Voting Year 2004

[Elle]

The reason I am asking this is that I am nineteen and will be voting for the first time in my life in November. To me, voting is a HUGE deal and has been ever since I was old enough to go to the polls and help my parents cast their ballots.

The problem is that I am having a diffficult time reasoning why I should vote for any of the candidates running in the upcoming election. So in addition to the poll question I am also wondering exactly what process it is that each of you, specifically, go through in making this decision.

I don't want anyone to feel like I am pressuring them to state how they will vote, I am more interested in the process of deducing the best candidate.

[Ed from OC]

When I vote, I prefer to vote on issues which are clear cut and impact my life. On ballot initiatives that call for higher taxes or more regulation, the choice is easy and the trip to the voting booth worthwhile.

But electing officials is harder. If two candidates (say, Dole and Clinton) are so close that I can't tell them apart, I don't bother.

Some people try to outflank the candidates by guessing how the public will react, with the hope of influencing the choice of candidates in the future. For example, some argued for voting FOR Clinton with the hope that the public would so despise him that a good GOP alternative would arise, or the GOP would gain control of Congress. That worked -- to an extent and for a while. We got the Contract with America, but the same party now accelerates the growth of federal spending.

I think gridlock works, for the most part. The hard part in voting for a reason other than significant support for the candidate is that the mandate's content can be misread or distorted. Gridlock works through the nature of power-lusters: it sets up two opponents and keeps them quite busy fighting amongst themselves so that they are limited in the new laws they can implement. So regardless of the spin from the media or either party, gridlock can reduce the extent of the damage government can do.

I had hoped Bush would do a better job than he has. I don't know how different a job Gore would have done with a Republican Congress in power.

So, to sum it all up, I vote when the issues are clear and important to me, vote for gridlock on important issues otherwise (or not at all, if it doesn't appear to make a difference), and just abstain otherwise.

[meganfiala]

Please, let me know if i am wrong. But I chose not to vote. In my opinion, in a mixed economy, it's a choice of suicide or murder.

P.S. I live in Canada and therefore will not be voting in November.

[khaight]

This time around, I am a war voter. I've got a bumper sticker that says "Vote this November as if you life depended on it." I will be casting my vote in whatever way seems most likely to lead to continued and successful prosecution of the war.

Whether a vote for Bush or Kerry results from that criterion I leave as an exercise for the student.

[AutoJC]

The reason I am asking this is that I am nineteen and will be voting for the first time in my life in November.  To me, voting is a HUGE deal and has been ever since I was old enough to go to the polls and help my parents cast their ballots.

The problem is that I am having a diffficult time reasoning why I should vote for any of the candidates running in the upcoming election.  So in addition to the poll question I am also wondering exactly what process it is that each of you, specifically, go through in making this decision.

I don't want anyone to feel like I am pressuring them to state how they will vote, I am more interested in the process of deducing the best candidate.

You will be voting for more than just the national candidates.

You'll also vote for candidates on local levels as well. Such candidates are important, too, since the government which is the most accessible to you is on the local level.

The major reason to register with a party is because, in many locales, independents cannot vote in the primaries. If you want to vote in a primary, this is something to consider.

Basically, you will vote for those candidates who in your view, will best represent you and protect your rights and interests. It is far more important to learn their positions on whatever items you consider crucial, than to necessarily vote along party lines. Once you are in that voting booth, your decision is yours alone, and is no one else's business. Secret balloting is one of the most precious aspects of our great republic.

In any case, your vote matters! By all means go forth and exercise this right in our free elections.

[Elle]

In any case, your vote matters!  By all means go forth and exercise this right in our free elections.

I can't wait to vote, because I love our great country and the freedoms of it. I just want to be sure to know exactly what is going on before I cast my ballot, because I do believe that every vote has an impact and mine had better be a rational and informed one.

[MisterSwig]

This time around, I am a war voter.  I've got a bumper sticker that says "Vote this November as if you life depended on it."  I will be casting my vote in whatever way seems most likely to lead to continued and successful prosecution of the war.

I second this. We are facing a real, mortal enemy: militant Islam. There is a reason why the Islamic terrorists are trying to influence elections. They are trying to get the biggest appeasers into office, so that they can kill us more easily.

This, in my opinion, has got to be the most important issue in this election.

