The journey from there to here

I am looking forward to November 3. On that day, we will begin to see the true results of the election, and get beyond the mindnumbing speculation that has been inaccurate by pollsters' consistent refusal to include candidates such as Badnarik, Cobb, and Peroutka in their polling data.

My theory is that this election will be rather interesting due to the internet. As I speak with the average joe on the street, I find a larger percentage of them have heard of Badnarik, even if they do not support him. This, in itself means much.

The internet has already emerged as a major player in this presidential election; I personally am proud of my barely read "scoop" on Kerry's Yucca Mountain position, from research that I had done, that preceded the campaign commercials detailing the same information by more than TWO WEEKS. And there is the now infamous blogger expose of CBS News' forged documents that has factored greatly in public opinions of the candidates.

The candidates themselves recognize the internet's role; before the debate had even concluded, they were emailing major news outlets with their spin on the debate, and fresh material was in the hands of bloggers everywhere before the candidates had exited the auditorium.

The internet is an exciting medium that has outstanding potential to change the political face of the country. I have long contended that, used correctly, it potentially stands as the "great equalizer" for third party candidates. While it may not realize the fullness of its potential in this year's election, I think we are in for a few surprises come election night (I am more than certain that Badnarik will outpace Nader, and in fact, expect the Green Party traitor to come in third among the minor parties to the man who engineered his ouster as the GP darling, David Cobb). The shame is, the pollsters haven't gotten the news yet.

But then, it took a lot of hounding for them to pick up the story on the documents.

respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish


Comments
on Oct 02, 2004
To The Internet: In the words of the Rock "Know your role!!"

I agree the free exchange of information is changing the world more than shots being fired by militaries.

Youth in Iran want a Secular Democracy; Tibetans have websites online that tells the plight of their brothers and sisters in Tibet, etc.

The list goes on, everything is changing because of the free exchange of information and some are trying their hardest to hold onto their power which they are losing to the internet. Democrats are always promoting John Kerry's website and of course Republicans (besides the RNC) control most of the Government sites, but both never offer a website with a fair view of all candidates like Project Vote Smart. The future is electronic and some people (those who live in the non-Amish type world) should wake up to that fact. So here I go dancing Electronica, dancing Fantastica, and I have been listening to Eisbrecher for too long, hehehehe.

- GX
on Oct 02, 2004

Grim,


It is my hope to be allied with a serious LP candidate for a national office in time for the 2008 presidential race. I feel that I can offer them much in the way of campaign strategy, and could do a fair degree of damage to the political status quo.

on Oct 02, 2004
Gideon, I think you'd like the IRV system. It's a voting system that lets you prioritize your votes.

In this election, I'm afraid the Internet's viability for helping third party candidates has been compromised by the Florida recount. Too many people are afraid that their votes won't count if they're voting third party. I even struggle with that, as I'm in a swing state. Hopefully by the next election, you'll be running for president, and then I won't have to base my vote on whom I like lease.

-A.
on Oct 02, 2004

I have seen the IRV system, and I dislike it as to me, there is no "acceptable compromise" candidates.


People vote for the "big two" because they've been LIED TO for years. In my opinion, the only "wasted vote" is one for a candidate you disagree with. When you crunch and analyze the numbers, and even in your conversations with many people, the term "lesser of two evils" comes up frequently. I think I've made my opinion abundantly clear as to how equally appalling I consider both candidates.


The IRC would be an appeasement to the major parties in that it would funnel the votes of many third party supporters to the major candidates through second and third place designations, and the media would be highly unlikely to report the preliminary votes, but rather the "final" vote tally, causing the third parties to be further silenced.


I truly feel we're on the brink of some serious policy shifts in the majors if the third party candidates will just stay the course. As long as they allow themselves to be frightened into voting for a major party candidate (no offense intended, but this is really what it comes down to), then a third party candidate WON'T be viable.


The dilemna for a libertarian is that in choosing Bush or Kerry, we are choosing between an APPALLING record on personal liberties (Bush), vs. socialism and intrusion on gun rights (Kerry). In addition, the latter choice offers many slippery slope compromises that could eventually lead to mandatory affirmation of lifestyle choices we may personally disagree with, thus further infringing on our first amendment rights.


This is a key election for many reasons. That is precisely why I want my vote recorded where it belongs and nowhere else: with Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna.

on Oct 02, 2004
It is my hope to be allied with a serious LP candidate for a national office in time for the 2008 presidential race. I feel that I can offer them much in the way of campaign strategy, and could do a fair degree of damage to the political status quo.


Awesome, go for it Gid. I will see what I am doing in '08 to see if I can help when I get their of course, not that I can see in the future, but I digress, oh well, once again Go for it Gideon.

- GX
on Oct 02, 2004
The IRC would be an appeasement to the major parties in that it would funnel the votes of many third party supporters to the major candidates through second and third place designations, and the media would be highly unlikely to report the preliminary votes, but rather the "final" vote tally, causing the third parties to be further silenced.


I think you mean IRV and I disagree that the media would ignore the preliminary votes. Look at the backlash against Nader in the last election--that got plenty of coverage. The pundits would have a field day trying to decipher why third party voters would've made the choices they did.

-A.