Sunday, September 9, 2012

Why this Independent is voting for Obama

To start off, before I get the "Obamabot" label thrown at me, I hate the idea of a two party system. For a couple elections when I first became old enough to vote, I used to vote Republican without thinking. That's the way we were raised. We were taught that Democrats used to be OK back when they supported segregation and a "white, Christian nation" but they had been taken over by people who wanted to force sodomy, abortions and higher education on everyone. Once I managed to break out of that brainwashing, I started voting third party or Democrat most of the time. In fact, I think in almost every election since 2000, I have voted for at least one candidate that didn't have a "D" or "R" by their name. One year, I even convinced a number of people to write me in for Congress against a Republican who was running unopposed.

This year, I will continue that tradition of voting 3rd party but I am not going to do that when it comes to the presidential selection. I know that in the state of Louisiana, a vote for Obama is pretty much wasted because of all of the people who despite having their jobs destroyed by venture capitalists like Romney, will still vote for that slick-haired vulture. Venture capitalists destroyed the Fruit of the Loom factories here that used to employ thousands, but now sit abandoned with weeds growing up through the cracks in the crumbling asphalt where hundreds of employee vehicles once sat.

I'm not going to tell anyone that they should give up their plans to vote for Rocky Anderson, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson and vote for Obama instead. However, hear me out on this little rant...

Ideally, there would be 3, 4 or 5 parties out there and government business would be conducted through a series of compromises that would allow individuals to conduct their daily lives with government there as a backup, not a lifeline. Companies would have little to no influence on government and politicians would do what is in the best interests of their constituents, not their billionaire sugar daddies.

The thing is, that isn't going to miraculously happen between now and November. Writing in Ron Paul or voting third party this time around is like going to the highest stake poker table in Vegas with your future on the line and pushing all in with the first hand which just happens to be 2-7 offsuit. That analogy doesn't really work though because you statistically have a better chance of winning doing that than the "no chance in hell" possibility that someone besides Romney or Obama would somehow gain enough support between now and November to pull out a shocker.

In addition to that, what good does a person like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein do us in the White House if they don't have a single independent supporter in the House or Senate other than Bernie Sanders? If you thought the GOP hated Obama, imagine how hard they would try to destroy someone who stood alone with little to no support from either side of the aisle.

The reason I am voting for Obama this year instead of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is that while a vote for them fits the idealism I once had when I stood outside the polls on my 20th birthday with a Ralph Nader sign, I am pragmatic enough now to know it won't change much. Even then, I knew my one vote for Nader wasn't going to magically sweep him into the White House and overthrow the 2 party system once and for all.

I have never been delusional enough to say "both parties are the same" and refuse to vote based off that idiocy as many people in the Occupy movement (which I support for the most part) have done. I understand that you build a political movement by starting small, winning local elections, building a base, moving to the state level, then national. It doesn't work by starting at the top and working down. No matter how idealistic and unique a politician is, one person alone is no match for the powers that be. If you don't like the choices you have, work to change that but don't choose the pill which means the death of what is left of the middle class over the pill that upsets your stomach.

In the mean time, I am voting for Obama because while he isn't perfect, I recognize that the alternative is far worse. Think of it as choosing between heartburn and terminal cancer.

29 comments:

  1. Merely another "lesser of two evils" argument. Yawn. I say vote for the person you think is BEST, not least worst. In my case, that's Jill Stein. But hey, everyone has an opinion...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Idealism has it's place, maybe in another decade or two we could see Jill Stein in the whitehouse, but making a statement at this time, with so much at stake, it's like giving the guy mugging you's gun a blow job because you like the taste of metal.

      Delete
    2. The thing is, every presidential election cycle is the same as the last. The stakes are always high. Yes, I would rather see Obama win than Romney, but I refuse to vote out of fear or ignorance, both which continue to perpetuate the status quo extant since the dawn of American politics.

      Delete
  2. While I prefer Jill Stein, I'm in agreement with this article's author. We *will* be dealing with heartburn or terminal cancer, not Jill Stein. If I have the power to give us heartburn versus throwing my vote away to "make a statement" and getting terminal cancer, I'll use that power.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What the writer is trying to get across to US independent minded people is that if you vote for someone that has no chance of winning, your vote is wasted. Worse yet, your wasted vote may allow the worst candidate to actually achieve the presidency. THINK before casting a vote that will mean nothing. Voting Independent in the primaries is one thing...but if your candidate can't get enough votes then, they sure won't get them now!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Point well made, lesser of two evils.. Politics is always evil.. but its the best system we have.. thus I will vote Banks and Insurance Companies or Out of Country Jobs and Bigger Deductions for the Rich.. Only a few days to go.. perhaps I will make my mind up by then.. Vote what is important to you..