I'm voting for my very existence, my life. I think Bush is the only one who has the balls to do anything about the threat of militant Islam. Unfortunately, altruism has his hands tied right now, so he's fighting a merely defensive war. Perhaps, one day, he will get one selfish hand free and push the "invade Iran" button.

I don't see Kerry doing anything but handing over the war to the "international community" or the UN. Which, I think, would be an even bigger disaster than what we are currently doing.

I would only abstain from voting for a president, if I absolutely saw no difference between the candidates. However, I would still vote for local stuff.

[Ed from OC]

This time around, I am a war voter.

Me too. Problem is, what is the best way to vote for more war?

A vote for Bush could be taken as endorsing further aggressiveness. But more likely, it will be taken as general support for his policies, which are part of the problem.

A vote for Kerry could be taken as a vote against Bush; a vote for Kerry; or a vote against the war. While I don't like Bush, he is far better than Kerry.

But a vote for Kerry could open the way, down the road, for the GOP to regroup around a stauncher pro-American foreign policy. Also, with Congress in Republican hands, Kerry will face gridlock for much of his term.

The counter-argument: how many times in a row can you write off four-year terms before significant harm comes to the US?

[ex_banana-eater]

Please, let me know if i am wrong. But I chose not to vote. In my opinion, in a mixed economy, it's a choice of suicide or murder.

P.S. I live in Canada and therefore will not be voting in November.

A vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservative party seems like the logical Objectivist choice for Canadians (IMO)

[Who_Is_GV?]

In my opinion, there is no sense in agonizing over national, general elections. The next president WILL be George Bush or John Kerry. For me, personally, George Bush is the clear choice. I find so many things wrong with what he says and does. And I share the concerns of Objectivists in voting for people with whom one disagrees. But my mind is made clear by a few things.

1. Ayn Rand certainly despised trickery, games, and the like. Voting for candidate A so that hypothetical candidate U will have a better chance 4 years from now seems almost Machiavellian to me. One has to make straight-forward decisions. Any freedom-loving, moral person must see George Bush as the obvious choice. Though his morality technically comes from an irrational source, the net result in his personal life is generally where a moral Objectivist would end up. We all know Thomas Jefferson believed the rights of man came from God (nature's God, Providence, etc.), but none of us would struggle over whether or not to vote for him, or George Washington, in a contest against, say King George III.

2. Read Benjamin Franklin's various comments about the ratification of the U.S. Constitution (i.e. his disappointment with much of the compromises, but his guiltless confidence that anything decided by a committee of men will be less than any individual man accepts--the Constitution had to be passed). He certainly had ideals--many very close to those of Objectivists--but was also a practical man. Ayn Rand's novels project IDEAL MEN, but men have to function in a world filled with irrational men. If the Founding Fathers were completely unyielding to irrational ideas, would we live in this republic?

3. I trust my gut. I am a graduate of UT Austin. While George Bush was the governer, I saw him at football games, basketball games, etc., all the time. He wasn't there to make a show--he was there because he likes sports! He doesn't scheme and plot (though his handlers surely might) on how to increase his personal power. I know this is not a sophisticated analysis of the man, but my point is he's a regular guy. He is not a communist. He does not want to see Americans die. He does not want to dishonor the office of the president. This is about as good as it gets in a NATIONAL, GENERAL election.

4. Along these lines, when he was running against Al Gore, CNN showed the two of them on split screens. They were both returning home from a debate, I think. Al Gore got out of his SUV and nodded to his secret service to pick up his bags (as if they were his servants). George Bush got out, walked to the back of his SUV, grabbed his duffle bag, slung it over his shoulder and walked toward the governer's mansion. Bush is an independent man with respect for other men. Kerry is cut from the same mold as Gore, however--that should be clear to anyone who even casually observes. He speaks French at home, makes NO decisions or committments as a legislator (he has never sponsored one bill in the Senate--he can't produce in the capitalist world and cannot even be a "producer" in government!), and generally acts like royalty.

None of this should cause anyone to doubt that I am an Objectivist. But I fear anyone agonizing over the presidential election. I certainly want to see something change in this republic so that we don't have to vote like this, and that's one reason to try and advance Objectivist principles. On the margin, however, when it comes to the election in November, abstaining from voting, or voting strategically is not logical. Ask yourself if Thomas Jefferson would have stayed home on any election day?

