I Voted Today And Got It Over With Already

[Gary Sisco]

The US election campaigns take too frickin' long. It's boring. So, I voted today when I stopped at the town clerk's office to get Bronwyn an absentee ballot.

In the end, I voted for Nader because his answers to questions are straight up and candid, not scripted and rehearsed and, well, invented with focus groups and such. And because I don't disagree with him anymore than anyone else running against Bush, and agree with him about a lot of things, and, very importantly from my perspective, because he's outside the "two parties."

Other offices, I voted Sanders for Congress (incumbent, I but D for all practical purposes) and Leahy for Senate (incumbent, D). For guv, Jim Douglas (incumbent, R). For Lt. Guv (the tie-breaker in the state senate), I voted for a dem because she's the one with the best chance of unseating the incumbent repub, a reactionary Christian rightist, who has to go; he's an embarassment. For the rest, I spread my votes among repubs, dems, libertarians, the pot party, and independents.

I'm either going to write in Kucinich, or just stay home entirely.

Haven't decided yet.

[claude]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

The US election campaigns take too frickin' long. It's boring.

You got that right. Our system isn't perfect, but at least the campaign is mercifully short. I am doing election audits from our last federal election held early this past summer and these are the relevent dates: election was announced on May 23, the vote held on June 28 and the audits are due in by October 28. We got the whole shebang over with in less time than it takes you guys to pick the candidates.

[Vince Kargatis]

Darn, too bad Gary, you coulda voted for Nader AND bought an anti-bush vote elsewhere had you votepaired.

[Pete C]

You should have waited for the October Surprise.

[Tom Storer]

I sent my ballot winging through the mails on Monday. It was a relief to get that out of the way.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

Darn, too bad Gary, you coulda voted for Nader AND bought an anti-bush vote elsewhere had you votepaired.

Gary evidently wanted to vote anti-Bush AND anti-Kerry. That was the point of your vote, right Gary?

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Gary evidently wanted to vote anti-Bush AND anti-Kerry. That was the point of your vote, right Gary?

Hm, technically, that would be "non-Bush and non-Kerry", since the vote won't hurt either of them in this election. That's fine, I was just under the impression that Gary disliked Bush more than Kerry.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Gary evidently wanted to vote anti-Bush AND anti-Kerry. That was the point of your vote, right Gary?

Hit it, boys!

I don't know what they have to say / It makes no difference anyway / Whatever it is, I'm against it. / No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it! / Your proposition may be good / But let's have one thing understood: / Whatever it is, I'm against it. / And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it! / For months before my son was born / I used to yell from night till morn: / Whatever it is, I'm against it! / And I've kept yelling since I've first commenced it, I'm against it.

Originally Posted by Vince

I was just under the impression that Gary disliked Bush more than Kerry.

Vince, whats your point here?

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Vince, whats your point here?

Um, merely that if my impression were true, Gary could have served his voting preference (for Nader) and his greater dislike of Bush simultaneously by votepairing, hence my initial comment. If the impression was wrong, then my comment was unfounded.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

Um, merely that if my impression were true, Gary could have served his voting preference (for Nader) and his greater dislike of Bush simultaneously by votepairing, hence my initial comment. If the impression was wrong, then my comment was unfounded.

I think Nader voters almost always dislike the Republican more than the Democrat but they still vote Nader.

If I had Gary's views, I'd be swallowing hard, closing my eyes and voting for Kerry. All that means is that I"m willing to vote for somebody I think will be a bad President if I think the alternative is even worse. There are limits for everybody, though. If the Democrat was Maxine Waters and the Republican was Jerry Falwell I wouldn't vote for either one, even if I figured out which was worse.

[walto]

Like Gary, I'm voting for a Green candidate: I don't think it's Nader here in Mass., but if it's him, I'll vote for him. Also like Gary, I've vowed I'd never vote for Nader--not even if hell froze over starting with my testicles. (Well, maybe not QUITE as vehemently as Gary--he's got those "Never. Period. End of story." vows down.)

Unlike Gary, however, I'll pick up a Kerry vote in a close state in return for my vote.

Kerry haters for Kerry!

[Gordon B]

I just read an interesting article about Nader's voters. According to polling data, a smaller percentage of them are normally Democrats than in 2000. 41% would vote for Kerry if there were no Nader, 15% would vote for Bush (anti-war, anti-out-sourcing Republicans), and 44% would either voter for another candidate or not vote. If true, then one should take 25% of Nader's vote in a state and add that to Kerry's vote to get the approximate impact of Nader on the race.

