Has anyone reached a decision yet?

[Tanakh Keeper]

Well, I finally did it. I sat down, reviewed the campaign material and finally made a decision who I am voting for. It took me about a week to come to a final decision. On the first day, I very quickly eliminated all but two names. After another week of comparing my two finalists, I finally decided who will get my vote.

Has anyone else decided who they are voting for? If so, a) how early did you make your decision and b) did you seriously look at anyone else?

NO CANDIDATE NAMES PLEASE, I don't want this to be that sort of thread.

[Little Shepherd]

I'm pretty much decided, yeah. I also got down to 2 candidates, and I'll be pretty happy if either of them gets the party nomination. There are a couple others I would vote for if they got the nomination, both for party unity and because the alternative would be so much worse, but I wouldn't be quite as happy.

[Johnny MacManky]

I haven't decided yet. The orange guy :faramir: currently with 13 votes is a good buddy, but I really like & respect the newer kid who has 12 votes.

There's a green Canucklehead :gabby: who is one of the Dept Heads I report to. Maybe I should vote for her...? Or maybe the baby eating poetic atheist? :shrug: Still, it'll be about 10 days before $cirisme closes the poll.

[Little Shepherd]

Oh, that election. :doh:

The first day.

[Johnny MacManky]

:rofl:

[Spinyn00bman]

Election?!?

What election?

[Timothy Leary]

Do you mean the upcoming presidential election in the USA?
(and the 435 congress & 35 senate seats that are also up for grabs?)

[Raptor]

Am I allowed to vote for myself?

[NeilUnreal]

I'm holding at two likely, and a third slightly less likely, and I likely won't make a final decision until closer to the date. :lol:

-Neil

[Lazarus]

I think I've narrowed my decision down to two candidates. Still, I'm not really sure who will get my vote, though I'm fairly sure of who won't.

[Macgawd]

Has anyone else decided who they are voting for? If so, a) how early did you make your decision and b) did you seriously look at anyone else.

My methodology is quite simple. Since by definition, all politicians are liars and thieves regardless of their party affiliation, my vote goes to the lesser of the two evils, whomever that may be.

Michael

[Tanakh Keeper]

My methodology is quite simple. Since by definition, all politicians are liars and thieves regardless of their party affiliation

And who made them that way, eh? Does the politician who tells it like it is rewarded by the voters? Is a politician acclaimed for laying out a situation exactly as it is or for making the voters feel good? How many people (or organizations) give money to a politician with no expectation of benefits returned?

I think we have exactly the government that we deserve. We, the voters, punish politicians that tell us what we need to hear instead of telling us what we want to hear. I've seen fiscally responsible politicians defeated in re-election while those that bring home the bacon (earmarks and benefits for their own district) get re-elected again and again.

Once people change their expectations and don't expect benefits for their home district, we would see ethical people get elected and re-elected. For now, we the people, want the best liars and thieves for our home districts.

[Macgawd]

And who made them that way, eh?

No one makes them that way--its the nature of the beast. Political office is power, and the adage that power corrupts is an historical certainty.

Michael

[Jim_Casy]

Well, I finally did it. I sat down, reviewed the campaign material and finally made a decision who I am voting for...

Has anyone else decided who they are voting for? If so, a) how early did you make your decision and b) did you seriously look at anyone else?
a) No, I haven't made my decision and I'm not likely to do so until the week before the election. I have no party affiliation, no one to cheer for

b) I seriously look at all candidates. If I don't have a well-formed opinion on the candidates running for an office, or a well-formed understanding of the significance of the office, I don't vote on that office.

Since my approach to elections is more tactical than representative (I have no representatives), it's important to see how candidates are playing, what they are saying to whom, where they are going, etc. - much more important than what they believe or the philosophy to which they subscribe. This takes time and important issues may not be evident until the days before an election.

Usually, local and state races carry more tactical significance than presidential races, so I spend more time researching these candidates than presidential candidates. If there's no tactical advantage in voting for one major candidate over another, I vote for an independent or third party candidate (increasing numbers of minority party votes to encourage opening ballot access in my state).

