Are Democrats REALLY That STUPID?

Published on February 18, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I'm sorry, folks. I'm about to get a brain hemmhorage from beating my head against the wall here.

After reading the 5000th repetition of why I "wasted my vote" for voting for the candidate I believed in, I am astounded by the apparent stupidity of the Democrats who patronize this site. Now, I don't believe in the Republican Party platform, but as a rule, the Republicans and conservatives on this site have not made repeated ignorant attacks on me and my party.

For those who don't know, I am a Libertarian through and through. I believe in the party platform, believe in the candidates we put forth, and am even planning to make a run next year for city council to further advance the party.

As a Libertarian, I have seen at least 100 different arguments on why my position is "stupid", "ignorant", or a "wasted vote". I cannot help but conclude that, since those arguments have been made almost EXCLUSIVELY by Democrats and/or liberals, that it is a desperate attempt to try to shame myself and other third party supporters into rending our support to the DNC, no matter how inane or inept the candidates they present.

Until the Democrats decide to modify their platform into a platform that can support a wider diversity than their current ever narrowing platform, and until they can abandon the EXTREME negativity that is so characteristic of many of their members (check out the Democrat Underground for examples), they will continue to find themselves fractured and the support of their members waning. They have pretty much told their moderates "we don't need you", they've taken a similar position regarding the religious elements of their party by rallying around causes that all but the most liberal Christian finds themself having a hard time supporting. This is AT LEAST the tenth time I have stated this, and I have seen similar statements by many others, INCLUDING former Clinton advisor Dick Morris.

But it falls on deaf ears. Apparently, according to these folks, I should abandon my core principles and vote for a Democrat regardless of how much I disagree with their position. Makes sense, huh?

Comments (Page 2)

kingbee

on Feb 20, 2005

You'd think when everyone on all sides is telling someone they're being too abrasive and that's their problem, they'd learn.

when countries all over the globe tell america its foreign policy is abrasive, arrogant and irresponsible, the response is ?

ParaTed2k

on Feb 20, 2005

I could retort that in 1992 Bush finished 3rd in Maine, and in 1912 the Republicans finished 4th in Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi outpolled by even the Socialists and finished with only 8 electoral votes.

Since my point is that even the "major" parties come in 3rd at times, then this isn't as much a retort as a reinforcement of my point.

You are right as far as Senate and House seats though, 3rd parties do need to work on picking those up, if they really want be major players. However, I still say that the only wasted vote is one not cast. I also still ask of people who vote against their conscience, "If your not voting your own conscience, who's are you using (or better yet, who are you letting use yours)?

fmfyguy

on Feb 20, 2005

However, I still say that the only wasted vote is one not cast.

I agree fully that not casting a vote is the greatest waste of all. However, the first thing you have to do is get rid of the Electoral College. It's the enormous compromise that has long outlived it's purpose. If no third party candidate can pull a single state (or even a few) then your vote is one of "protest." You're protesting while Rome burns. I'll repeat an earlier posting: all politics is local. Get the states to stop gerimandering districts and elect state representatives on a percentage basis (like they do in parlimentary systems). Then, if you get a measurable percentage, regardless of how spread out is among districts) you get representation. Switch all elections to require a 50% majority and force runoffs which at least buys negotiating powers.
Barabara Boxer (a very liberal Democrat) has a bill being introduced to obolish the Electoral College. Press your congresspersons and senators to support her bill. It's a big step in the right direction. A direction to true democracy.
If you don't start working toward creating viable third parties your protest is like screaming into the breaking waves with pebbles in your mouth. If your so called "protest" helps elect NeoCons (or, more accurately, NeoFacists) you're not wasting your vote ... you are killing us. Get committed; not just involved. Join the fracas and work for change.

whoman69

on Feb 20, 2005

To make the electoral college based upon a % of votes would be folly. The only thing it would do is to make sure that every state splits their votes down the middle and that candidates will never be able to claim a mandate. A more representative system would be like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where each congressional district vote is up for grabs and the overall winner takes the other two. The overall result would be pretty close to what it is now, but its not representative with the winner takes all system. A straight popular vote system would take away any power from the smaller states. Sure those smaller states have more power than they should now, but the top baker's dozen states could by themselves decide the election. A popular vote election would mean candidates visit only the largest cities across America to cherry pick votes where they can be strong. The electoral college system represents each state. Its not perfect, but with the system I propose, it can be improved.

drmiler

on Feb 20, 2005

Boxers bill will NOT pass! And what your talking about will NEVER come to pass.

