Voting Your Conscience?

General General Discussion
1

This thread is a spin off from the other (1) and I thought a stand alone topic.

Do you vote you Conscience or do you vote party line? It seems most agree the current two party system aint working so well.

I wont say which election, but I have voted third party before knowing full well they wouldn’t win, but I voted my conscience and felt my two choices of the front runners, ‘lesser of two evils’ couldn’t be found for me.

I don’t recall ever seeing a worse case of that in my life time with what will be our current choices.

The catch 22 of course is, people feel a third party candidate can’t win, so they don’t vote for them, which makes sure they can’t win, and so forth.

Many people simply don’t vote when they don’t like their choices between the two major candidates, and don’t realize the voting process is the essential part in the larger picture.

Although a third party candidate has no chances of winning currently, they can alter election outcomes. Did the votes that went to a third party candidate not cost Gore the election? I could be wrong there, so correct as needed.

Point being, they may not win, but they can effect the outcome, if 5% goes to a third party candidate (or is split between various parties/candidates) and the election lost by single digits in a very close election.

Obviously, that can bee seen as a + or a - depending on how it impacts your candidate if you want one in particular to win. Me, I view it as a message being sent that a growing % of people are not happy with their choices at all from the two party system.

I’m not pushing an agenda here per se, or telling people to vote third party per se. What I am saying is that I feel it’s important to vote in the process regardless, and OK to vote your conscience vs party line, but vote you should.

Personally, I tend to vote issues and people, and don’t give a damn what party they are with. I try and find the candidate that fits what I think is best for the country, etc, etc (you know the drill there) and let the chips all where they fall.

Again, not to say I have not voted for a candidate for no other reason than the alternative so bad, I felt my hand was forced to keep them out of office, but such is Democracy and all that.

What say you? How do you deal with it?

(1) https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=108982&highlight=obama

2

I will vote my conscience.

I have heard all the arguments. But, at the end of the day, I answer to myself and I will do what feels right to me. I really don’t give a rip what others think about my decision. We are each accountable for our own ballot.

3

I vote for the most viable candidate, period. It’s a defacto single party anyway.

The stigma associated with voting third party was wrought from the republocrats/demicans banding together to keep all others out and keep power in fewer hands.

Quite frankly the stigma being fomented still to this day regarding third party candidates is vomitous. It is somewhat responisble for the strong hold the single party republocrats have on this country.

People have been feared into voting repub or dem for decades and it has worked to keep new blood and new ideas out of our political spectrum. It has stagnated us to our current state.

RON PAUL 2012 (No other candidate has a viable plan to get the country back on track as far as I have seen…)

4

Why are those the only two choices?

I vote either strategically or tactically, for what I think will provide the best realistic outcome for the country/state/city (depending on what sort of election it is).

(Example of tactical: my dad voted for Obama in the primary [only], as a way of blocking Hillary, who at the time, was ahead and the one everyone feared. At general election time he voted for McCain.

Example of strategic: voting for Romney or McCain or whatever the “lesser of two evils” is – see below)

I have voted third party before. I have also held my nose and voted for the “lesser of two evils”.

For the strict “conscience” folks, that means that you realistically vote against your best interests.

As someone said before in one of these threads, you can’t “turn an aircraft carrier on a dime” and that means that sometimes you have to accept that the “lesser of two evils” is a better choice because, while everything won’t magically turn around, it lessens the slope of the downward path you/we/the country is/are on, which buys time for someone else to come along later and apply a little more rudder to increase the turn a little more. Doing that over and over will eventually lead to a righted ship. But it takes lots of time, and the willingness to vote in a strategic way. The same way that sometimes you need to retreat or fallback in a way in order to better your position for later action.

The liberals understand this very well. Which is why we are in the deep cr*p we are in now. They know that they can achieve their ends through lots of small votes that always compromise towards the their ends. They don’t demand their whole enchilada at once. They propose X and accept X/2 as a result, where Y is what they really want and Y = many many many times X.

Conservatives and libertarians will have to do the same thing in the other direction if they every want to make things really better. Demanding the whole enchilada up front won’t get you anything, and unless you are willing to take LOTS of small bites out of the thing and slowly turn things around, you will end up with nothing.

