The folly of the independent voter

When I hear somebody call themselves an independent voter in presidential elections I just shake my head. You may think you are choosing the best person available, but in our stinky political system, you are not.

A presidential election is about electing a party to power. If you help elect a republican, thousands of republicans will pour into Washington to steer the Interior Department, Education, etc. etc. in a direction along republican philisophical lines. And then there's the all important Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments, which will also be chosen largely from a pool of party loyalists.

Grow up, dumb ass. Decide whether you are more philisophically aligned with the Dems or Republicans and pull the appropriate lever. Stop all that thinking. It's not a good system, but it's reality.

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say voters have to declare themselves as Republicans or Democrats?

I believe HH (crotchety old bastard that he is) is indicating that a vote for a 3rd party is essentially like not voting. Neither of the big 2 could care less about it. They think all independents are wackjobs anyways.

He's saying get out and vote, but pick the least smelly of the 2 big turds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

When I hear somebody call themselves an independent voter in presidential elections I just shake my head. You may think you are choosing the best person available, but in our stinky political system, you are not.

A presidential election is about electing a party to power. If you help elect a republican, thousands of republicans will pour into Washington to steer the Interior Department, Education, etc. etc. in a direction along republican philisophical lines. And then there's the all important Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments, which will also be chosen largely from a pool of party loyalists.

Grow up, dumb ass. Decide whether you are more philisophically aligned with the Dems or Republicans and pull the appropriate lever. Stop all that thinking. It's not a good system, but it's reality.

---

Dumb ass? Most independents vote for a republican or a democrat anyway. I registered as an independent because of how my States primary rules are set up. You must have meant to say third party? Like the Greens or the Libertarians?

I too am proud to say I am a registered Independent. Yes, I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and third party candidates.

I have also supported ballot measures and political issues that could be labeled as liberal, moderate, or conservative.

I vote for whom I feel isthe best candidate. I also vote for the political issue that is the most ethical for the people involved.

So, who's winning this Iowa Caucus thing? I was reading earlier how the caucus' are different from an election. It was interesting. The dems have thir own system and Republicans have theirs.

Obviously HH is a blue dog democrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oregonpackfan

I vote for whom I feel is the best candidate.

---

I think this logic is what the original post is railing against--the fiction that presidential elections are about individuals when they're really about parties. Translation: you're deluding yourself if you vote for the more appealing or authentic persona (or vote against the less appealing or more inauthentic persona) since what you're really doing is helping elect a party machinary and its prevailing ideology.

eloquently spoken, hoosier.

The single most effective reform for our system would be to add some form of run-off elections. This is much more critical than solving problems of campaign financing, electoral college, etc.

The basic idea is that no candidate can be elected with less than 50% of the vote. If nobody reaches that threshold, then the election is (somehow) done again with the top two finishers. That way, we would be free to vote for EXACTLY who we want among multiple parties without the fear of indirectly putting the worst evil into office! Beautiful!

So, for example, if I vote for Nader, and the final vote is Bush 40%, Gore 35%, Nader 15%, I get another chance to decide between Bush and Gore in a run-off election.

(There are shortcuts for doing a run-off, namely by having people indicate both their first and second choice right at the original election.)

The current system is COMPLETELY hostile to third parties. Not only do third parties have no chance of winning or even influencing, very often a vote for a third parties helps the major party candidate that you least want.

In our current system, there is ZERO point in being Independent. The only real democracy we have is during the primaries. In the general election, you are just voting to move Machine A or Machine B into power, as Hoosier said. If you haven't decided whether your prefer the policies of Machine A or Machine B, then you probably shouldn't be voting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oregonpackfan

I too am proud to say I am a registered Independent. Yes, I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and third party candidates.

I have also supported ballot measures and political issues that could be labeled as liberal, moderate, or conservative.

I vote for whom I feel isthe best candidate. I also vote for the political issue that is the most ethical for the people involved.

---

Oregon, I am very independent too, in the sense that my opinions on specific issues are all over the spectrum.

But if you are a well informed person, as I am sure you are, then it is hard to believe that you don't fit better into one side of the Republican-Democrat divide. I suggest you face reality and not vote for candidates of your less-favored party for the higher offices. You don't elect one person for president, you are installing 10,000 people of one party or the other into power.

And BTW, I have total sympathy for people whose views are not well represented by either of the main parties! I can understand how a person who is a diehard libertarian in philosophy would vote liberterian. I wish we had a political system that allowed Libertarians a fair chance to win office, but we do not.

We need to do away with the electoral college and go to a run off system IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freak Out

We need to do away with the electoral college and go to a run off system IMO.

---

I kind of agree. You can win the popular vote, but lose the state to the electoral college votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freak Out

We need to do away with the electoral college and go to a run off system IMO.