Respectfully,

George

[AshRyan]

...[bush is] a regular guy.  He is not a communist.  He does not want to see Americans die.  He does not want to dishonor the office of the president.  This is about as good as it gets in a NATIONAL, GENERAL election.

While the fact that Bush is a "regular guy" (which I take to mean "more like the average American") does make him somewhat better than Kerry, in times of a national crisis like the one we are now facing, we need a leader who is much more than just a "regular guy." Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any such leader.

Given the current situation and trends, I will not be voting in the presidential election this November. For a while, I was just happy that Bush was taking some action and felt that it made me safer. But it now seems that he is doing such a half-assed, appeasing, compromising job of it that it's almost worse than if he simply did nothing. He has led us into an awful situation, and there are no signs that it is going to get any better. Indeed, judging by his current policies, the situation is going to get much worse within the next few years. His intentions may be better than Kerry's--but I don't give a damn about his intentions. All I care about from those who are in charge of protecting my life and liberty is results. And the results of Bush's altruist Christian policies are no better than Kerry's altruist subjectivist policies would be. At this point, it appears that the only difference is whether our decent is rapid and honest, or slow and agonizingly humiliating.

Those of you who still insist that Bush is the obvious choice, please tell me what he is doing now that is at all positive. Yes, Kerry will be equally (or even more so, in certain respects) negative, but shouldn't there be some positive reason to vote for Bush? What is that reason?

That said, I can't say that I have made a final decision as to how (or whether) I will vote at this point. A lot depends on what happens between now and November.

[Betsy]

[bush] doesn't scheme and plot (though his handlers surely might) on how to increase his personal power.

That's an essential character distinction which is CRUCIAL for selecting a President. Bush is NOT a power-luster in a world where almost all of those seeking his job, including Kerry, definitely ARE.

I often think Bush is wrong or clueless, but I have never seen him be dishonest. I can't say the same for Kerry. Kerry contradicts himself publicly, sometimes with such a blatant disregard for the facts, that I don't think he has a good grip on reality.

What then, in reality, would motivate Kerry to seek the presidency? The only thing which makes sense and fits with his personal history is what motivates all power-lusters: the desire to harness and control the controllers of reality, which they see as OTHER people and not themselves.

A vote for Bush is risky. A vote for Kerry is dangerous. So far, it's Bush for me.

[AshRyan]

That's an essential character distinction which is CRUCIAL for selecting a President.  Bush is NOT a power-luster in a world where almost all of those seeking his job, including Kerry, definitely ARE...

Again, to me, it seems that while good intentions may be a necessary condition for being a good president, they are nowhere near sufficient. I certainly won't vote for Kerry, but I don't see much reason at this point to vote for Bush either.

[MisterSwig]

Those of you who still insist that Bush is the obvious choice, please tell me what he is doing now that is at all positive.

Bush has engaged what he perceives to be our enemy in this war. Maybe we can convince him that Iran, as part of the "Axis of Evil", should be next on the hit list. Can we hope for even that much with Kerry?

[AshRyan]

Bush has engaged what he perceives to be our enemy in this war. Maybe we can convince him that Iran, as part of the "Axis of Evil", should be next on the hit list. Can we hope for even that much with Kerry?

What is the state of that engagement now? The current stated position of the Administration is this: we are turning over power to the Iraqis, even if that means they make themselves more of a threat to us than they were before. This, after we spent a ridiculous amount of resources on that war and many of our soldiers lost their lives. It is a travesty.

If he did proceed to take out Iran, he would earn back my vote. But I'm not holding my breath anymore.

[MisterSwig]

What is the state of that engagement now?  The current stated position of the Administration is this: we are turning over power to the Iraqis, even if that means they make themselves more of a threat to us than they were before.  This, after we spent a ridiculous amount of resources on that war and many of our soldiers lost their lives.  It is a travesty.

I think it is a travesty to keep our troops in Iraq. I don't enjoy watching militant Islamists (from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria) ambush and kill our boys on a daily basis. We need to get them out of the ambush.

Iraq, in the global scheme of things, is merely a self-imposed ambush.

In my opinion, Bush couldn't hand over Iraq fast enough. At least then we might be able to start focusing our attention on the other Axis of Evil countries, hopefully Iran next.

So, to answer your question, the war is going horribly, because we are in Iraq and not Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria. I seriously doubt Kerry would invade another nation. Bush, maybe.

