were too hated by Ohioans. Ohioans even elected a Democrat to Blackwell's former (after he validates this election's results) office of Sec'y of State. I hand-picked my judges as best I could given the info. All my judges won on the Supreme Court as well as my appeals court judges. My court of common pleas judges lost, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I COULD have voted (somehow my absentee ballot must have gotten lost in the transition from home to college), I would have voted Republican for governor (I'm registered in California, and the Terminator is not sympathetic to the Religious Right at all, and he vetoed a horrible medical bill) and Democratic for House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Santorum for the Senate. Both Casey and Santorum are Pro-Life Catholics (I'm a Pro-Choice Catholic), but Casey is a grade A socialist. My money is not his to spend on his ridiculous altruistic caprices without a fight.

I pretty much voted straight party line Republican minus the governer's race, in which case I voted Independant. Each one of my votes was purely self-interested, I don't like having my money taxed and simply given away so that drug addicts can live longer to pump more death into their veins, or so that Ed Rendell can consolidate his base in Philadelphia with monetary favors at my expense. I couldn't care less about the arguement of separation of church and state, Socialism is as much of a church as these wacked out Evangelicals that control the Republicans, but they seem more interested in looting people through staged Church services rather than compulsory taxes. I have zero sympathy for the stupidity of others if they choose not to eat on sunday so some preacher can own a Ferrari, if you want to fight off religion, electing a bunch of collectivists who claim to be secularists hardly seems like a rational decision to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hand-picked my judges as best I could given the info. All my judges won on the Supreme Court as well as my appeals court judges. My court of common pleas judges lost, though.
I've never voted for judges because I never know enough about the guys. I even vote for things like "Member of Board of Regents" based on Party affiliation, but when it comes to judges, their affiliation, if any, is not on the ballot. Where do you get info on the judges?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you get info on the judges?
For one, I got a thing.

In the mail.

One of those 'nonpartisan' voter guides published by the local paper. Each candidate got to write a short answer to a common question. In the case of the judges, it asked 'what is the most important thing you will accomplish if elected.' I don't remember, but it may have been the same for every office. Most of the judges knew that this question really didn't apply to them, and instead talked about what they thought the goals of the judiciary should be, and they fell usually into one of two categories: "I will work to increase fairness," or "I will work to increase access." The former are generally in favor of the procedural status quo, and the latter are for judicial 'reform,' usually by relaxing procedural standards.

Jurisprudentially, though, this tells me almost nothing. I picked up some subtleties by reading between the lines, but of more help was each candidate's employment history and information from the local bar and Martindale Hubbell. MH is a database where you can research lawyers, judges and law firms by case - it tells you how a judge rules on certain types of cases, what cases a particular lawyer or firm tends to win, and other juicy tidbits, including all sorts of demographic stats. I get it through my educational LexisNexis account, and it's used by litigators to plan their cases. Unfortunately, getting the 'right judge' can sometimes make a case.

In Ohio, judge party affiliations aren't on the ballot, but some voter guides (like the one I got) list them, if they're declared by the candidate. I decided how to vote based mostly on MH research, and so it turned out that I voted for a spread of Republicans and Democrats. But judges don't run on a party platform, so I didn't put too much stock in that.

While researching, I looked for judges close to my theory of jurisprudence. My theory of jurisprudence is, however, unfinished. I expect it to become easier when I've more fully developed a legal philosophy. So generally, I tried to stay away from legal positivists and to prefer federalists (though that can be a nasty trap if you aren't careful!), and when in doubt, I went with the more experienced jurist.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much voted straight party line Republican minus the governer's race,...
One's voting decision is less important than the reasons for that decision. While the vote might affect the current election, the reasons are going to affect many elections to come. There are many rational reasons a person would vote either Democrat or Republican. As long as their reasons are right, I know things will be fine in the long run. As long as they want to stop the socialist and faith-based agenda of the Republicans and want to stop the socialist and nihilist agenda of the Democrats, I can rely on their vote when the rub comes.

The really problematic people are those who support either party not as the lesser evil, but for some of those evil reasons. So, for instance, folks who vote Democrat because they like the minimum wage are -- to that extent -- supporting the evil of illegitimate government force. Many of these a fairly decent people overall; I deal with them every day and they wouldn't dream of putting a gun to my head and asking for money, but they self-righteously want the government to put the same gun to other peoples' heads and blatantly violate rights.

Also note, it does not matter how justified these people feel their ethical theories are. It does not matter to me that they are "honest" in seeing the concept of "rights" differently than I do. In fact, the more justified they think they are when they are wrong, the worse for me. So, with respect to this...

I voted for Santorum for the Senate. Both Casey and Santorum are Pro-Life Catholics (I'm a Pro-Choice Catholic), but Casey is a grade A socialist.
...all I can say is...