My methodology is quite simple. Since by definition, all politicians are liars and thieves regardless of their party affiliation, my vote goes to the lesser of the two evils, whomever that may be.And who made them that way, eh? Does the politician who tells it like it is rewarded by the voters?
Well, since only a candidate backed with money is going to be seen by voters, I think that the "two evils" are chosen long before election day. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is, and I don't think it's just because voters won't vote for someone who "tell it like it is".

How many people (or organizations) give money to a politician with no expectation of benefits returned?
Now you're closer. This is why I think that money should be removed as much as possible from elections; we should start moving toward publicly financed elections and cap all other contributions.

I think we have exactly the government that we deserve. We, the voters, punish politicians that tell us what we need to hear instead of telling us what we want to hear. I've seen fiscally responsible politicians defeated in re-election while those that bring home the bacon (earmarks and benefits for their own district) get re-elected again and again.
First, I'm not immediately impressed with the label "fiscally responsible" - without context, such a term is ambiguous to meaningless at best; at worst, it's a code word for a whole set of interests which are not necessarily fiscal or responsible.

Second, I don't think that politicians tell us what we want to hear, but rather they refrain from saying much of anything substantive during a campaign. Campaign speech relies more on positioning candidates and framing debates along issues of identity and interest (speech where content is secondary to frame). I wouldn't say that this is telling us what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear.

And third below...
Once people change their expectations and don't expect benefits for their home district, we would see ethical people get elected and re-elected. For now, we the people, want the best liars and thieves for our home districts.
I think that a system in which people vote and don't expect benefits is an irrelevant system; it's more akin to an expensive game. Representatives are supposed to represent the interests of their constituency; otherwise, they're not being "representative" and any pretense of "democracy" crumbles.

Thanks for starting such an interesting thread!

[micah4]

Since my approach to elections is more tactical than representative (I have no representatives), it's important to see how candidates are playing, what they are saying to whom, where they are going, etc. - much more important than what they believe or the philosophy to which they subscribe. This takes time and important issues may not be evident until the days before an election.


What is a "tactical approach"? Meaning, you want to see that they'll vote or work for a particular goal or side of an issue? And shouldn't a candidates philosophy determine "where they are going"? If not, what does?

IMO a candidate should have a consistent and transparent political philosophy, and if you know what that is and know the candidate is true to their philosophy then you know basically how they'll handle any important issue that might come up. It's tough for me to imagine an "important issue" that could arise a few days before an election that I shouldn't know basically how the candidate will address the issue based on their philosophy of proper governance. If they dont have a consistent philosophy that determines how they are going to govern, why on earth would you vote for them anyway? I don't want somebody who's still figuring it out as they go along after they read the morning newspaper- especially for a prominent national office. If you don't know how they'd handle an issue days before it arises, you couldn't know if they'd change after you voted them in, anyway- or if another, more important issue might arise in a few days that they go completely against you on.

We need to elect statesmen we can trust. Maybe it's hopelessly optimistic to believe that any still exist, but for goodness sake! If I cant trust I know how a man will govern without checking to see what he said 5 minutes ago, that's certainly a man I can't trust.



I think that a system in which people vote and don't expect benefits is an irrelevant system; it's more akin to an expensive game. Representatives are supposed to represent the interests of their constituency; otherwise, they're not being "representative" and any pretense of "democracy" crumbles.


I don't consider protection of liberty and individual rights a "benefit", I consider it the essential and only proper role of government. A system in which people vote expecting nothing more than this is IMO far from irrelevant. "Benefits" I equate with redistributions for handouts and pork barrel spending. Do I have to vote for that to be "relevant"?

[Trout]

Modern electioneering seems like a large scale, "American Idol" to me.

I don't know if any of them can make a difference. I don't know why any sane person would subject themselves and their families to the rigors and scrutiny of the never-ending presidential campaign.

That said, I'm going to wait until the parties narrow down the field.

[Tanakh Keeper]

a) No, I haven't made my decision and I'm not likely to do so until the week before the election. I have no party affiliation, no one to cheer for

Have you ever read an entire government bill or attended a government meeting?? BORING. I agree it doesn't merit a cheer.

I seriously look at all candidates. If I don't have a well-formed opinion on the candidates running for an office, or a well-formed understanding of the significance of the office, I don't vote on that office.

I agree. I have a pet-peeve related to this. Voting for judges...it's silly. By law, they can't discuss their court cases. So every candidate can only tell us about their family and whether they are a dog or cat person. The citizens are kept ignorant of their rulings in the court room. Due to the lack of information they can publicize, they might as well make these appointed positions.

