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 2)

FreeMark

on Sep 05, 2004

By saying

but I'm above that.

Are you not really saying that most of the rest of us are below that?

You speak of condescension

I don't believe I did. I said your statement sounded pretentious. Which I kind of wish I didn’t use that word because I have consistently failed to spell it correctly…but I think it is the right word. I am more than willing to admit that I might reading into something here.

But I will stop prodding the tiger because there is no point. You will do what you will and I will do what I will and both of us will probably be satisfied with ourselves.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 05, 2004

Are you not really saying that most of the rest of us are below that?

IF you believe in Bush or Kerry, or IF you believe that there is a genuine lesser of two evils, then I don't fault you. If either wins because people believe in their message, then the principles of Democracy won out. If, however, you feel as I do that both parties are equally deplorable and you truly believe that a third party candidate is the best candidate but you don't reflect that in your vote, then yes, I guess that's what I'm saying. I am saying you should vote your conscience and encourage others to do the same.

I appreciate your input, I just think you slightly misconstrue my point. My point isn't to browbeat anyone into voting for my candidate if that's a candidate they don't believe in. My point is to encourage third party supporters to vote for the candidate of their choice, no matter how much people may look down on them for it.

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

Boris still wants to know "Vat do you know about Mewse and Squirrel?"

Vote Fearless Leader in '04 or else you will be shot.

historyishere

on Sep 05, 2004

Watch me pull this viable 3rd party candidate from a hat Rocky! Looks like a libertarian to me!

MusiKitty

on Sep 05, 2004

I think both Gideon and Freemark are making good points here...
If you honestly think that both candidates are equally bad, and wouldn't even think of voting for "lesser of two evils" because the evils are equal, then why not vote for a third party candidate? If someone really hates both candidates that much, he/she probably wouldn't vote at all if there were no other choices. So voting for a 3rd party candidate isn't wasting that vote, since the vote wouldn't have gone anywhere else to begin with. It wouldn't have been there at all, otherwise.

However, if there is a major candidate who even MOSTLY agrees with your views, even if a 3rd party candidate fits them exactly, I think it's probably best to vote for the major candidate so that most of your views will be represented, if not all of them. If, to you, there really is a lesser of two evils, you probably don't want the more evil one in office, right? So you'd vote for the other.

Does that make sense? It did to me.

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

However, if there is a major candidate who even MOSTLY agrees with your views, even if a 3rd party candidate fits them exactly, I think it's probably best to vote for the major candidate so that most of your views will be represented, if not all of them. If, to you, there really is a lesser of two evils, you probably don't want the more evil one in office, right? So you'd vote for the other.

You are still picking an evil, so what's the point, vote for whoever, vote ONLY once an election, and VOTE, what does it matter who he/she votes for, as long as they vote, swing states be damned, if the candidate lost that state because of a third party vote, than it's the candidates own fault for not taking measures to EARN those votes not DESERVE.

Excerpt from my opinion on the latest news article on Revolt on the Right!:
[WE] have [A] choice when it comes to voting for President so vote for whoever you want, that swing state bull needs to stop, if the votes lost to a third party candidate in a swing state loses them that state they should have done more to gain those third party votes by earning them not demanding them. Vote Me, because you don't like him, and even though you don't like me either, let's not see him win.

MusiKitty

on Sep 05, 2004

But, do you really want the "greater evil" guy in office for FOUR YEARS? Wouldn't you want the one who at least MOSTLY agrees with your views? No candidate will ever be elected who agrees with you entirely...

MusiKitty

on Sep 05, 2004

And certain issues are more important than others... if the major-party candidate you vote for shares your views on national security and the economy, isn't that more important than him not sharing your views on gay marriage and abortion rights? As long as you vote for a moderate enough Senate/House of Reps, the president can't get away with making decisions that go against your social views. So isn't it more important to vote for a candidate that shares the most important of your views, rather than have a president who shares NONE of them?

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

I will let Gideon answer all the questions about Third Parties further, because he is a true third party, I am more like the guy who supports the George Washington Party, No Parties, because it works at dividing the country over parties and misses the issues like he stated when he left the Presidency, man was smart even though he had wooden chompers.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

So isn't it more important to vote for a candidate that shares the most important of your views, rather than have a president who shares NONE of them?

Musik,

No it is not. I will explain why.

For too long, Americans have been sold two largely similar parties. Democrat or Republican, there hasn't been a whole lot of difference in the bill of goods we've been sold. Third parties have long been ignored, in no small part because many third party supporters have conceded their vote to the "lesser of two evils" for far too long. I believe this has some bearing on the low voter turnout.

The reason I emphatically and unapologetically affirm my support for the Libertarian Party is because it is necessary for the growth of the party and the accountability of the "major" parties. Someone made the analogy on one of the posts of the election being like a choice between liver and peas. They responded that, no matter how loud you call for "pizza", you're not going to get it.
My response is, if you call for pizza consistently, the next time a few more will echo your choice. Then a few more. Eventually, over time, we may get pizza on the menu.

Although it is an example of an ideology I don't support, I can show you where a third party helped shape American policy within the last century. Over the course of the 1920's and the 1930's, the socialist party began to grow on the scene in American politics. They began winning elections in municipal elections, then state, and began influencing policy makers in Washington. When the Great Depression came about, there was a worldwide interest in socialism. The US was no exception, and in 1932, Eugene V. Debs won 10% of the popular vote in the race against Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt, of course, won, and many of the socialist ideals were incorporated into the New Deal, as Roosevelt and the Democrats were well aware that if they did not reform their party's platform, they would cease to exist by the 1936 election (the fact that this had happened to the Whig party in the late 1850's probably helped them to realize the need to reshape their platform).

So, third parties CAN make a difference, and at the very least I'll be able to look at myself in the mirror on November 3, and know I voted true to my convictions.

historyishere

on Sep 06, 2004

Gideon.... you do what you believe is right... after all, as a voter, it is not just your right, its almost your obligation really.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

history,

Yes, that is what I believe as well.

sandy2

on Sep 06, 2004

Gideon as I have said before, do what you feel is right. I was never trying to convince you to vote for another party, I was just trying to understand your reasoning for voting for a third party candidate. I see that you dislike bush and kerry's policies just as much, and in that case then it makes sense to vote for whomever you like best.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 06, 2004

sandy,

Yes, I agree. I have been campaigning hard to get disenfranchised voters to the polls to support the third parties, as there are a lot of people who are not apathetic, but don't vote because they don't see a candidate that represents their views.

pk65

on Sep 07, 2004

I agree with MusiKitty, but I certainly can understand Gideon's points. I just question if I will ever find a candidate that agrees with everything I stand for. At least until cloning is common place, I have to go with the guy that most closely resembles my beliefs.

For example, I am pro life, but yet I tend to side with the Democrats on most other social issues as well as foreign policy. I also am for a strong military but don't feel the GOP owns this issue; therefore when weighing all of this I tend to vote for the Demos....there is very little in life or politics that is black and white.....or crystal clear....if there was, there wouldn't be parties or disagreements or forums like this - we would all just agree and do they same thing.

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!