A fair number of Democrats who voted Nader in 2000 are switching to Kerry because of the 2000 outcome.

How many people actually think that Nader, running as the Democratic nominee would actually be a better President than Kerry? I think Nader's all-out protectionism among other things would be catastrophic for the U.S. and the world.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I still think in our bipartisan governement that a vote for Nadar is simply throwing away your vote. I have voted for the third party candidate several times (Anderson in '80, Perot in '92) and looking back, I shouldn't have. Until this country levels the playing field for 3rd & 4th party candidates, I will no longer vote independent. I will pick between the R and D, period.

Besides, I can't stand Nadar. He knows damn well these last 4 years are because of his candidicy. He also knows damn well that he hasn't got a chance in hell of winning. All he is doing is splitting the vote which will benefit GWB. All I can think is that he is a Bush fan. I can think of no other reason.

Later,
Kevin

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Kevin Bresnahan

Besides, I can't stand Nadar. He knows damn well these last 4 years are because of his candidicy. He also knows damn well that he hasn't got a chance in hell of winning. All he is doing is splitting the vote which will benefit GWB. All I can think is that he is a Bush fan. I can think of no other reason.

Later,
Kevin

How about he has an ego the size of Rhode Island, and loves the attention in these his golden years?

[Gary Sisco]

Nader was asked about his "spoiling" Al Gore's campaign in an interview.

Nader asked the interviewer: Do you believe that Al Gore won the election?

Interviewer: Yes, of course.

Nader: Then why are you angry with me?

************************

Can't argue with that logic, myself.

And it doesn't bother me in the slightest to have some one at least who is able to form logical and coherent answers to questions on his own, without prompters or rehearsals or anything else but his own mind. Note: his own. Not his handlers'. Not his pollsters'. His.

As for "throwing away votes," in Vermont for me to vote for Kerry, with whom I have many more deep disagreements than I do with Nader (some of which go back thirty years and more to antiwar movement days), however much I disagree with Nader on this issue or that, would be to literally throw my vote away for no reason. The presidential election is not a popular election and even the state repub party has written off Vermont's three EC votes as unquestionably Kerry's, without his even trying. I doubt you can find a state where Bush is more unpopular than he is in Vermont.

This tiny state (population less than 650,000) has more than one person per thousand of population fighting in Iraq *right now* and has already taken 13 KIA and more than that wounded (I've lost count), mainly because it has several crack National Guard units without which the regular forces apparently can't go into combat. Some of those VTers have fought there more than once, already, this time around, and some of them also fought in Gulf War I as well. People in this state are damned sick of their young people dying in Iraq and the Gulf for no coherent or even comprehensible reason that stands up to rational questioning. This is to ignore the VTers, active and NG, in Afghanistan, and -- still -- in Bosnia as well. And this is also to ignore the "waiting list" at VA health clinics that is already several thousands long in the Burlington area alone, before these new guys even have a chance to get on the list. If they ever do, as that's one of the things the gubmint has cut back in order to help pay for the war. Talk about logic.

In short, Kerry gets VT's 3 electoral college votes, no matter who I vote for or whether I vote at all, and therefore there is no reason for the guilt trips, thanks.

By the way, Kevin, "we" do not have a bipartisan system and "we" never have. Show me anything in the Constitution that even mentions parties as such, never mind a "bipartisan" shitstem. Which in any case is rotten to the core and has been abandoned even by a majority of the minority of the people in the US who even bother to vote at all. Neither "major" party commands more than a third of any vote with its own loyalist base, and that percentage continues to shrink. The real majority of people who vote in the US are independent of all parties, and the sizeable minority remaining are "third" party loyalists.

In short, "we" don't have a bipartisan shitstem. *They* have one. At least they have one since the third party, the Republican Party, emerged and *became* a second party.

Perhaps Vermonters also have an easier time with that illogic, because VT doesn't have a two party shitstem. It has a three party shitstem, as the Progressives are also a ruling party here. And there are several other established "third" parties as well. And even with all that, the large majority of VTers consider themselves consciously independent of all parties, myself included.

And, while I will repeat, again, that I've too often posted in anger and thought out loud on the bbs, and said things I'd not have said in a print media (weirdly -- I guess I'm just old fashioned, but print is slower than this medium, which is one of print's advantages, actually), my voting record back to the first I cast in '72 has been consistent in *not* voting for either repub or dem presidential candidates.