If I am trying to buy a new rifle that costs $1000, but I don’t have $1000, and I don’t want to go in to debt, do I just give up? No. I put $5 here, $10 there, $1 here, $25 there away in the bank/glass jar/in my mattress and eventually I have saved enough to buy the rifle. It may take me lots of time – months or even years to do so, but I avoid the debt and eventually get what I want. Same thing in elections. Demanding the whole thing now only puts you in debt or you walk away sad because you can’t have it now, and you never get it. But working on lots of small actions, slowly turning the aircraft carrier, will eventually end up getting you to your destination, or at least close to it.

5

Unfortunately, this is not true (not about RP, but about 2 party system). There is a rather practical reason why the 2 party system exists. It was designed that way, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and is a result of how we conduct elections. This should have been learned in Civics class in HS or college.

This design element is the “winner takes all” system. In a winner takes all system, the losers band together to try and become the winners the next time around. It is not some nefarious plan to keep out 3rd parties, it is merely political darwinism/evolution that draws all the various losers together into an opposing party so that they have a chance to be the winners next time.

Proportional parliamentary systems can handle lots of parties as there is not the incentive to band together since you don’t need 50.001% of the vote to go your way the next time around.

This is why lots of parliamentary systems are full of all sorts of radicals and why the radicals can often exert influence far beyond their size. They are the last party to join the coalition to get the larger parties into the government.

And this is also why the politics in the US is generally more “centrist” (and why the independent voters are often the most important as the can swing things either way, and the independents are most often more centrist). Obviously it has been tacking slightly to the left over the last many decades, on average, and even a few degrees off center eventually lands you way way off course. But in general US politics is more centrist than other countries who have different systems.

6

This election is the first time I will be old enough to vote and I will not be voting just to keep Obama out of office since Romney is just as bad. I will be writing in Ron Paul.

7

Chad, you’ve been beating that same drum forever. And we’re still neck deep in shit.

C’mon, just admit it. Ya want a mormon in the White House and you’re gonna do everything ya can to get folks to hold their nose and vote for Romney, even if he is a complete stinker. :laugh:

And please, no lengthy or indignant rebuttal. I’ve heard all your arguments copious times and don’t really care to do it all over again.

That, and I’m just flippin’ ya some shit. :smile:

8

I have no desire to see a Mormon in the WH. I don’t care what religion the guy has, if any, as long as he works towards a better end result.

The “vote your conscience” people have been beating their horse for far longer, and look what sort of cr*p we are in now because of it.

FWIW: I voted Ron Paul in the primary and will vote Romney in the general election.

9

I am well aware- and did learn how our system was designed; FYI. Vote for whom you like and how you like, but don’t start the condescending “you should’ve learned that in HS or college” BS. I know how the system was designed; that’s why I am so pissed that it is broken and not many care to take notice.

Where we obviously diverge is that I see the current state of the system as a mockery of what was intended.

I won’t thread jack here (not too much anyways…), but suffice it to say that I do not believe in a separation of the current parties- as I’ve posited in my previous post in this thread.

Both parties have the same handlers/$ backing them and as such the two party system is broken and a defacto single party exists and has amalgamated into a circus of planned and known outcomes for those that are actually in control and at the reins. I’m not saying it’s 100% locked-up, but damn close.

Anytime a third party comes along that jives well with the populace, the “parties” put everything else on hold and band together to stimey the bloke out of any votes utilizing whatever method necessary; oft citing the exact same things many in this forum have regarding third parties. “Swing votes…” I know, but I see it as much larger than that.

Both parties vote along the same lines almost 90% of the time (And 90% of the time it is to screw us subjects over by taxing us further and selling off our soverignty in many forms and shapes), bi-partisan is just a buzz word.

On the big issues like Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, NDAA, Drones, etc. they walk hand in hand and sell us out along with our liberty.

Both parties vote themselves uber-benefits and awesome pay rises above and beyond what us subjects would allow them. Both parties are corrupt beyond recognition.

Speaking of evolution; holding back a vote for a real candidate with a real viable plan to help this country is thwarting evolution itself.

10

So you know how it works, and why it is, yet you still think that you can change it? It is inherent in a “winner takes all” system. It is not about parties banding together to stamp out newcomers.