Since my approach to elections is more tactical than representative (I have no representatives), it's important to see how candidates are playing, what they are saying to whom, where they are going, etc. - much more important than what they believe or the philosophy to which they subscribe. This takes time and important issues may not be evident until the days before an election.

What do you mean by "tactical"? Is that voting for someone based on how likely you think they are to win the general election instead of voting for a person whose platform best aligns with your own?

Now you're closer. This is why I think that money should be removed as much as possible from elections; we should start moving toward publicly financed elections and cap all other contributions.

This is something that sounds nice, but is impossible to actually implement. We can't legislate advantages away.

First, I'm not immediately impressed with the label "fiscally responsible" - without context, such a term is ambiguous to meaningless at best; at worst, it's a code word for a whole set of interests which are not necessarily fiscal or responsible.

True. I want a politican that will actually cut services, since that will decrease taxes needed. It is too easy to say they will cut the other guy's fav programs, I want to hear which of their own fav programs they will cut. Right now, people are just too dependent on the government. If they see a problem, issue, or unfairness, we look to the government to solve it. Until we, as a whole, stop looking to the government for solutions to all of life's problems, the government will just keep growing larger and more expensive.

Second, I don't think that politicians tell us what we want to hear, but rather they refrain from saying much of anything substantive during a campaign. Campaign speech relies more on positioning candidates and framing debates along issues of identity and interest (speech where content is secondary to frame). I wouldn't say that this is telling us what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear.

I'd say it is. But OTOH, they don't have a choice. Whomever lays out specific positions will get hammered by everyone. The media will search out and loudly proclaim flaws. Opposition figures will scream for more details. Supporters will take it as "set in stone" promises. Our system isn't set up for someone to talk about detailed substantive issues.

Thanks for starting such an interesting thread!

Your welcome. Thanks for the pearls!

[Jim_Casy]

Have you ever read an entire government bill or attended a government meeting?? BORING. I agree it doesn't merit a cheer.
Call me paranoid (or just cynical), but I suspect that meetings and bills are meant to be impenetrably boring. Like a manager I used to work for, they make things complicated and inaccessible as a matter of job security.

Also, I don't think most politicians want their constituencies to see clearly what decisions are being made and who name is on what - it's kinda like looking behind the curtain to see the Great Oz for what he is (or like seeing sausage being made, whichever metaphor you prefer).



What do you mean by "tactical"? Is that voting for someone based on how likely you think they are to win the general election instead of voting for a person whose platform best aligns with your own?
No, although "electability" is one tactical consideration. To me, the skilled campaign of an unelected candidate can still influence policy in ways that "electable" candidates can't. Second, I'm using the notion of tactical votes as a contrast to votes representing my interesting; I don't think that the electoral system in the US is designed to determine and enact the will of the governed (the only true criterion of a democratic system), so it doesn't make sense for me to treat my vote as if someone (with power) is actually for my opinion on how my country should be run.

My tactical decisions focus on whether or not a vote makes the system more responsive or is likely to improve conditions for those who in turn demand a more responsive government. As I said before, in many presidential cases, there is not a clear winner in this decision, nor even a sense that a vote for a president would make a difference to the effectiveness of government; in those cases, I spend my energy elsewhere. More examples below...

What is a "tactical approach"? Meaning, you want to see that they'll vote or work for a particular goal or side of an issue? And shouldn't a candidates philosophy determine "where they are going"? If not, what does?
No. I have fundamental differences with all candidates in both major parties, so I'm not voting for someone hoping that they'll work in my interest intentionally, but rather voting for people who are most likely to affect change in my interest due to their position and the nature of their relationships.

For instance, Dennis Kucinich is one of the most progressive (former) candidates running. Many people would be helped by a reduction in militarism, by universal health care, anti-poverty campaigns, investment in sustainable energy, etc. but voting for him will not get these things done. Not only is he not electable, but he is a solid Democrat with party loyalty. His function in previous campaigns has been to organize and energize the progressive, anti-war base of the Democratic Party - not for himself, but for the Party. Knowing that he lacks the exposure and support of his party to get elected, he still gathers together frustrated voters who want to see his measures enacted. As the primaries draw to a close, he dropped out of the race and endorsed Kerry - a candidate who stood for none of these values - all in the name of party loyalty and "anybody but Bush".

