I Should Compromise My Beliefs for Political Expediency?

Published on September 4, 2004 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I am furious. No, I am beyond furious at the ridiculous insistence that I renounce my Libertarian party affiliation in favor of the Democratic or Republican party on the basis of someone's opinion that I am "wasting my vote".

The "wasting your vote" lie is one that has been perpetuated to keep the major parties in play. It is a lie that serves the two major parties, and often works as a disincentive for informed voters who truly want to find a candidate aligned with their issues.

When I walk into the voting booth on November 2 and vote for the ticket of Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna, I am not wasting my vote, but exercising my rights as a citizen of the United States to vote for a candidate of my choosing. The perceived political viability of the candidate is not a reasonable rationale to change my vote, especially when, as I stated on another thread, forcing me to choose between the Democratic and Republican candidates would be like forcing me to choose to eat either moose shit or elk shit. Sorry, but I don't want either one.

How many voters are hoodwinked into the "lesser of two evils" mindset rather than voting for a candidate who truly represents them and their beliefs? How many leftist or rightist bullies have played into their hands by mocking people who openly support a third party candidate?

Here's MY stance, MY say: I believe in the Libertarian party and the platform of Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna. I stand unapologetically behind that platform. To state otherwise would be a lie. And I, for one, will not lie for political expediency.

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments (Page 1)

Spc Nobody Special

on Sep 04, 2004

Yes, vote my way, vote Kim Jong IL for lifetime president, NOW!!! And stop breathing up all of "my" air. Or we shall kick you out of land of free!!! (Delivered in best we must get moose and squirrel voice)

historyishere

on Sep 04, 2004

You get them their damn 5% Gideon! You and all the libertarians... go for it... shake the majors!

russellmz2

on Sep 04, 2004

well, the thing is in a batteground state your vote is worth more in electing a president. in a safe red or blue state, you have more freedom to vote your conscience without altering the election. the lesser of two evils is a valid argument, you just disagree with it.

for example, take people who voted nader instead of gore because they wanted stronger environmental laws. the problem is that since bush won environmental laws were weakened. the nader voters made the democrats maybe fight harder for nader issues next time, but in the short term, we get worsened air quality when the new regulations(or lack thereof) kick in.

ShoZan

on Sep 04, 2004

Vat do you know about Moose and Squirrel? (Boris Voice)
Vote Boris and Natasha for '04, because Fearless Leader of Potsylvania says so, and you won't disobey Fearless Leader period.

On the Topic:
Another good article, and I still say what I have said before, I don't care who somebody votes for as long as they vote and they vote only once, they can vote for Bozo the Clown or Jackie Chan, or Elvis Presley's Ghost, just as long as they vote once, per election, not lifetime.

messybuu

on Sep 04, 2004

for example, take people who voted nader instead of gore because they wanted stronger environmental laws. the problem is that since bush won environmental laws were weakened. the nader voters made the democrats maybe fight harder for nader issues next time, but in the short term, we get worsened air quality when the new regulations(or lack thereof) kick in.

If people didn't vote for Nader though, then the Democrats would not need to fight harder for Nader issues next time, allowing them to do whatever the Hell they want.

If a third party candidate steals votes from a major candidate especially from a swing state, I think that's a good thing. Not only does it show that other parties have an effect, but it also makes the two major parties listen to the people more. I doubt a third party candidate will even win the presidency, but they'll definitely continue to make an impact (and hold many other offices).

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 04, 2004

I doubt a third party candidate will even win the presidency, but they'll definitely continue to make an impact (and hold many other offices).

I actually have a different take on this. I do believe a third party candidate will soon be viable due to the internet. I am working on outlining my hypothesis, and won't go into depth about it here, but intend to get it to the eye of political strategists in time for the 2008 election. It's my hope that I am right on this, for many reasons.

Deference

on Sep 04, 2004

Interesting, good job, Gideon.

Deference

on Sep 04, 2004

Interesting, good job, Gideon.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 04, 2004

Thanks, deference

FreeMark

on Sep 04, 2004

I don't know what political expediency means. I know what a lie is. I also know what a valid compromise is.

Because you know that your guy has no shot at getting elected dog catcher let alone President (I assume that is what they are running for) then you also know that not voting for the candidate you agree with the most is the same as voting for the candidate you agree with least. I believe you know this.

Maybe you don't agree with either equally. Maybe they are equally odious to you. Maybe the differences are not enough.

If your complaint is that the two major parties are corrupt you might have a point. I suspect that if the Libertarian party every came into power there would be a whole bunch of people who thought they were corrupt. But sometimes compromise looks like corruption when viewed with the right kind of filter.

