Most Libertarians do not identify with the Tea Party

[Jonnin]

I ID more with the TP than with mainstream republicans and more with libertarians than either of those.  Individual idiots on the ballot aside, I would probably vote in this order of preference off party lines -- libertarian, tea party, R OR Ind. and if none of those, I will skip that vote. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Does this help the situation? Would the Tea party not still be susceptible to perils of the two-party system? Would the powerful people from the GOP not simply move to the Tea party and bring their clout with them?

I'm genuinely asking.

Things like this only work when enough people are involved. Depends on
how much you want something. Nothing will work if all people do is bitch
and moan how bad it is. We wouldn't be a country if a small percentage
didn't get off their asses and do something, would we?

I don't see anything else productive happening. Sticking it out with the
McCains of the party will kill us.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

not voting is just as much of a vote as voting is. Statistics are kept. The percent of people who register but don't vote is noted. My would be non-vote has every bit the value as voting for Romney did.

I do not think my vote counts, it is a total waste of my time to go and cast it. And of course that takes into account the question is it even accurately tabulated. Not so sure it is.

Noted by whom, and what does it say? Not voting is just not voting. If you think you're saying something more than that you're dreaming. Both major
parties note it and count how much less of a threshold they have to win by
each time those non votes are non casted. There's the value of your non
vote. I don't blame you for being frustrated, but the vote counts when it is
cast, however small one may rationalize it away.

[tnguy]

not voting is just as much of a vote as voting is.  Statistics are kept.  The percent of people who register but don't vote is noted.   My would be non-vote has every bit the value as voting for Romney did.

 

I do not think my vote counts, it is a total waste of my time to go and cast it.  And of course that takes into account the question is it even accurately tabulated.  Not so sure it is.

 

The problem is, a no vote for laziness counts the same as a no vote from protest. That's why it's a shame that spoils aren't counted. A spoil means "I care enough to vote but screw you and the horse you rode in on".

 

The closest alternative is third party. If you don't like the choices from the majority left/right party, choose one that mostly agrees with your principles and go for them. The more votes a third party gets, the more likely one of the majors is likely to bend and the more likely you are to actually have a voice in things (and if eventually they get enough votes, it may even swing some of those "I only vote for winners, yuk-yuk" people. Your vote, your voice.

[tnguy]

But you know and the Senate knew it didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing the House. It could have very well passed the Senate if they knew the democrats controlled the House.

 

It's also possible it would have not passed the senate if there was a chance of it passing the house. Politicians like to play these games where they vote for things that have no chance of passing just so they can big-up to their constituents. There's a lot of horse trading of votes that goes on *before* a bill ever reaches the floor and they know if it's going to pass or not by the time it comes to the actual vote. That's just a show for the proletariat.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. What was I thinking. Obama said he was going to put an end to all those backroom deals so ignore everything I just wrote :rolleyes:

Edited October 31, 2013 by tnguy

[Mike.357]

Noted by whom, and what does it say? Not voting is just not voting. If you think you're saying something more than that you're dreaming. Both major
parties note it and count how much less of a threshold they have to win by
each time those non votes are non casted. There's the value of your non
vote. I don't blame you for being frustrated, but the vote counts when it is
cast, however small one may rationalize it away.

 

 

what my non vote would say is I have total disgust for the system and the politicians who only care about knowing what is best for the rest of us.

 

 

So tell me what good did my vote for Romney do?   All I got out of is was a nauseous feeling as I left the polling place.

[Mike.357]

The problem is, a no vote for laziness counts the same as a no vote from protest. That's why it's a shame that spoils aren't counted. A spoil means "I care enough to vote but screw you and the horse you rode in on".

 

The closest alternative is third party. If you don't like the choices from the majority left/right party, choose one that mostly agrees with your principles and go for them. The more votes a third party gets, the more likely one of the majors is likely to bend and the more likely you are to actually have a voice in things (and if eventually they get enough votes, it may even swing some of those "I only vote for winners, yuk-yuk" people. Your vote, your voice.

 

 

according to many here a vote for a third party candidate is the same as voting for the Democrat.  And if I don't vote it is not out of laziness.

[RobertNashville]

If Libertarians want to keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that's up to them but any belief that they are "getting the word out" or having any actual success is nothing but a pipe dream and not based in reality. In the 2012 presidential election Libertarians took 0.99% of the vote...is that the result of getting the word out that there is another choice?

