|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Not voting? Voting 3rd party? Let's talk. |
Current rating: 0 |
by Jon Vote
Email: jon (nospam) idioma-software.com (verified) |
28 Oct 2004
|
|
First of all let me validate you. We are all trying to make the world a better place for our families and community. Let us not fall into the Bushspeak world of 'with us or against us' mentality. |
I don't think that my way is the only way and that I have all the answers. Everyone needs to follow the path that they think is best. But, I hope you will at least consider my point of view.
To those of you who don't vote at all: I know a number of you. Many of you are doing more to promote world peace and justice than the vast majority of voters that do nothing more than check off a box every two years and smugly proclaim that they have done their part. The system has failed us and we will not fix it by checking off boxes. The system is corrupt and your vote may very well be stolen or not counted. To this I say, "MAKE THEM STEAL IT! DON'T LEGITAMIZE THEIR CRIMES BY GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE." A thief is not a thief if what they want to steal is handed to them without resistance.
To those who will be voting 3rd party: I understand where you are coming from. I voted for Nader last time. I have voted 3rd party in every election since 1980. I can't fault you for doing so this time but I personally have come to the decision that the stakes are too high in this election. I do agree that Kerry is representing the corporate interests. I don't agree that Bush and Kerry are the same.
Noam Chomsky makes the argument better than I could ever hope to. In a recent interview on Democracy Now! Mr. Chomsky, who has come out in favor of Kerry, commented on the upcoming election:
"You should spend five minutes, maybe, thinking about what you should do. In that five minutes, you should recognize there is some difference between the two groups contending for power, and one of them happens to be really extremist, and very dangerous, and it's already caused plenty of trouble and could cause plenty more. The other is bad, but less extremist and less dangerous. So in that five minutes that you devote to the topic, you should come to the rational conclusion, if it's a swing state, keep the worst guys out. If it's another state, do what you feel like." - Noam Chomsky, 10/21/04 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/21/1441204)
Demonstrating is a tool of resistance. Writing is a tool of resistance. Street theater is a tool of resistance. Independent Media is a tool of resistance. Volunteering for the Green Party (as I have done this year) is a tool of resistance. Voting is also a tool of resistance.
Checking off a box will not save the world and will not build a viable third party. It takes more than this. What voting *might* do is prevent the lunatic fringe from taking complete control of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years or so. The 2000 election showed us the corruption of the court and threat it represents to the will of the people. The Nadar campaign is spinning the idea that Kerry appointments to the Supreme Court would be just as bad as any from Bush (Democracy Now - 10/26/04 - http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/26/144233). I have a lot of respect for Nadar and what he has done. However any suggestion that Kerry is going to choose from the same list of prospects as the Bush regime is clear evidence that Nadar has become every bit as 'reality challenged' as Bush - the king of fantasy. This is utter non-sense and if the Nadar campaign has to resort to such ridiculous charges, they need to be held accountable for this deception. Bad as Kerry is - does anyone really believe he would nominate a Scalia? Let's make decisions based on the facts and not the spinworld of the right wing.
Vote for Nadar if you must, and I will not criticize you for doing what you think is right. Suggest that Bush and Kerry will have equal effect on the Supreme Court and I will call you naive at best. This simply is not credible. Where is the evidence?
Support Democracy. Work in the community. When it comes time to check off a box, fire Bush.
For those of you living in swing states, I believe the choice is clear.
For those in Red States, I must disagree with Mr. Chomsky. Don't believe the polls. There will be less effort to steal the election in 'safe' districts. There have been unprecidented numbers of new Democrats registered all over the country. These counts come from the elections offices themselves and don't include the vast numbers of Democratic registration cards that have allegedly been destroyed by Republican registrars. Let us all speak as one voice:
Mr. Bush - you are fired! |
This work is in the public domain |
|
Re: Not voting? Voting 3rd party? Let's talk. |
by Chuck0
chuck (nospam) mutualaid.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
28 Oct 2004
|
Let's see. Noam Chomsky didn't exactly endorse Kerry. Chomsky is a smart guy and isn't going to openly support some rich neoliberal who want to be a more efficient war criminal than George W. Bush. Sure George W. Bush sucks, but so does Kerry. The only true option is to fight to get rid of the system, not vote in a lesser of two evils every fours years.
I'm not voting this year, nor are most of my friends. If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal, which I think that even some of you who still vote are starting to understand with your vote tampering talk.
Why anarchists don't vote
http://www.infoshop.org/voting.html |
|
Re: Not voting? Voting 3rd party? Let's talk. |
by e
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
I won't be voting for two reasons:
One, the most important, is that by voting, you give your permission to everything the government does. Especially with Kerry - if you protested the war, why would you ever consider voting for someone who voted for it, supports it today, and says he 'would've voted for it even knowing there were no WMD'.
If you vote for Kerry, or Bush, or probably even Nadar, you are putting your stamp of approval on every Iraqi corpse.
The second reason is that, in my opinion, the less people give their consent to the gov't, the less legitmacy it will have.
The consequences of that? Probably nothing. |
