Scolding the democrats gives the republicans the power to put everything they've been working on during the Bush years back on track. Do you think that agenda just went away? Bush's Supreme Court nominee's gave us Citizens United; just a small appetizer. How would your parents like some privatized medicare? Roe vs. Wade is already nullified in several states, why not repeal it entirely? You weren't planning on retiring, were you? Because republicans have already promised your social security to Wall Street. You know, 2012 actually sounds like a swell year to invade Iran.
You vote for Obama in 2008 and so you are obligated to vote for him in 2012 no matter what he has done? Is that really the system that you want?
No, that's not what I want. What I want is a TRUE, multi-party system with instant-runoff voting, where we can vote by ranking. i.e. THIS is my preference; if he comes out last, drop him and move to my NEXT choice, and so on until there's two candidates left, THEN the one with the most votes wins.
That way, there's no spoilers or "wasted votes". Vote for Nader if you like, but put Gore as your NEXT choice over Bush. That would be a true democracy.
If you want to tilt at windmills, fight THAT fight. Fight to get our election system changed to one that ACTUALLY reflects the will of the people.
But until then, we have a two-party system. And under THIS system, not voting for Obama in 2012 is cultural, national and planetary suicide.
If we get President Palin because a handful of well-meaning liberals couldn't manage to hold their nose and pull the lever for Obama, my atheist ghost is gonna come haunt every last ONE of you... ;)
You're right and you're wrong.
In 2000 I was visiting my family in The States and I hadn't paid too much attention (at that time) to U.S. politics. My cousins were saying they were going to vote Nader. Their parents said, "No, vote Gore - a vote for Nader could give Bush the election." I said, "Vote your conscience (Nader). In the long run it will pull the politics to the right direction." Needless to say, I was wrong.
However, right now Obama is saying (parroting), "yeah who needs banking regulations, yeah, we don't need any single-payer health option, Ok, Big Corp, go ahead a ship those jobs overseas, why tax rich people, let them trickle down upon the working class, marijuana (giggle giggle), (etc., etc., etc.)". How are we going to tell him he's WRONG by voting for him.
The point is, how are we going to tell him he's WRONG by electing Sarah Palin or her ilk?
Do you think ANYONE will look at a Sarah Palin win and say "gee, the country is leaning more liberal"?
We need to elect Obama -- painful as it may be -- and THEN make sure there's a Tea-Party-like force on the left to drag him back to the policies he ran on in the first place...
Our two-party system doesn't give us the LUXURY of voting for who we'd truly prefer. No third party can win the presidency, given our current corrupt system. Therefore, there are ONLY ever two choices.
Cast protest votes all you want, the Republicans will love you for it. Hell, they RUN ADS for liberal third party candidates, knowing it will splinter off votes from the Democrat who COULD win...
It's your vote. Use it (or not) as you see fit.
As long as you realize that once again, you're giving the Republican candidate what they want.
There's no "None of the above" vote. Nobody is going to see the number of "non-votes" and interpret that as a protest. They're only going to see a winner, and a loser -- and much more importantly -- a party in power and a party out of power.
Unless you TRULY believe there's no difference between the parties (and no matter how mad we may get at Obama, I don't know anyone who thinks things would be better with a Republican in the White House) -- then VOTING MATTERS.
Just imagine how different things would be today if Gore had become President in 2000, and ask the folks who voted in Florida how much every single vote counts.
Well, actually, unless you live in a swing state, your vote (for President) DOESN'T count. Residents of Ohio and Florida (and two or three others) don't have the luxury of sending a message with their vote. But, if you live in Massachusetts or Wyoming, (or actually MOST states) you can vote for whomever you want and ALL it will be is symbolic. So there is an opportunity to send a message with your vote. If the Socialist candidate got a million votes, you can bet that the DNC would make some real policy changes.
As I said, a vote for Obama says, "you're doing fine. Just keep moving to the right." You're right, though - a "no-vote" says nothing to anyone.
Hmmm... In general, you're right. But sometimes "non-swing" states surprise us.
I would personally hate myself if I was in a state that was EXPECTED to be safe for Repubs, but come election day, actually had a chance of voting for Obama -- and I had cast what I thought was a safe "protest vote"...
In a two party system you cannot vote with your heart, you have to vote with your brain. Unless you want a minority you don't agree with in power (let's say the Xian Right) you will have to give a strategic vote.The whole US electoral system seems to be based on a lot of voting against candidates rather than in favor of them.
A vote for Nader or any other candidate without any realistic possibility of winning is a wasted vote, as measured mathematically or on political influence. If you really want to keep Republicans out of power, and you are a cynical bastard in how to achieve it, support Michelle Bachman as she seems to be tearing that party apart. ;)