 

Another problem that Libertarians will never overcome is that many people, once someone knows ALL of what Libertarians stand on all the major issues, they don't and will not agree with those positions. That's why I and many other Conservatives will accept some but will never accept all that positions that Libertarians are pushing.

[Jonnin]

what my non vote would say is I have total disgust for the system and the politicians who only care about knowing what is best for the rest of us.

 

 

So tell me what good did my vote for Romney do?   All I got out of is was a nauseous feeling as I left the polling place.

 

Not voting does not indicate disgust, it lumps you in with the people who do not care.  Right or wrong, the perception is that people who do not vote are lazy and do not really care.   Because if it were disgust, we would see much higher turnout for primaries and more interest  in them.   If it were disgust, there would be a protest of some sort organized, perhaps GO to the polls and leave the ballot blank or write something across it that indicates disgust.  SOMETHING, anyway, to send a message rather than just ho-hum wonder who they will get to be senator this year....

 

Your vote did not do a thing except keep you out of the above category and waste your time.  And I said it then and I say it now --- better to have obama in there making democrats look bad than to have romney in there making conservatives look bad.  Eyes on the prize --- obama will cause the next president to go conservative if we can get ONE decent candidate this time around.   That is a big if though, most likely it will be another bunch of idiots.

[gun sane]

I remember comedian Pat Paulsen, who formed the Straight Talking American Government (STAG) Party.  He had a one-plank platform:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZUEgLNJ6tg

Edited October 31, 2013 by gun sane

[RobertNashville]

according to many here a vote for a third party candidate is the same as voting for the Democrat.  And if I don't vote it is not out of laziness.

It's really simple math.

 

In an election where it's certain that either the Democrat or the Republican will win (such as the 2012 presidential election and every other major election in my lifetime) then voting for any other candidate (third party) will mathematically hurt whichever party that vote would have otherwise gone to and help the opposing party.  The only way that is not true is If that person would not have voted at all in which case it's a meaningless vote, mathematically (albeit it may provide some psychological comfort). ;)

[RobertNashville]

...And I said it then and I say it now --- better to have obama in there making democrats look bad than to have romney in there making conservatives look bad.  Eyes on the prize --- obama will cause the next president to go conservative if we can get ONE decent candidate this time around.   That is a big if though, most likely it will be another bunch of idiots.

That was the IDENTICAL logic when people didn't vote for McCain and we not only got Obama we got two terms of him even with a piss-poor economy and ever other major issue that should negatively impact an incumbent against him. The Republicans should have been able to run Hitler and win the last election.

 

I predict that Hillery will be the Democratic nominee for 2016 and she will win the election.

 

Our best shot to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of our way of life was the 2012 election and we f****d it up. I doubt we have enough time left at this point before a complete economic implosion and talk of "long term" Libertarian strategy is nonsense.  However, the only possible chance I see to save the country now is to put in enough true conservatives in the house and especially the senate to keep the progressives at bay.

Edited October 31, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

what my non vote would say is I have total disgust for the system and the politicians who only care about knowing what is best for the rest of us.

 

 

So tell me what good did my vote for Romney do?   All I got out of is was a nauseous feeling as I left the polling place.

That's a nonstarter, Mike. Your vote counts the same way as mine. Sometimes you win, others you lose. Giving up won't help.
When the next election comes around and it just happens to be real close, think about what you said when it goes the wrong

way. Sometimes that non vote counts the wrong way, also. One thing you can do, and you don't, doesn't make any sense then.

 

All you can do is try. But the elections are won and lost when the candidates are picked. We need to pick better ones. And we

need to take voter fraud seriously. That's something we don't do.

 

I don't know how to assure you of this, but those people who note or tally your vote couldn't care less whether or not you have

total disgust for the system. They are as much of the problem as anyone else, but all we have is a vote, and if we don't use it,

we walk away from the system and let the buzzards eat up the rest.

[Mike.357]

aside from any ideological stances,  a vote in Knox county is totally worthless anyway.  All one can do is waste it on a Democrat or join the lemmings and vote for the Republican

[JayC]

Robert,

 

You're assuming that 'true conservatives' are somehow better than progressive democrats...  Can you give me some examples of 'true conservatives' you'd like to clone and put into office?  I'd offer 100 Senator clones of McCain and Graham would do us no better than 100 clones of Reid.