And this has become even more the case as the dem party has moved to the right along with the repubs for the past quarter century at least. It's now to the right of Richard Nixon's administration in many significant ways, so if that now constitutes the "left" in the US, then the center is somewhere in what any other country would, accurately, call the far right. I'll let you follow the logic yourself to find where the Bushites are on the spectrum. They are at least in fascoid territory and several very powerful figures in it are outright fascists, conscious or otherwise (makes no difference in practice).

I'm not going to reward the dems following the repub's tail with their noses up close to its ass as they continue their march to the right. I have zero reason to. If dems think people like me are somehow obligated to vote for them, they'll have to significantly change their party's politics and "electable" membership. Otherwise, I owe them nothing.

Plus there's the little matter of the Clinton admin's policies towards handicapped people -- like my partner -- that very nearly cost her ability to continue living in her own home, as opposed to a nursing home. In fact, they would have, had it not been for those awful repubs in Congress that have to answer to the voting section of the population every two years. So, I have no love for the party and absolutely no nostalgia for the Clintoid daze. For us, it was a relentless battle over life and death issues for Bronwyn, without assistance from anyone. No one. It took both of us, putting in full-time weeks and more, for years on end, to protect Bronwyn's *legal rights and entitlements* under Medicare -- for which she, I, and all of us have paid and continue to pay, even as they were being denied her.

Fuck 'em. I owe them nothing. They owe us lots, if anyone owes anything around here.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Nader was asked about his "spoiling" Al Gore's campaign in an interview.

Nader asked the interviewer: Do you believe that Al Gore won the election?

Interview: Yes, of course.

Nader: Then why are you angry with me?

So he really is that clueless, huh?

It is a fact that if Gore had won one more state, he would have won the electoral vote and become president. Both Florida and New Hampshire had significant Nader votes. If the polls leading up to the last election were to be believed, these voters were almost all disenfranchised Democrats... the number was as high as 80% in NH, if my memory serves. If even a simple majority of these Nader votes in either of these states had voted Gore, Gore would have won.

As I said before the last election to someone at work trying to convince me to vote Nader, "I hope you'll remember this when George Bush wins." He later apologized to me and said he wished he hadn't tossed his vote.

Later,
kevin

[Gary Sisco]

The flaw in your logic, Kevin, is the assumption that all of those people would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot. That's merely an assumption and it has no evidence or even logic to back it up.

I, for example, wouldn't have voted for either Gore or Bush last time out, regardless of Nader or anything else. Clinton/Gore's policies, as experienced in our home, were vicious and verged on the fascist, when it came to handicapped issues. I had no reason to vote for Gore, and certainly none to vote for Bush. Therefore, had I been in one of the states you mention, Gore would not have received my vote, even if Nader hadn't been on the ballot.

The figures someone posted above showed, in fact, that a sizeable number of people who voted for Nader in 2000 were normally Republican voters.

[james harrigan]

It is a well-documented fact that Nader's campaign this year is funded almost entirely by Republicans. Nader has made no secret of the fact that he's delighted to hurt the Democrats and has no regrets at all that his candidacy cost Gore the election last time. A chilling article in today's Times makes it very clear that Nader may suceed in his goal of re-electing Bush this year, too.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Kevin Bresnahan

I still think in our bipartisan governement that a vote for Nadar is simply throwing away your vote. I have voted for the third party candidate several times (Anderson in '80, Perot in '92) and looking back, I shouldn't have. Until this country levels the playing field for 3rd & 4th party candidates, I will no longer vote independent. I will pick between the R and D, period.

Why do you equate the decision to affect future elections rather than the current one to be "throwing away" one's vote? While you wait for the playing field to be leveled, the non-major votes are being cast to hasten that time.

[Gary Sisco]

Gordon, old friend, as far as your economic objections to Nader go, I can't take them seriously, man, given your support of the Bushites and their (even you must admit) absolutely mad and irresponsible practice. Get off it. You get the whole deal with the Bushites, not just the parts that you like, and the whole deal also very much includes the Christian fundamentalists and the fascoid vote, without which the party can't be elected.

It makes me puke to hear Bush and Kerry talking about their "faith" in the political realm, where it has no place. Zero place, to me. It's just more pandering and bullshit, but in this case it's a pandering and bullshit directed at a section of the political spectrum which to me is the most dangerous and reactionary of all.