      Delete
  4. Have another drink, and give up! That's what I am getting from your post. So just give up and give in..... I would rather waste my vote than give it to someone I don't believe in. Neither choice (R) or (D) is right for America. If enough people decide that enough is enough and actually vote for their actual choice, maybe we could make a difference and vote these jokers into oblivion instead of just giving up like you are doing. I will vote for Ron Paul even if he has very little chance... at least I am not selling out and giving up. cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually... you're selling me out. You're selling out all women. You're selling out all gays. You're selling out anyone who isn't white and rich. Enjoy that taste of smug superiority in your mouth while you throw away your vote. But know this: You're worse than terminal cancer. You know what you're doing. And you're doing it on purpose.

      Delete
  5. If you are in a state where the outcome is a given (a 99.9% red/blue state CA or OK) you should absolutely vote for the best candidate. If a Jill Stein or Ron Paul is able to garner 3-5% of the popular vote, then next election cycle they could see more campaign funding, and might actually be taken more seriously. At a minimum, the parties will have to make concessions. If you are in Florida, of course, be more careful with your vote.

    Also, I think it's overly pessimistic to assume that a third party president needs his people in congress to get something done - I think it might be the opposite. If Ron Paul puts something forward, then Dems and GOP have to like it or not based on merit rather than on his party affiliation (as they have the past cycle.) This means there could be some meaningful debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or they might just decide to blow him off, because NEITHER side likes him or has any respect for him. You have too much faith in human nature.

      Delete
    2. Or they could decide that they don't like Jill Stein because she's a WOMAN...gasp...

      Delete
  6. They would have to "like" it based on merit...or pass their own laws and override the president with a majority. Your ignorance of how congress works makes your simplistic view seem so wonderful, when if fact it is nothing more than a train wreck waiting to happen. I am still trying to find out how Ron Paul aligned himself with the Republicans...unless they are merely trying to lure you independent sheep into voting for Romney....

    ReplyDelete
  7. When you supported Nader, you really supported Bush and helped him get elected. I am happy to see you have learned something from that experience. Anyone supporting Jill Stein or Gary Johnson is really supporting Romney. The way our system works you have to chose between the Democrat and the Republican. Voting for anyone else (or not voting) is just supporting the candidate you would never vote for. If people had not supported Nader, Gore would have taken the White House. There would have been no war and we would be far better off today. Politics is about making compromises. That is part of the problem today, people can't compromise. Everyone is in the party of "me."

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with the premise especial If you are in a battle ground state. But like you Whiskey, I Live in a red state carried handily by Jon Mcain last election. My county is even redder. I will Vote Obama Too I Believe a little hope is better than no hope at all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You can't start with a 3rd party candidate for President and win, it's not feasible. It would have to be someone like Ghandi to win. 3rd party is a bottom up proposition, if you want to have a viable third party in this country you have to start locally - find a viable 3rd party candidate for mayor, governor, freaking school board, whatever, if you cannot find one - run yourself. We have to begin to inundate the local and state level with 3rd party before we will ever have enough votes to get a 3rd party President. In the interim any 3rd party vote is a wasted vote, depending on where you live it could be an incredibly important (and lost) opportunity to get the right person in office. While it is true that Obama is not perfect, the choice have never (in my lifetime) been more starkly clear. I do not want an oligarch in office who thinks I am a moocher who has no personal responsibility. I spent my working life serving others (as a nurse) and, because I was a single mother raising 3 children without my ex-spouse's assistance I rarely had to pay income tax during that time. I did, however, pay a plethora of other taxes and worked my ever-lovin' ass off just trying to keep the bills paid and my children fed. How dare Mr. Mitt Romney denigrate me and so many others in that manner; how dare he spout that kind of crap when he refuses to divulge his own taxes, which is common practice for Presidential candidates. "Oh, they will attack us" boo fucking hoo. I disagree, vehemently, with the NDAA and many of the provisions therein, I disagree with Guantanamo Bay, I disagree with a lot of Obama's baggage, however, I am not delusional enough to think that Mitt will be anything but far, far worse...nor do I believe at this time a 3rd party candidate has a chance in hell and will do anything but take an important vote away from someone who can win and is a better choice than the other alternative. There are many things in America that need fixed, sorely need fixed, however we can press for those changes after we secure the better choice in office. What I long for is someone to grow a spine and ask us, as we were once asked, to stand up and take responsibility, to sacrifice, to involve ourselves...instead of asking us (as GWB did in our time of trial) to go shopping.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Kellie for your excellent comment. As one nurse to another and one US citizen to another I commend your honesty and insight!

