Actually lots of people do, from what I've read. A lot of those same people like him but consider his chances low, and therefore he is dreaming if he thinks he has a chance. Honestly, this perspective is very troubling to me. If people don't vote for who they like and instead vote for who they think will win (aka, those with the money to sway media)...what kind of democracy are we living in (Patriot Act aside)? We have some even darker days ahead in this nation if this is how we continue to vote.
Please watch some of Kucinich's responses at the democratic debate on 11/15/07. It gives a slight overview of his stance on different issues.
04 December 2007
Some call him a dreamer...
Posted by Brigitte at 21:48
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Do you ever wonder if, perhaps, voting is largely irrelevant? What I mean to say is, there is not a hair's width of difference between the conduct of either of the two parties in our country; sure, they saber-rattle over certain issues, but their aims and goals seem to remain the same: staying in power and fleecing the American people as long as they can.
Also, you know we really don't have a democracy--at least, not a pure one. When it comes for voting for the president, the people have really very little say in the matter. It all boils down to who the members of the electoral college vote for, and there are few states that have laws binding their electors to vote based on the popular vote of its citizens. Many people hate this system, but I think it is good; I don't want states with enormous populations getting even more influence than they already get.
I am just in a total quandary about my "civic duty" vis a vis the upcoming presidential primaries, and then the election. I don't like any of the major front runners, and Ron Paul has no chance.
I suppose I'll have to continue to pray that God's will be done, even if I'm not liking it very much. :)
I have thought of it, and I know exactly what you're talking about. But even if the one we vote for doesn't make it, at least we've done our duty. If people keep voting overwhelmingly for a candidate that somehow never wins...eventually we will MAKE our voice be heard, unless we all stay disinterested. I think that since God has given us the right to vote in this country, we should do it. Otherwise he'd have us under a monarchy or dictatorship (which we're heading towards with our apathetic attitude). And I think we should vote for the candidate we like, even if he has absolutely no chance. We are responsible to do what we think is right and then see what God does with it. I don't like the spirit of defeat associated with elections. Why do we Americans let our government push us around? Where was the uprising when both parties allowed the Patriot Act to pass??? Most of us are outraged, but hardly anyone (incl myself) cares enough to cause a fuss. Then when elections come around we all complain how undemocratic the system is and that there's no point in voting. I've felt that way myself up to the last year or two.
So that's my rant :) Sorry. Vote for Ron Paul!!! He's actually got a lot of popularity, but the mainstream media isn't going to reveal that! All things are possible because we know Who oversees the electoral votes.
I agree with you that it's our duty to vote...and I wish every vote counted, intead of this electoral college system! Everyone should vote, because it does make a difference. Last year, I waited about an hour to vote and that was in mid-day! So, obviously the Americans around here really care!
I am not sure if you're serious about Kucinich...I wrote a comment on the other post about him.
I did see your comment, Marfa. I'd like to hear more of what you meant by it. Yes, I am taking a closer look at Kucinich.
The Electoral College system insures that big states like California and Texas don't get too much influence in the election. They get proportional representation, just like the rest of us. It's a great insurance policy to keep certain areas of the country (Atlantica and Pacifica) from dominating the presidential election landscape.
Your votes (in most states) do matter. What I would like to see are the national party committees and the primary system abolished. They really over-weight the opinions of places like Iowa and New Hampshire. It would be terrific if we went back to the pre-Jacksonian days of local parties campaigning for lots of different candidates. It would open up the field for more than A vs B in November, and actually give us some choice.
If, instead of primaries, we elected at least some of our Electors (say, we elect the ones that match our Congressional reps, but each state would have 2--the ones than match our Senators--who serve for life), that would make the whole system more fair and balanced. We'd elect Electors based on how they thought, and leave them able to choose between the various candidates who come around who best match their own thought.
Bam! solves our election problems.
Next, I'll be taking on world peace :)
j/k
sub clementia,
Justinian
Also, Petra, if you wouldn't mind reposting your comment on my blog. It got lost in my moderation nightmare (but I think I've gotten it fixed).
Thanks!
Elections Solution: you heard it here first! :)
Post a Comment