 

While the details of the collapse might change, the end result would be the same either way.

 

I doubt there is anything we can do to save the country from an economic collapse, even 'true conservative' republicans aren't talking about doing away with medicare, medicaid, social security, and welfare.

 

That was the IDENTICAL logic when people didn't vote for McCain and we not only got Obama we got two terms of him even with a piss-poor economy and ever other major issue that should negatively impact an incumbent against him. The Republicans should have been able to run Hitler and win the last election.

 

I predict that Hillery will be the Democratic nominee for 2016 and she will win the election.

 

Our best shot to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of our way of life was the 2012 election and we f****d it up. I doubt we have enough time left at this point before a complete economic implosion and talk of "long term" Libertarian strategy is nonsense.  However, the only possible chance I see to save the country now is to put in enough true conservatives in the house and especially the senate to keep the progressives at bay.

[tnguy]

according to many here a vote for a third party candidate is the same as voting for the Democrat. 

 

Even if that was valid (and it isn't, logistically or morally) , it's no moreso than not voting at all.

[gun sane]

You won't change the country until you change the states.  Right here is the principal battleground.  We sent Alexander and Corker to speak for us--we may as well have sent Laurel and Hardy.  If the states don't take back their sovereign rights, the politicrats will do our picking for us.

[tnguy]

The only way that is not true is If that person would not have voted at all in which case it's a meaningless vote, mathematically (albeit it may provide some psychological comfort). ;)

 

Mathematics does not bring the meaning. Mathematically, it's just x->x+1

 

As to actual meaning, sure it does. People like you claim that you will not vote for a party that can't win. How is a party to win if it can't increase its vote? Therefore voting third party improves the possibility of future success. In addition, people may look at whether the vote is increasing rather than absolute numbers and jump on the bandwagon.

 

It also send a message to the people in the mainstream parties that maybe they could have had that vote but they're simply not good enough. If you have a RINO that is no different from a democrat, it would be better for the democrat to be in power while the republicans sort themselves out a proper candidate.

[tnguy]

Our best shot to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of our way of life was the 2012 election and we f****d it up. I doubt we have enough time left at this point before a complete economic implosion and talk of "long term" Libertarian strategy is nonsense.  However, the only possible chance I see to save the country now is to put in enough true conservatives in the house and especially the senate to keep the progressives at bay.

 

They f***ed up running McCain and the Romney. That's as simple as it is. The Republican party is rotten at the core and is incapable of doing the right thing.

[RobertNashville]

They f***ed up running McCain and the Romney. That's as simple as it is. The Republican party is rotten at the core and is incapable of doing the right thing.

Math is ALL that matters in voting...if you don't get the votes you don't win...people can ignore that simple truth if they want but it wont' change anything. If someone votes for a candidate that cannot win then they are helping one of the other parties and anyone who can add and subtract can do the math for themselves to see it.

 

You can send all the messages you want but they ain't listening.

 

If the Republican party is so rotten at its core it can't be changed then we all should just give up and stop wasting our time here or voting or giving money to candidates...we should just disengage and go hide somewhere until we die because if we can't change the Republican party enough to make a difference then it's over...no third party and most certainly not the hapless Libertarians (who can't get 1% of the vote) is going to change anything. If people want to believe otherwise they can keep believing otherwise but belief won't change a thing.

Edited October 31, 2013 by RobertNashville

[MacGyver]

Here's the problem with the whole system right now, as illustrated in almost caricature like form by the Tea Party.  Note, I think this is a problem with all of them - I'm just using the Tea Party as an example because they're illustrating the leading edge of the problem.

 

I think the root of our modern problem goes back to the late 60's and early 70's when we really stripped party bosses of their power in favor of a more egalitarian primary system.  With the party bosses, you certainly got corrupt politicians, but I think that you can look at them as mostly mildly corrupt.  It was sort of a, "make sure all your guys vote for me, and I'll make sure you get the county road contract - or whatever."  While corrupt, politicians had a broader constituency.

 

With the advent of the primary system, that's changed.  Today, if we're being completely frank, the middle, or the moderate voter that everyone talks about just doesn't care.  Period.  So long as their kids' schools don't absolutely suck, and there aren't potholes right at the end of their driveway, they don't care.  And it would take extreme circumstances to change that - most of them are going to stay home.  They might get out to vote in presidential elections, but local and primary elections - it's not happening.

