Democrats! Bah, humbug. (was: The Last Laugh)
jbone at deepfile.com
Sun Apr 20 23:57:21 PDT 2003
On Sunday, Apr 20, 2003, at 22:47 US/Central, James Rogers wrote:
> I have a strong free market libertarian bent, so the Democrats have
> appealed to me either.
I completely agree. But if the choice is between two evils --- and
clearly that's what it is and will be until we have substantial
election reform in this country --- I'll pick the lesser of two evils.
I've been a spoiler my entire voting career --- and this time around,
that's proven to be a very bad thing.
> Mostly, I only care about issues, and ones that actually matter in
> some big
> picture sense at that. I am not so droll as to think that the ballot
> public protesting, and other inanery count for much other than
> appealing to
> a popular fiction, so I spend my effort in areas where I can actually
> influence outcomes. Of course, that takes a lot more effort.
Again, mostly agreed. I'm an issue voter, and I despise the "bundling"
of concerns presented by the current two-party system.
> Yup, I highly doubt I will be voting for a Democratic President in the
> election, or even a Republican one for that matter. But it isn't like
> stand to gain anything by voting either way.
Well, that's a problem. If the last presidential election proves
anything, it proves that every single vote counts. Sure, some votes in
some places are more strategic than others; but with things divided as
closely as they are, it's much harder now to predict which votes are
going to be strategic.
> What we *really* need is to go back to the days when the individual
> were essentially the eminent legal authorities for their region
> (rather than
> the Federal government). The US is too diverse culturally, socially,
> economically to have some a group that represents some small cultural
> fraction of the US to have the power of creating broad mandates for the
> entire bloody country. There are five or six major distinct
> regions of the country with very different views of the world and
> concerns, and a two-party system cannot adequately serve all those
> without generating serious conflicts of interest within the parties.
> Voting affects change, but you have little control over what that
> actually is as a mere voter. That's certainly not how you go about
> specific outcomes.
Well, disagree --- and the lessons of recent history underscore my
position on that.
> Color me cynical,
Yeah, it's tough to get away from that. But cynicism is a lot of
what's wrong with the current system --- it's a self-fulfilling
More information about the FoRK