Would You Vote For An Unelectable Candidate?

[XIX]

I'd probably vote for Brownback. Voting for someone who is as soft on moral issues as Rudy is, in an effort to keep Hilary out...that kinda seems like "ends justifying the means." I dunno. I'd have a hard time getting myself to pull the lever for a pro-abortion politician, under any reasonable circumstance.

[kateri05]

i agree.

[Sojourner]

me too

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='XIX' post='1350922' date='Aug 5 2007, 11:26 PM']I'd probably vote for Brownback. Voting for someone who is as soft on moral issues as Rudy is, in an effort to keep Hilary out...that kinda seems like "ends justifying the means." I dunno. I'd have a hard time getting myself to pull the lever for a pro-abortion politician, under any reasonable circumstance.[/quote]

I concur

[IrishSalesian]

Ill Fourth that motion!

[XIX]

Wow, I did NOT expect this many people to agree with me.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='XIX' post='1351033' date='Aug 6 2007, 09:28 AM']Wow, I did NOT expect this many people to agree with me.[/quote]
I just figure I have to live with myself after voting for someone with whom I have fundamental disagreements over such a significant issue.

Plus, while some may argue that a vote like this is a throwaway vote, if you get enough people voting their conscience instead of voting "strategically," it may actually make a difference. Political compromise may at times be a necessity, but there are some things that just aren't worth compromising. Respect for life is one of these.

[adt6247]

If you vote for the lesser evil, you still vote for evil.

I haven't voted either republican or democrat in any of the last 4 presidential election cycles. I don't even like Brownback that much -- he's pro-life, mostly, but he said he'd support a candidate for the presidency that wasn't pro-life, if he agreed with 80% of the person's positions. The only candidate in either of the two big party primaries I see as making of a decent president would be Dr. Ron Paul. He won't win the republican primary, but I'd vote for him if he ran independent. If not, I'd probably vote Constitution Party again.

Maybe I should just stop voting. Game theory teaches us that plurality voting is rigged in favor of two primary parties of power, and realistically that power cannot be broken.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351043' date='Aug 6 2007, 11:41 AM']I just figure I have to live with myself after voting for someone with whom I have fundamental disagreements over such a significant issue.

Plus, while some may argue that a vote like this is a throwaway vote, if you get enough people voting their conscience instead of voting "strategically," it may actually make a difference. Political compromise may at times be a necessity, but there are some things that just aren't worth compromising. Respect for life is one of these.[/quote]
Agreed 100%.

Since you are familiar with the concept of strategic voting, are you also aware of various different voting methods that have popped up since the constitution was ratified? Instant runoff and Condorcet's method are two such voting methods, that if used instead of plurality voting, would make it difficult for political parties to maintain the stranglehold, as it would rid them of the "wasted vote" syndrome.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1351100' date='Aug 6 2007, 10:49 AM']Agreed 100%.

Since you are familiar with the concept of strategic voting, are you also aware of various different voting methods that have popped up since the constitution was ratified? Instant runoff and Condorcet's method are two such voting methods, that if used instead of plurality voting, would make it difficult for political parties to maintain the stranglehold, as it would rid them of the "wasted vote" syndrome.[/quote]
I would personally be totally in favor of such methods. I think it's high time there were more than two players at the table. The time has long since passed (if it ever existed) in which either of the two parties truly represented the sentiments of a majority of voters.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'd defect to Malta.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1351194' date='Aug 6 2007, 03:39 PM']I'd defect to Malta.[/quote]
Sounds like a plan...

[XIX]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1351194' date='Aug 6 2007, 01:39 PM']I'd defect to Malta.[/quote]
I concur.

[adt6247]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1351154' date='Aug 6 2007, 02:07 PM']The time has long since passed (if it ever existed) in which either of the two parties truly represented the sentiments of a majority of voters.[/quote]
This is ultimately the attitude (that I had one time shared) that made me arrive at monarchism. Even many of the founders of this country, most notably Alexander Hamilton, noted that the average voter didn't possess the education to make informed decisions about statesmanship. This is quite obviously the case. I personally don't feel qualified to decide on matters of foreign policy and the like. Questions like abortion, sodomy, etc. are all pretty cut and dried, but it's less so about much more complicated issues. That's why the electoral college was set up; to provide a buffer in case the populous did something dumb.

Up until about two years ago, I believed as you do: in a free nation, the majority should rule. However, democracy shares one principal error with socialism: the right to rule comes from the mandate of the masses. The right to rule, in reality, comes from God. Christ is to be the King of Kings, not the president of presidents. The bible mentions God ordaining holy monarchs in OT times. The church was spread through Europe largely through Christendom. And finally, a politician should care about what is right, not what is the opinion of the majority.

That all being said, though a Catholic monarchy is a better, more biblical form of government (Pope Pius IX called it the best of all governments), we are still to be obedient to our own government, flawed as it is, and we must work within its laws, as the church forbids revolution against a valid government.

[Moneybags]

Brownback is my #1 choice now. If he falls out of the race, I don't know who to vote for.

[homeschoolmom]

Okay... what's the debate here???

[Ora et Labora]

i'll vote for anyone pro-life.

[T-Bone _]

First off, voting for the lessor of two evils is still evil. Secondly, unless you live in a Swing State, your vote for the President is utterly and totally meaningless, so you might as well vote your conscience. (Voting against a candidate is useless.)

[kateri05]

you mean CA isn't a swing state



oh if only that were funny. i've voted in MD and CA, and as usual my vote counts for POO. our system needs revamping. heck, i'll be honest, i'm with adt, the masses aren't fit to rule, monarchy really does sound better.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1351212' date='Aug 6 2007, 02:14 PM']Okay... what's the debate here??? [/quote]
I think we're all waiting for Ironmonk to show up ...

[quote name='kateri05' post='1351487' date='Aug 6 2007, 06:57 PM']you mean CA isn't a swing state
oh if only that were funny. i've voted in MD and CA, and as usual my vote counts for POO. our system needs revamping. heck, i'll be honest, i'm with adt, the masses aren't fit to rule, monarchy really does sound better.[/quote]
Oddly I find myself at least mildly intrigued by the idea. I have to think about it more by adt makes a compelling argument ...