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Kevin Bresnahan

It is a fact that if Gore had won one more state, he would have won the electoral vote and become president. Both Florida and New Hampshire had significant Nader votes. If the polls leading up to the last election were to be believed, these voters were almost all disenfranchised Democrats... the number was as high as 80% in NH, if my memory serves. If even a simple majority of these Nader votes in either of these states had voted Gore, Gore would have won.

The problem the Democrats had was not that Nader was running but that so many of "their" voters were sufficiently disillusioned that they deserted the party's candidate when presented with the slightest opportunity. The same will be true this year, if Bush wins and Nader is the spoiler. It's up to the candidate to win votes over opposing candidates, no matter who they are. You can't go whining that you lost the election because your opponents got too many votes. It's ridiculous.

[Gary Sisco]

James -- That's fine for you, but I don't have any problem with that. I'm not a friend of the Democratic party or of the Republican party. Shit, that's like bringing up the old canard about Lenin taking money from the Germans and being allowed by them safe passage back to Russia during WW1. Like Lenin said, So what? Lenin was *opposed* the czar and, like much of the left, opposed to the war itself and neutral so far as sides in it went -- particularly when the "allies" included the czardom. And culturally and politically, he was more German than Russian anyway.

So what? therefore is my only response to you.

[tippy]

The Dems left at least Florida voters disenfranchised and let us go to war. What are they worth? Not a thing.

[Gary Sisco]

Tom -- You are absolutely correct, and thank you very much for applying logic to your position. I appreciate it very much.

What I'd like to know is why isn't the same sort of vehement objection raised about the Socialist Workers Party -- which is always on the ballot, and which draws a similar percentage of votes as Nader is today?

Why not some vehemence against the Green Party?

Why not some against the Libertarians?

Tom's right. Parties lose elections because they don't have sufficient support within the population to win. That's clearly not the voting population's fault. They don't even get to choose the alleged choices.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

It makes me puke to hear Bush and Kerry talking about their "faith" in the political realm, where it has no place. Zero place, to me. It's just more pandering and bullshit, but in this case it's a pandering and bullshit directed at a section of the political spectrum which to me is the most dangerous and reactionary of all.

I don't find Kerry's use of his faith distasteful; in fact, I think it's an important contrast to an alleged believer like Bush. Kerry highlights those aspects of Christianity that speak to folks like me, who view faith through the lens of the Enlightenment, where the focus of the faithful is on humility, charity, and responsibility to those less fortunate. Bush's perspective is shaped more by the Great Awakening, and his callousness and selfishness are at odds with the best Christian traditions. In other words, the democratic vs. the anti-democratic.

[Gary Sisco]

On the other hand, here is a positive view (from me): Of all the people with regular access to real national coverage, Nader has been the only one to speak candidly about Israel/Palestine, or even sanely, from my perspective. Kerry has offered merely more of the same: unflinching support for the Israeli state, regardless of its policies and practices. In short, he offers Bush's position. What a deal. I respect Nader's candid talk about that issue as I consider it the most important international and foreign policy issue of all. There would be no war on terror and no reason for one absent that issue. Islamists, one and all, have been fired up against the US primarily for its *chosen political practice* in the Middle East. In short, because of its behavior, for decades, now. That would indicate to me that a change in that behavior is called for. Or a decision, like that of the Israeli state, to simply remain in a state of permanent warfare, terror included. No thanks, is my only response. I have no side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. My only position is a pox on all of their houses, and if I had the power, I'd cut off all forms of American aid to all sides in the conflict, and I mean, all. When a situation is insane, it's insane to choose a side.

[james harrigan]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

James -- That's fine for you, but I don't have any problem with that. ...

So what? therefore is my only response to you.

here's "so what", Gary: if Nader is succesful, Bush will be re-elected. That is why the Bushists are the ones behind his campaign - without Republican funding and manpower and legal support, he wouldn't be a factor in this election.

A failure for Nader is a win for Kerry, and I don't think any rational, informed person can be indifferent between Kerry and Bush as president. It's true that your vote for Bush, ooops I mean Nader, won't do any harm in Vermont, but don't kid yourself about who's agenda you are supporting with a vote for Nader.

[Gary Sisco]

Roots, that's fine for you because you're a christian. I'm not. Nor are many millions and billions of other people. And, frankly, that's one of the reasons I object, and one of the reasons for the 1st Amendment religion clause. People can believe whatever they want, obviously, but the religious is the personal. It has no place in public life. At least an acceptable public life, which, to me, is necessarily secular in all regards.