      Delete
  10. MANY THANKS TO THE ABOVE FOR THINKING THIS THRU. I AM A 70+ YEAR OLD GRANDMOTHER, AND I BELIEVE THIS MAY JUST BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION YET......SO MUCH WEALTH BUYING ELECTIONS IS DISCUSTING, AND NOT LIKE IT SHOULD BE. BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT, HOWEVER, ONE CANDIDATE HAS LIVED LIKE A KING ALL HIS LIFE AND HAS NO IDEA WHAT MOST OF US HAVE TO GO THRU. AT LEAST THE OBAMA'S ARE BOTH FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THE HARDSHIPS WE ALL FACE. ONCE AGAIN, THANKS...THIS OLD GAL APPRECIATES YOUR VOTE....

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I actually have more in common with Jill Stein politically and while locally and state-wide I will vote Independent or Green I can not throw away my vote for senate or president at this time. I live in a Red state and every vote for the smaller party pushes us further and further to the right. Not a place I really want to go. So for Federal elections I choose to use my vote where it will produce the most good. In attempting to keep ultra conservatives out of office. That means voting Democrat. I don't see it as the 'lesser of two evils' I see it as protecting my rights with a vote that will really count and will maintain the possibility that some day we can vote a Jill Stein or Gary Johnson into the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm limiting myself to agree with the writer of this opinion post. If you don't agree with the substance of this article, I'm sorry to say, but you're lost in a pool of selfish, idealistic, romantic principles that do NOT fit reality; furthermore, I venture to predict that you will be disappointed the rest of your life.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are not going to win. There is zero chance of them winning. Same goes for Ron Paul. There are only two candidates who stand a chance of being sworn in next January 20th, Obama and Romney. You can help choose which of these two is going to be the president or not. That is your choice. Don't pretend you're doing something noble by voting for a third party candidate. You're just copping out on what may be the most important election of our lifetime. Might as well stay home.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Democracy and change are both only possible when you vote your conscience. Voting for "the lesser of two evils" completely *guarantees* the status quo, i.e. the dominance of two parties, which by their very number will be less likely to represent your set of views than a system with more. So nihilism wins. See the problem? By that "logic", only voters in swing states should bother showing up, because "the outcome is certain". Nonsense: polls are not elections! I will not be party (no pun intended) to this illogical ceding of my beliefs. I have never pulled the modern equivalent of the party lever in any election yet, and I will not be starting now just because some stupid cynic tries to tell me that exercising my rights is "stealing a vote" from their candidate (and I am not referring to the article's author). How very dare you?

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is not "HEARTBURN' vs. terminal cancer. It is Ebola Virus vs. SARS. Lung Cancer vs. Throat Cancer. Although their rhetoric is different (after all they mainly speak to their bases), they serve the same pre-determined agenda. This is why Obama is continuing the Bush policies and, in spite of his jive, Romney will do the same.
    Romney is a wolf in wolf's clothing. Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Both are puppets in a larger chess game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a 3rd party candidate would solve this problem...how exactly? Why do 3rd party candidate supporters assume 3rd party candidates are less corrupt and evil than the candidates coming from the two main parties? All politicians, no matter what party they represent, want power. Not only that, but the policies they suggest, especially those of people like Ron Paul, are so out there that they would never be able to pass legislation unless they had a majority of their party in Congress and the Supreme Court. It's never going to happen! Snap out of your delusion!

      Delete
  17. That's the best argument I've heard yet for not voting for a third party person. I know this two party stuff should change. I agree though that we have to start out by electing the change agents. Trouble is that folks who get elected as agents of change meet the huge barrier of the status quo when they get to Washington and because they are human end up going along. I admire our President for the changes he HAS made since he has been opposed on everything he has wanted to do. These past four years will go down in history as the longest congressional filibuster ever. What is so crazy is that folks vote against their own best interest just to prevent him from succeeding. Great article.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Real change will be won in the streets, not in the voting booth. I am pissed as hell at Obama for drone strikes and extrajudicial assassinations, for denying single payer advocates a seat at the health care negotiating table, and for oppressing state sanctioned medical marijuana patients and caregivers. But I will still vote for him, because at least he has some glimmerings of social conscience, and he may be able to slow our slide into corporatist fascism a bit, giving us an opportunity to organize a campaign for real change based on direct action.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Real change will be won in the streets, not in the voting booth." I wholeheartedly disagree. This is why the Tea Party movement succeeded where the Occupy movement failed. The Tea Party used the voting system to get their guys into public office and slow our country's progress, whereas the Occupy movement tried to create change from the outside. That, so far, hasn't worked so well.

      Delete