[hippie]

For a while I’ve not voted 1) so that I don’t elect into office poison and 2) as a way of sending the message that the options are not good enough. Though I am a freedom-loving person, Bush is too Christian, I can’t stand the Patriot Act, and his Medicare program is inexcusable. Ironically, I agree with absolutely everything Ash Ryan has said. However, I’ve been thinking that I may vote Libertarian with the hopes of 1) encouraging the entrance of a third-party alternative and 2) because people often associate Libertarianism with Objectivism and will, perhaps, look up Libertarianism if it makes a bigger impact in the polls and as a consequence learn about Objectivism. I would like to stress that I would only vote Libertarian because I know that it will never win the election. I only want to increase public awareness. But I have not even decided that I will follow through with this plan.

[Betsy]

However, I’ve been thinking that I may vote Libertarian with the hopes of 1) encouraging the entrance of a third-party alternative

What for? You will get a better hearing for your ideas and make a greater impact long-term by infiltrating, influencing, and exploiting an existing MAJOR party. The Republican Party usually offers the best opportunities, but there are also opportunities dealing with traditional Democrats who are patriotic, advocates of reproductive choice, upwardly mobile Blacks and Hispanics, etc.

and 2) because people often associate Libertarianism with Objectivism

I hope not!!

Libertarians are NUTS! I know of dozens of ex-Libertarians who quit in disgust over the hostile, ignorant, impractical, embarassing, and downright crazy ideas advocated by many Libertarians including the party leaders and spokesman. Their Presidential candidates have included Ron Paul who opposes abortion and Harry Browne who thinks 9/11 was our fault and we shouldn't do anything about it.

and will, perhaps, look up Libertarianism if it makes a bigger impact in the polls and as a consequence learn about Objectivism.

Most Libertarians I know are as hostile to Objectvism and Ayn Rand as she was to them.

I would like to stress that I would only vote Libertarian because I know that it will never win the election.  I only want to increase public awareness.

Of what?

[hippie]

I strongly and passionately oppose the Republican Party. I cannot accept their amoral justification of capitalism. I hate the same quality in Libertarianism, but because Objectivism is more associated with Libertarianism than Republicanism, voting Libertarian might make Objectivism more popular. Also, I know that by voting Libertarian I will not be voting them into office. If they were larger, I would simply not vote. By voting for them, I raise public awareness of alternatives to Republicans and Democrats (as they are not the only options) and of Objectivism.

And as much as I would like Objectivism to be known on its own merits, many people see Objectivism and Libertarianism as together. I hate it too, and I always make the point to distinguish the two, but that is the way people see it.

[AshRyan]

...Ironically, I agree with absolutely everything Ash Ryan has said.

The irony is not lost on me, either.

[Barstool]

Okay, so this is a little off topic, but what if you're registered to vote in two different counties?

See, I've been registered back home in El Paso, but my fish year at school, I figured I should register there (for some stupid reason). Now I get those voter cards in the mail every so often.

I'm confused. This is my first presidential election that I'm eligible to vote for, and I'm not sure what's goin' on.

[danielshrugged]

Just reporting a change in my choice on this poll. I had previously selected that I did not know how I will be voting. Now I know that I will be abstaining from voting for a president.

[AshRyan]

Just reporting a change in my choice on this poll. I had previously selected that I did not know how I will be voting. Now I know that I will be abstaining from voting for a president.

Don't you think that it is still a little early to make that choice? Or is there some particular event that recently swayed you to make this decision?

[danielshrugged]

It's not ENTIRELY impossible that something won't change my mind. Specifically, if Bush goes after Iran, I might consider voting for him (though I have doubts that he would wage a successful war, as opposed to getting more American soldiers killed and leaving Iran with mob-rule). The reason I say that I've already decided is because I really see no possibility that Bush will go after Iran.

Two "events" in particular helped me to make this decision. The first was that I heard in the news that our State Department is trying to offer monetary and security guarantees to North Korea in exchange for their giving up nukes. The second was various religious statements by Kerry that made me doubt he even had the advantage of not being religious.

[Areactor]

People

Could anyone give me as much as 10 reasons to vote for Bush instead of Kerry? I'm not saying I'll be voting for Kerry, I'm just wondering why if I'm not going to vote at all, that I'll be voting for Bush instead of Kerry.