In Response: Dizzy’s None of the Above Post
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
-
I got a little bit of flack for my last post, but it was so heated you would have thought that I had declared that Hannah Montana was the Anti-Christ.
In the interest of fairness and to further the discussion, intelligently, I wanted to post my favorite response to my post. Although, I respectfully disagree with the author, I appreciate that she took the time to express herself.
The Democratic infighting, and the lengthy process is only making McSame’s job easier.
The sniping and the division must cause him to smile a grinchy smile.
This rant in in response to a post on Siren’s, to a piece about some voter’s choosing “None of the Above” - unhappy with the presidential offerings.I guess that hit a nerve with me because, any move that gives the Reich wing a possible, remote hint of an advantage is not worth it to me. This is NOT an attack on the writer, but the concept of that strategy.
I want regime change- I wanted it 8 years ago, and I want it more than ever— now!The idea of writing in *none of the above* candidates, is, in my opinion, a line of thinking that inadvertently winds up helping McSame & the republicans. There is a snarky part of me that feels like if no candidate fits the bill- is not good enough for said voters, then why don’t the dissatisfied run for office, if they think their standards & platform are superior? It seems like a cop out to just declare no candidate is good enough.
Comment by Jimmy Justo on 3 May 2008:
Easy Nathan, asinine is a pretty tough term. Like it or not, until there are major overhauls of the two party system, everyone already knows there are disappointed or unmotivated voters, based on long term low turn out of even registered voters.
The major political parties, absent those overhauls, do not care if you vote or if you write in NOTA. They only care about those who does vote, that is where elections are won.
If you do not vote or even wrote in NOTA, you will help elect someone who you do not like. Better to form a new party and do the hard work of trying to break through the two party system, or to elect the least undesirable and try to influence that office holder of your views.
If you could somehow get sufficient voters to write in NOTA to affect races, why not put that effort into electing someone you like instead of simply making life difficult for someone you do not like?
Comment by Dizzy Dezzi on 4 May 2008:
I am not arguing AGAINST the idea of third-party participation. In that, I guess I erred in not making that point.
I am a registered LIBERTARIAN. I have run for office, as a Libertarian, in two state races, in Colorado. I also served for two years as the Media Director for our county affiliate and for two more years as the Media Director of the state affiliate of the Libertarian party.
I have campaigned for and with LP presidential candidates and even organized rallies for that purpose and done lots of public speaking in and around the community on Libertarian issues. I have donated untold amounts of money and time in order to get LP candidates elected. In fact, I will be a featured speaker at the upcoming National Libertarian Party Convention in May.
My original argument was for those people who feel disenfranchised by the two party system, yet have an aversion to voting for a third-party candidate because of the idea that they can’t win. And, in a lot of states, there are roadblocks in getting a third-party presidential (or any) candidate on the ballot.
In fact, the arguments against NOTA are the exact same arguments that I have to contend with when trying to convince people to support and/or vote a third-party candidate. I was trying to extend the discussion to something besides the usual suspects and the usual outcasts running for office. Sadly, it’s apparent that I did a piss poor job of making my point.
Comment by Wil ORaley on 4 May 2008:
Sadly, perhaps, but good try anyway. The two party system is so ingrained in our culture, politics, indeed almost in law (registration requirements etc) that in modern times, many have failed in third party tries from Anderson, Perot, Paul et al. Even Mayor Bloomberg with all his connections, money, success at politics has (so far) not acted on third party opportunities. With all due respect for someone who has paid her dues, I can not see how NOTA can be anything other than a third party equivalent.