Libertarian. Never done it before, but I want to send the message that I’m sick of the 2 major parties.
[Added the “not voting” option. -GC]
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.
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.
Voting Republican for the Senate, Democrat for the House
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.
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.
Mostly for Republican candidates this time, as my state is already (much) too far to the left for my taste…
Damn Massachusetts. I don’t want to be paying taxes so illegal immigrants can get tuition funding. Hopefully I won’t be…
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 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:
and
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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!
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.