11

Of course it is. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that,” and the two parties do band together very quickly to any person or party they deem a threat to their power base. It is, as you say, inherent to the set up of course, but to think the two parties in power don’t come to together to block what they view as ‘outsiders’ to their system is naive to the extreme. Just as countries who don’t see eye to eye will come together to fight a common foe they consider a potentially larger threat, as will individuals, as will companies, etc so does the current two parties with 99% of the power.

They don’t like each other, but they like outsiders to their little system even less, that’s for damn sure.

12

No, it is not. What is naive is to believe that the parties are monolithic entities controlled by one person of group (each party, not together).

Parties are a sum of their parts and those parts often contest with one another. There is no central unit that controls the party. The RNC and DNC try, of course, but they do not have strict control. Witness the “Tea Party” as an example. Ask Sen Lugar how that central party control is working out.

Now, there are “leadership” positions in each party and of course they do have some power. No argument there.

But the parties are composed of a bunch of competing factions. Those factions have agreed to work together under a given party’s banner but it is not a monolithic entity.

The social conservatives going together in an uneasy alliance with the fiscal conservatives. Sometimes the libertarian folks will join in and sometimes not.

When someone else comes along that threatens that cooperation of these factions, naturally they work together to stamp that out. That is normal dynamics of the system. Not some central control.

Just as countries who don’t see eye to eye will come together to fight a common foe they consider a potentially larger threat, as will individuals, as will companies, etc so does the current two parties with 99% of the power.

They don’t like each other, but they like outsiders to their little system even less, that’s for damn sure.

Sorry, but there is not a “little system” that they control. The fact that there are two main parties is, as has been explained, an artifact [whether purposefully or not] of the “winner takes all system.” What you see as banding together to control the “little system” is really group dynamics working within this “winner takes all” system where the losers try and work together to become the winners.

Are there groups behind the scenes financing parts of it? Sure. And do these people see eye to eye? Probably not. I doubt Soros has the Koch brothers or Adelson over for tea very often.

Lots of things that look coordinated are not, they just appear to be, because the reaction of people who threaten your power is to fight them.

–

13

Then we don’t agree nor will we on that particular point. It has nothing to with “one person” or “monolithic entities” per se but the simple reality of human nature, groups, and power in general as controlled by human beings and their need to protect it as they view it.

14

I think we agree more than we understand.

I think the difference is not the facts, but the interpretation of the facts. It sounds to me like you think there is an overt cooperation where the asses and elephants get together overtly to protect their racket. I see it as natural group dynamics where groups fight for their supremacy, not in a coordinated way however, but to similar aims.

I would think that the Democrats would welcome a third party challenger that weakened the Republicans, And vice versa.

Good question you brought up.

15

I think you’re misunderstaning me. The system as it was deisgned works well enough as long as the two parties are autonomous of one another; which I find not to be the case now a days.

The parties have but a dimes difference betwixt them. I believe it is a circus show; unknowns and some known in the shadows controlling their PR agents to maintain the facade; maintain the illusion of a two-party system when indeed it is a single party system.

Even if they are not a single party as I believe/claim- the “Right” as they claim to be- is center left these days; the left is very far left. I believe a third party candidate that is actually to the right would be good for a lot of reasons. YMMV.

Besides, if we don’t punish them for bringing lame ducks (Even if you believe the system isn’t gamed and there are actually 2 partys) to the table they will continue to do so. Slap them in the face with your vote/thier poor choices and say I would’ve voted for ___(Insert party affiliation) if they would’ve just put forth a viable candidate, period.

If the RNC really wanted to make waves in this election; they would’ve gone off playbook and picked a candidate that not only had a chance of garnering support from a broad section of Americans- but a candidate who has a plan to better this country (The fact they didn’t should be a clue); instead they made the same choice they have for a decade+; some easily controlled turd who will bend to the will of anyone who will give more power and more $; and who goes with the “flow” of politics as usual.

16

I don’t believe in political parties or church denominations.

Still, I have to hold my nose when I vote most of the time, so probably I don’t vote my conscience either–LOL.

17

maybe he saw how bad Harry Reid is and truly does not care about Mormon or not but cares about people and principle :slight_smile:

I think some people must think people of religion are all the same ? like somehow all Mormons are conservative or all Jews are democrats etc… ?

18

I keep hearing this, but have yet to see any concrete evidence of it.