ProgressiveUSA

on Feb 20, 2005

Gideon, this is the second article in a row where you blame Dems & liberals for criticizing you...

I've only been on this board a couple weeks but I haven't seen any of that...if I see it, I'll suggest they back off. But at this point, to me, you are starting to sound like moderateman junior. (And that's not good).

Therefore, for the record, it's fine with me if you are Libertarian. I have zero problem with that.

As for 'throwing your vote away," I agree with your position. I suggest you response I did after voting Nader in 2000: My vote is only thrown away if I cast it for someone I don't want in ofifice the most."

Or if you prefer, you can point out that by the 'thown away vote' logic, anyone who votes for the losing side threw their vote away. And if a person really believes that, well, then they don't really understand the function of an election to begin.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 20, 2005

I agree fully that not casting a vote is the greatest waste of all. However, the first thing you have to do is get rid of the Electoral College.

Any argument for getting rid of the Electoral College is made out of either a complete ignorance of our system, or a total disregard for it.

A straight popular vote system would take away any power from the smaller states. Sure those smaller states have more power than they should now, but the top baker's dozen states could by themselves decide the election.

Whoman69, we don't agree often, but here, we have found common ground. Here's to it happening more often in the future!

fmfyguy

on Feb 21, 2005

Any argument for getting rid of the Electoral College is made out of either a complete ignorance of our system, or a total disregard for it.

The first thing you folks on this blog have to learn is to not make such nasty and sometimes really stupid statements. I would like you to explain to me how, if there is a popular vote, getting rid of the Electoral College hurts smaller states? It simply makes all of us the same. One vote in your apparently itty bitty state counts the same as one vote in my ultra-large state. Do you mean you want to keep your advantage? How could a "baker's dozen states" states decide an election when it is the popular vote that would decide?

Help me. I seem to be either ignorant or I have no regard for the illustreous Electoral College.

fmfyguy

on Feb 21, 2005

Boxers bill will NOT pass! And what your talking about will NEVER come to pass.

You may very well be right. So let's all just pack up and go ... where? Bobby Kennedy used to say, about certain very bad things, "that is unacceptable." He meant that it had to be changed and he would likely play some role. He also is quoted as saying (not exact, I'm sure) that "I see things that never were and ask "why not?".

We may disagree on precise details or even broad strategy. But at least we need to agree that "change" is clearly needed. Exchanging jabs on a blog is not an answer no matter how well it may make us feel at the moment. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

fmfyguy

on Feb 21, 2005

A more representative system would be like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where each congressional district vote is up for grabs and the overall winner takes the other two.

Good reply. Now we are getting somewhere. I trust you agree that there are some very structural changes needed to make our democracy more representative and more effective. I hope you agree that creating viable third parties must start locally and national elections are not the place to begin. I don't know the Nebraska or Maine systems very well but I would like to point out the any system that employees voting districts is subject the same kind of manipulation as happened in Texas this past year. State legislators' define the districts and that, in itself, is inherently undemocratic.

Let's keep looking for a specific solution that will work even in places like Florida, Texas and a whole bunch of similar states. States cannot alone set the requirements. They are not all as nice as ours.

fmfyguy

on Feb 21, 2005

Any argument for getting rid of the Electoral College is made out of either a complete ignorance of our system, or a total disregard for it.

Excuse me for appending my previous reply to this quote. Today, if you are in a very, very "Red" state (big or small) the "Blue" guy doesn't spend much time there. Of course, the reverse is also true. The reason? If he gets 20% or 49.995% of your "Other Color" state ... he loses. If, on the other hand, he can get a higher percentage from your state, he is far more likely to show up. John Kennedy did not even campaign in a number of states because he knew that his being Catholic meant he'd lose the state anyway (which, by the way, he did lose very, very big). Now, if he felt instead that he could get more votes by showing up ... he would have.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 21, 2005

They have a platform that the government should do nothing except promote inidividual freedoms.