On the other hand, Nixon stood against most progressive values. Yet, due to his position, his relationships, and "the times", he was made responsive to organized will of the governed. During his administration, he normalized relations with China, made detente the policy regarding Soviet expansion, created tha EPA, OSHA, affected conservation policies in the face of an energy crisis, and got the US out of Vietnam. Not all of these were things that reflected his interests, and things under another president may've been better (like McGovern), and I probably wouldn't have voted for him, but he was someone who cold be worked with.


This is why I think that money should be removed as much as possible from elections; we should start moving toward publicly financed elections and cap all other contributions.This is something that sounds nice, but is impossible to actually implement. We can't legislate advantages away.
I don't see why it's so impossible to get money out of electoral politics. We already have rules concerning contributions to political campaigns, so it's not like the idea has no precedent.

True. I want a politican that will actually cut services, since that will decrease taxes needed. It is too easy to say they will cut the other guy's fav programs, I want to hear which of their own fav programs they will cut.
I'd be satisfied if they just spent the money on things people want and need instead of a bloated military budget, but maybe I'm too easily pleased.

Right now, people are just too dependent on the government. If they see a problem, issue, or unfairness, we look to the government to solve it. Until we, as a whole, stop looking to the government for solutions to all of life's problems, the government will just keep growing larger and more expensive.
I don't know that people are too dependent on government, anymore than people are too dependent on wage-labor; nice thought, but see the system as a whole before assessing that someone's dependence is "too much".

On the other hand, you're right that we can't look to the government to take care of everything - only organized change from bottom up can handle these problems. Therefore, for those out there who can't tell the difference between a Democrat and a socialist, it's important to keep in mind that the Communist Manifesto was addressed to the workers of the world, not to the governments of the world. Bourgeois entitlement programs may make life easier for some people (and thus have value), but until programs are coupled with self-governance, entitlement prgrams are mere sops of bourgeois self-interest.

Our system isn't set up for someone to talk about detailed substantive issues.
You're right in both cases - a) our system isn't conducive for substantive debate (why would it be?), and,
b) it is set up, which means that it could be set up differently.

If the system isn't set up for substantive debate, and issues discussed aren't determined by the governed, and only the rich or those supported by the rich can get into a position to be a candidate, why are elections important at all? It's not like this is a democracy where elections serve some vital purpose.

Your welcome. Thanks for the pearls!
You, too.

[Ryokan]

Just a point, Jim, alot of people feel they want and need that military budget.

[Jim_Casy]

Just a point, Jim, alot of people feel they want and need that military budget.
I'd agree that a lot of people want a military budget, but I don't know many people who want our current military budget. In fact, I haven't met too many people who even know what our military budget is, yet many feel terrified into thinking that we need a massive military.

And yes, while I am in favor of a drastically de-militarized US, I'm also putting the criticism out here to get a rise out of those on this list whose unblinking devotion to the military borders on idolatry. It's not only (or primarily) welfare queens who keep taxes high.

[joel]

It's not only (or primarily) welfare queens who keep taxes high.
You are right that it's not "only", but it is primarily. Take 2006 for example.
http://www.ombwatch.org/budget/pdf/2006Outlays.pdf
Social spending is around 60% of Federal outlays.
National defense: 20%.
Interest on the nation debt: 8%

[Objectitron]

I'd agree that a lot of people want a military budget, but I don't know many people who want our current military budget. In fact, I haven't met too many people who even know what our military budget is, yet many feel terrified into thinking that we need a massive military.

And yes, while I am in favor of a drastically de-militarized US, I'm also putting the criticism out here to get a rise out of those on this list whose unblinking devotion to the military borders on idolatry. It's not only (or primarily) welfare queens who keep taxes high.

I don't have an unblinking devotion to the military, but I do feel it is important and necessary. The budget is necessary for the type of war we are fighting. Actually, I'm sure many generals and other military leaders feel it is not enough. Now, if you want to oppose the wars that is one thing, but since we are at war I think it is necessary that the troops have the means to carry out and fulfill their missions, don't you? Why are you in favor of a drastically de-militarized US?

[Zeluvia]

I haven't decided which party let alone which candidate...