Even if they are not a single party as I believe/claim- the “Right” as they claim to be- is center left these days; the left is very far left. I believe a third party candidate that is actually to the right would be good for a lot of reasons. YMMV.

I believe that a candidate actually to the “right” [actually more libertarian] would be a good thing. This is why there are primaries. This is how the Tea Party works. Even RP, who was a Presidential Candidate of a 3rd Party many years ago believes that, which is why he went through the Republican Party this time.

I don’t think a 3rd party candidate is a good way to get that though since the system does not function such that way, whether purposefully designed through “winner takes all” or as a side effect of the “winner takes all”.

Besides, if we don’t punish them for bringing lame ducks (Even if you believe the system isn’t gamed and there are actually 2 partys) to the table they will continue to do so. Slap them in the face with your vote/thier poor choices and say I would’ve voted for ___(Insert party affiliation) if they would’ve just put forth a viable candidate, period.

And that has worked, how?

If the RNC really wanted to make waves in this election; they would’ve gone off playbook and picked a candidate that not only had a chance of garnering support from a broad section of Americans- but a candidate who has a plan to better this country (The fact they didn’t should be a clue); instead they made the same choice they have for a decade+; some easily controlled turd who will bend to the will of anyone who will give more power and more $; and who goes with the “flow” of politics as usual.

The RNC did not pick a candidate at all. The party membership (and agitators in states that have open primaries) picked the candidate.

I don’t disagree that major changes need to take place and that we’d all be better off with better candidates. I do disagree that the way to do that is a 3rd party. While the candidate parties have changed in the “2 party system”, it is not realistic to think that that is a possibility today. The changes in the past were long ago and had different circumstances that caused them to come about. (And were they really new parties? Or just that one faction in a party overcame the other in size and was able to form a new majority party?)

This is why I say we need to get everyone from the dog catcher on up to be a good candidate and that until you can get local politics fixed, you won’t fix national politics. You need to build your party from the bottom up, not the top down.

19

I am LDS (Mormon). While I live in Utah now, I did not grow up here and only have lived here about 1/3 of my life in total, over several periods.

Utah Mormons are pretty conservative as a group. In the men’s meeting one Sunday, the head guy asked “who has a gun” when trying to organize some extra curricular activities for the membership that would be interesting and draw attendance. Only one guy did not raise his hand. He was the resident Democrat (and although I give him crap, he is a nice guy and a friend and we kid one another and he also wants to be taken out shooting to learn). That is how it is in Utah.

But growing up in Massachusetts, it was not like that at church (and I am not talking about guns). You had all sorts of folks at church, all good people, but all over the map politically. From European style socialists, to libertarians, to conservatives. The Utah-transplants were usually the more conservative bunch. And we all got along, enjoyed one another’s company at activities, and some of these people are still my friends, though I have not seen them in 15 or 20 years.

Look at Romney. He is a non-Utah Mormon and as we all know, not the most conservative of candidates (unfortunately). He is no where near my first choice. (Neither was Hatch when he was running for President a few elections ago).

Harry Reid, as I understand it, came to the LDS church as an adult. I personally don’t know how he reconciles some of his actions with his beliefs, but that is not really for me to judge. But he is a polar opposite.

Religion for me is a personal thing and hinges on my own personal spiritual experiences. While my spiritual beliefs color my political beliefs and actions, “name” alone has no meaning to me. So I don’t care if a “Mormon” is elected as President and am not voting for Romney in November because of that. Since I am not a Romney supporter in the sense that I was with him from the beginning, and I vote for Mr Paul in the Primary, I won’t say any more specifically about him.

–

20

I typically vote my conscience.

In 1992 for example I simply couldn’t vote for Bush, and I wasn’t crazy about Clinton so I voted for Perot. This is because both the Republicans and the Democrats were running gun banners who were ATF apologists.

I didn’t have a problem voting for Bush Jr. because despite the fact that he as somewhat of a dimwit he was a far better option than Gore or Kerry.

The McCain / Obama election was the hardest one for me as I generally do not care for McCain. But it became obvious McCain didn’t have a hope in hell of winning so I voted a futile block.

I’m hardly crazy about Romney but he is a much better option than McCain was so I feel fine about voting for him. The problem is I also don’t think he has a hope in hell and the Republicans have probably given Obama his second term.

I wish somebody like Ron Paul had won the primary, but that didn’t happen.