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.
I plan to put in a vote of No Confidence.
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…
None of the options given in this poll are valid for me.
There are more than two parties in the elections.
I foolishly forgot to register when I recently moved into Washington DC. Although, I can’t imagine a place where my vote matters less than in DC, so I don’t feel too bad about it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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…
Hi I voted McCain/Palin
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.
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.
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.
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?