 

So what we get with the primary system is a vastly changed constituency.  Candidates are chosen by 10-15% of roughly 50% of the electorate on either side.  Those are the people who show up to vote in primaries and those are the people who donate money to get these folks elected.  This is a problem because these 10-15% (~5-7.5% of the overall population) are these candidates' constituency.  And, it's an echo chamber.  If you've got the money, and you can get a few people to show up and vote in the primaries, you can control the candidate.  But, because these candidates are coming from the fringe of both sides, their positions are at odds with the "moderate voter".

 

Couple all of this with the polarization of the districts.  Let's just go ahead and face it.  The big cities and major metropolitan areas are trending towards the left on their own and are quite happy skipping towards Gomorrah.  That's going to continue without any help.  On the right, the GOP was so successful in their gerrymandering efforts in the 90's and earlier last decade, that in most house districts, the DNC couldn't rig an election and get a candidate elected.

 

So with the Tea Party, we've got candidates with extremely polar positions in "safe" districts with a constituency that in most cases has these same polar views.  This is how we get candidates like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Sharon Angle.  The problem with this is that they absolutely don't represent the views of the whole of their constituency, they only care about the constituency made up of the people who paid to get them elected.  These politicians are worse than the classic mildly corrupt politicians.  The modern variant has been purchased outright.

 

Here's the real problem from my perspective.  We're electing candidates who, because they exist in this echo chamber, have exactly zero incentive or motivation to negotiate - much less compromise.  In a lot of cases, these "constituencies" would just assume their candidates go ahead and walk this whole American experiment off a cliff.  They have no grounding in reality, and have no idea what they're wishing for. 

 

This is the reason that I prepare.  This is the reason that I think we're heading for another "shutdown" in January.  This is why I fear that one of these idiots will eventually succeed in pushing us over the edge.  Our existing Congress is showing that they're increasingly incapable of governing at all - much less effectively.

 

I don't know what the solution is.  I've reached a point where I can't vote for either of the major parties in good conscience.  I've never aligned with the DNC, and the GOP left me long ago.  I'd love to see the Tea party separate from the GOP, and frankly a party emerge at the far left as well.  Good honest debate is important.  Add in the Greens, Libertarians and some others and maybe you'd have to actually have to get a coalition in agreement with your position to effectively govern.  It can't get any worse than it is now.

[tnguy]

Math is ALL that matters in voting...if you don't get the votes you don't win...

 

So if you lived in a Democrat safe seat, you wouldn't bother voting?

[MacGyver]

I kind of find myself in a funny place with voting.  Part of me says that if voting really mattered, they'd have made it illegal long ago.  Part of me looks at the candidates and is absolutely disgusted at the entire ballot and the mockery they've made of our government.  Part of me looks at the whole of government as a Babylon of sorts, and I'm realistic about how little my vote actually counts for anything.

 

But, I've got enormous respect for the men who died to give us that privilege of voting. And, I've been fortunate to have been plenty of places where they don't have that privilege.  As such, rain, snow or shine, if the polls are open, I'll get out and vote.

[tnguy]

With the advent of the primary system, that's changed.  Today, if we're being completely frank, the middle, or the moderate voter that everyone talks about just doesn't care.  Period.  So long as their kids' schools don't absolutely suck, and there aren't potholes right at the end of their driveway, they don't care.  And it would take extreme circumstances to change that - most of them are going to stay home.  They might get out to vote in presidential elections, but local and primary elections - it's not happening.

 

You're certainly not wrong. And open primaries are the worst. Whilst I think the Republican party bears much of the responsibility to McCain, it is quite clear that he wasn't doing well until Democrats were able to vote for him.

 

The whole primary thing is puzzling to me anyway. If the parties want to field candidates, it should be up to them how they choose who to pick. Whether that is in smoky backrooms, internal party member voting or throwing it all wide open, that decision shouldn't be the province of the states.

Edited October 31, 2013 by tnguy

[MacGyver]

You're certainly not wrong. And open primaries are the worst. Whilst I think the Republican party bears much of the responsibility to McCain, it is quite clear that he wasn't doing well until Democrats were able to vote for him.

I know plenty of liberals who got out and voted for McCain for that exact reason.  I actually remember being quite surprised the first time I saw the "big tent" of people the GOP had attracted to their primary.  It took me about a minute of standing in line to realize that the system was being gamed quite effectively.