I see the enemy, and it is thee.

I might vote for someone who mumbles some type of anti-abortion position, if I think he's not serious about doing anything about it. If he is, it does not matter how much tax he's going to save me. Maybe it's just me, but the concrete picture that springs up before me is of this evil wretch forcing my wife and myself, my brother, my sister and my friends to have a child when they do not want one. In the face of that type of evil, I do not stop twice to weigh it against taxes. It's only money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, with respect to this... ...all I can say is...

I see the enemy, and it is thee.

I might vote for someone who mumbles some type of anti-abortion position, if I think he's not serious about doing anything about it. If he is, it does not matter how much tax he's going to save me. Maybe it's just me, but the concrete picture that springs up before me is of this evil wretch forcing my wife and myself, my brother, my sister and my friends to have a child when they do not want one. In the face of that type of evil, I do not stop twice to weigh it against taxes. It's only money!

:thumbsup: You wouldn't be the first to consider me the enemy, I get that from alot of people, particularly some of my former Philosophy Profesors, no offense taken.

However, it's not only money, it is the value of my productive labor, though be it in a material symbol rather than the work itself. It is no one's to take without my consent, lest they be a looter and a theif, I am not a man who purchases reproductive freedom at the price of chains and slavery. Furthermore, if we are to speak of philosophy where principles are held to be higher than pragmatic deception, you are essentially helping to perpetuate the notion that abortion is something to be ashamed of and that therefore you must support candidates whom articulate that guilt by way of decieving those whom disagree with them, rather than engage them in debate.

But this is all for nothing, Bob Casey's religious convictions are known well to me, as are his father's. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Pennsylvania politics but Patrick Casey, Bob Casey's father was not allowed to speak at the Democratic Convention in 1992 because he refused to endorse the party's Pro-Choice stance. The values of the father are, more often than not, the values of the son.

Let me throw some simple logic at you, both candidates oppose abortion rights, this is a matter of fact not a matter of opinion. If you wish to make an arguement that I am supporting a party that opposes abortion unanimously, I'll remind you that PA Republican Senator Arlen Specter (among several others I might add) has always been Pro-Choice and he has always gotten my vote. The truth is that Casey and Santorum cancel each other out on this issue, so it is off the table. Unless you have information that Casey is not actually Pro-Life, which would impress me greatly as no news outlets have stated this.

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'm not sure if you are familiar with Pennsylvania politics but ...
I was not referring to the politicians' views, but to yours. The ones who pretend to be anti-abortion do it to get your vote. They are idiots, but better than the one's who actually think like you do. You should not speak of my willingness to work a little extra or live on a little less pay, rather than be forced BY YOU to take care of a child that should never have been born. I should not be forced to do wither, and you would force me to do one.

You Catholic Thomists go around speaking of Aquinas as though it is some great virtue that you are not as bad as those dumber religious folk who follow religion unthinkingly. Actually, it is a deeper vice. Actually, by wearing the cloak of reason, you are the bigger fraud and the more dangerous person. I have a message for you: the hypocrites like Haggard are far less dangerous to me and my own in the long run than folks like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, for a couple of years. After that, if the Repugnants don't get Congress back, you've got the Democraps in full control. (You don't seriously think they won't get the White House in '08, do you?) I'm old enough to remember the Lyndon Johnson era, and not fondly.

When the time comes, I may advise again to vote Gridlock. In that case, it may mean voting the other way. But I have not yet reached that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to end this conversation as I think that my original post was ambiguous and may have spurred some unneccesary confusion on here. I will simply state for the record that I have consistently voted Pro-Choice for the better part of my time being able to do so. I was simply stating for the record that I was not going to be joining in on a move to punish myself financially simply because the national Republican Party is mostly Pro-Life. I did not wish to start an argument, and will now cease my posts here.

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoftwareNerd: In post 19, you state, in regards to your justification on why one should vote for a pro-abortionist/ anti-tax raiser vs. a anti-aboritionst/pro-tax raiser you said "Its only Money!".

To that, I completely disagree with you. I would vote for someone who is an pro-aboritionsit/ anti- tax raiser any day. The reason for that is for two reasons: 1. Money is the sum of your production and time, and 2. money is a method of speech.

The first reason should be pretty obvious to you, and anyone who has read "Atlas Shrugged". In summary, you work, you put time into something, and you get money in exchange for it. The second reason may not be as obvious to you. You can use money for any purpose, including supporting candidates who match your views.

If you support someone who will raise taxes, it may remove your ability to support those candidates who match your views. Without being able to support a candidate that matches your view, it will be that much harder to increase the amount of freedom one will have.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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