To me the most visible draw of 3..N parties is that they are not part of the system. They are not mainstream. They are not corrupt. I also believe that they do not compromise. It is not in their charter.

That pretty much is their undoing. To get anywhere they are going to have to compromise. As soon as they compromise then they have become a part of the system. As soon as they are part of the system they become corrupt.

The biggest problem with the two parties right now, in my opinion, is not corruption but compromise. American politics has existed for a long time with corruption (probably day 1)...but never does well without compromise.

Go ahead, vote your conscience...I will vote my compromise.

Maybe I am the problem...my mother always said I was.

Angloesque

on Sep 04, 2004

Yeah, I have issues with being in a swing state. I'm actually a registered libertarian, Gid, so we have that in common. However, one of the candidates is much more attractive to me than the other, and being that I'm in a swing state, I might just vote for him instead of Badnarik. (Having said that, I would love to see national coverage on any of the stations about Badnarik or Nader, just to confirm the rumors that they're actually running.)

So Gideon, if you feel like taking on a project, you could try to convince me to vote for Badnarik and give up my otherwise swing vote.

sandy2

on Sep 04, 2004

Gideon, if you think that Bush and Kerry will be equally bad in office, then go ahead and vote for another party. But if you like one more than the other, even if you still like a third party better, I think it quite a reasonable arguemnt that if you were to vote for the best candidate who doesn't have a choice vs. the better candidate who has a choice then you really have cut off your own nose to spite your face.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 04, 2004

I have said it before, I will say it again: to me, the choice between Bush and Kerry is like being forced to choose between elk shit and moose shit. Sorry, but I'm above that.

And, no, my BEST choice is to vote my conscience, which I am doing and will continue to do.

FreeMark

on Sep 04, 2004

I have said it before, I will say it again: to me, the choice between Bush and Kerry is like being forced to choose between elk shit and moose shit. Sorry, but I'm above that.

This statement comes off as awful pretentious. Did you really mean that you are better than all of us who deign to vote for the two major parties?

I viewed your original statement as much more general. I don’t like X and I don’t like Y so I am going to be Z. But now you are making it much more specific and that you don’t like either candidate. If you truly believe in Libertarian values and would not vote for someone unless they held these values…why bring Bush and Kerry into it?

Now considering your fine example of elk and moose shit I think I would choose elk shit. Elk, I think, would leave a much smaller scat and I believe it is in more easily swallowed chunks (I am assuming the eating is the thing that you object to). Of course it would be a judgement call based upon what the animal had for dinner.. But if I had to do it blind then I would probably go elk. Somebody with more moose shit eating experience feel free to tell me why I am wrong on this?

The choice is going to be between A and B this year. Maybe picking none of the above makes a great statement, I don't know, but it doesn't really impress me.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 04, 2004

This statement comes off as awful pretentious. Did you really mean that you are better than all of us who deign to vote for the two major parties?

I said, to ME, that was what I consider the choice to be, and I stand by it. If you believe in either of the major parties, by all means, vote for them. For that matter, if you see either as being the lesser of two evils and feel so compelled, vote for them as well. But I don't, and I won't, and I am tired of the implications that it is a "wasted vote" on my part.

You speak of condescension. What of the condescension that is historically, perennially heaped on third parties? I have heard this same bile sputtered all of my adult life; the problem with it is, the majority of the third party supporters hear it and believe it. If they were encouraged to vote their conscience, I do believe a third party would be viable.

I viewed your original statement as much more general. I don’t like X and I don’t like Y so I am going to be Z. But now you are making it much more specific and that you don’t like either candidate. If you truly believe in Libertarian values and would not vote for someone unless they held these values…why bring Bush and Kerry into it?

Because Bush and Kerry are the candidates Badnarik is running against. It is relevant for that reason.

The choice is going to be between A and B this year. Maybe picking none of the above makes a great statement, I don't know, but it doesn't really impress me.

I am not picking "none of the above"; that is your interpretation. Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna are on the ballot in all 50 states, they have electors in all 50 states. This is not even close to a "none of the above" vote, as I support the Badnarik/Campagna campaign.

You may feel my words are strong; I ask you to go back and look at the words of principled men of the past and ask if they are any less strong. I feel that our country has deteriorated greatly and that if those who perceive the deterioration fail to speak out, it will continue to do so. I feel that the Democratic and Republican parties showed their homogeneity in 2002, when 90% of the seats in the House of Representatives went virtually or completely unopposed, meaning the opposing party decided the representation was "good enough". Frankly, I'm tired of it and I'm tired of buying the "wasted vote" argument.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!