Yes and no. We believe in MINARCHIST government, and a government that does not employ force. One of the reasons I believe the LP's platform is so relevant (primarily on a federal level) is that we are such a diverse nation with diverse interests, and trying to put those interests under a broad federal umbrella is counterproductive. I have seen microsocialist (for definition of microsocialism vs macrosocialism, please archive my article entitled same) enterprises work quite effectively in inner cities. But the dynamics of rural vs. urban poverty are quite different, and the needs of different communities and different regions are likewise different. If we continue to enable a larger federal government, individual freedoms will be LESSENED and oppression will be more likely. If, however, we encourage a minarchist federal government and return many decisions to the state and local level (ironically enough, as the Constitution INTENDED it to be), we will see a society in which the needs of the individual are best met.

Whoman, frankly, you are one of the WORST representatives of your party. You have in many ways shown EXACTLY why I want NOTHING to do with the Democratic Party whatsoever. Perhaps you would prefver if I voted Republican?

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 21, 2005

I've only been on this board a couple weeks but I haven't seen any of that...if I see it, I'll suggest they back off. But at this point, to me, you are starting to sound like moderateman junior. (And that's not good).

Oh really? For one, you haven't read enough of my articles if you think I sound like moderateman junior. But, to hold you to your promise, how's this?

Tell me again why your vote for Bednarik was any more important than writing in Mickey Mouse? They had about an equal chance of winning.

I could bring up other examples from my archives, but...you get the picture.

whoman69

on Feb 21, 2005

Go ahead vote your conscience then. But in many elections a primary is held to limit the people receiving votes in the election that counts to 2. Giving us a couple dozen choices for President does not make the system better. It simply means that those who go beyond the first two choice have in essense said they are willing to throw away their vote. I know the Libertarians have tried to get elected officials in at the lower levels of government, and I applaud that. But until they are sucessful in doing so, don't mind me if I call them irrelevent on a national level. What is their peak % of the vote they have received? I'm guessing from 4-5 %. You ran 219 house races but received just over a million votes, on average 4500 votes, nowhere near enough for election. I would have to guess that a majority of their candidates have zero experience in government. Why should they expect to win? Your party has had some success on the local levels. They need to use that to gain success on a state level and then from there move to national offices. Your own presidential candidate, Michael Bednarik did not even win the libertarian primaries and was nominated mostly on his performance at a pre convention debate. He has not served in any elected office since college. He ran twice for state legislature from Austin, Texas and did not win.
How would a Libertarian President govern with no people of his party in congress? Frankly, if a party has no members of congress, they do not deserve consideration for President. The Reform Party was all about Ross Perot and his disagreement with Republicans on the budget. His coattails did not include any other people elected to office. George Wallace formed his party to voice his displeasure with Democrats for doing away with their segregationalist past. In the next election, he was back again running Democrat. Similarly, the Bull Moose party was all about TR and his displeasure with his own hand picked successor. Once again no members of congress were elected to back him up. In all these examples, the party did not make a 2nd serious run and was disbanded. The Reform party continues on in some macabre way, but to go from Perot to Ralph Nader shows they were only interested in placing someone with a name at the top of the ticket and not concerned with the issues involved.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 21, 2005

How would a Libertarian President govern with no people of his party in congress?

Whoman,

What's interesting, is this comment reflects your selective reading tendencies. I have blogged repeatedly on my proposed strategies for the LP, and those strategies focus on 2006, rather than 2008. The reason being is that it is crucial for the parety to make a statement by running strong and obtaining winnable seats to build support for the latter year's presidential race. I am even throwing my hat in the ring for next spring's city council run to support my party, so I AM putting my money where my mouth is.

As to who "deserves" the office of the president, I think it is, quite simply, the man who is chosen.

I do thank you for your points, as points such as the one quoted above are VERY valid points, and issues that must be addressed if the LP is to gain support.

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!