---

yep. no other country in the world has anything as silly as our electoral college. And most countries use run offs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freak Out

We need to do away with the electoral college and go to a run off system IMO.

---

yep. no other country in the world has anything as silly as our electoral college. And most countries use run offs.

---

I agree with this as well, as I suspect most do, and it would be good to have a system that were more friendly to third party candidates, but to the theory that you must vote along party lines instead of for the better candidate, you have to consider that had we voted (and I swear I had nothing to do with it) a different republican into office we wouldn't have ended up with intelligent choices like Mike Brown as FEMA Director. I mean, really!!

Had McCain won in 2000, are we at war now? It's not just electing the party line, the candidate makes choices beyond who's who in Washington...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

(There are shortcuts for doing a run-off, namely by having people indicate both their first and second choice right at the original election.)

---

But in the case of that system wouldn't you have people making their 2nd choice to strategically help their 1st choice. If that happens you have people practically using 2 votes to help 1 candidate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

yep. no other country in the world has anything as silly as our electoral college. And most countries use run offs.

---

Many other countries also find their next political leader when the army overthrows the government.

Is that really what you prefer?

To me, the electorate system is kind of dumb...but the larger problem is the fact that we can't count votes correctly to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Leaper

To me, the electorate system is kind of dumb...but the larger problem is the fact that we can't count votes correctly to begin with.

---

Funny how they struggle with that. Yet they have no problems with the complexities of payroll deductions.

I had forgotten that Maryland passed a election law relating to a NPV election..and it looks like New Jersey may follow.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...lectoral_N.htm

The only reason Bill Clinton won two terms is because of Ross Perot. He effectively split the conservatives. It was a good start to a true "anyone can run" system but HH is right, if you cast a vote in principle for someone that can't win, then you might as well not cast a vote.

I think Hillary is feeling the effects of that right now. Although Bill was considered a "popular" president, he never got anywhere near 50% of the popular vote. Polls say what the person paying for the poll wants them to say.

Media Facts:

All Republicans Bad
All Democrats Good

Democrats are not liberals
All conservative are Republican

Just a sad state of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Leaper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

yep. no other country in the world has anything as silly as our electoral college. And most countries use run offs.

---

Many other countries also find their next political leader when the army overthrows the government.

Is that really what you prefer?

---

yes, I'm a big fan of the military coup. break the back of the two-party system once and for all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Leaper

To me, the electorate system is kind of dumb...but the larger problem is the fact that we can't count votes correctly to begin with.

---

I don't really see the big problem. Ballot scanning machines seem to be the ideal hybrid - accurate electronic tabulation plus a paper trail. I think more states are moving that direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallHawk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

(There are shortcuts for doing a run-off, namely by having people indicate both their first and second choice right at the original election.)

---

But in the case of that system wouldn't you have people making their 2nd choice to strategically help their 1st choice. If that happens you have people practically using 2 votes to help 1 candidate.

---

I think I see what you mean, some people might use their 2nd choice on a obscure candidate rather than on a potential rival of their first choice. Ummm, but then they would also be benefiting candidates that they despise. Don't sweat it, I'm sure most people would simply honestly rate their top 2 candidates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJZiggy

Had McCain won in 2000, are we at war now? It's not just electing the party line, the candidate makes choices beyond who's who in Washington...

---

I see what you are saying, maybe a candidate comes along that is so good, you vote for them even though you disagree with many of the positions of their party.

McCain is a good example, he is a maverick republican who frequently crosses party lines.

There's merit to your position, but it's still the smaller share of the argument. Look at the House and Senate, almost ALL of the votes are 95% along party lines. McCain, just like Bush before him, wouldn't be able to do a damn thing without the consent of large percentage of the Republicans in Congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

When I hear somebody call themselves an independent voter in presidential elections I just shake my head. You may think you are choosing the best person available, but in our stinky political system, you are not.

A presidential election is about electing a party to power. If you help elect a republican, thousands of republicans will pour into Washington to steer the Interior Department, Education, etc. etc. in a direction along republican philisophical lines. And then there's the all important Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments, which will also be chosen largely from a pool of party loyalists.

Grow up, dumb ass. Decide whether you are more philisophically aligned with the Dems or Republicans and pull the appropriate lever. Stop all that thinking. It's not a good system, but it's reality.

---

I hate our system - I want much bigger changes. Neither party does shit for me. I pay as much in taxes as many people make in wages - and I'll never benefit from this tax. Remember, taxation without representation.

How about taxation without utilization?

And a significant 3rd party vote can have serious repercussions for the election - 'taking' votes from one party (i.e., I may vote for an independent or a Republican - the independent vote would then help the Democrats).

Let's make our own 3rd Party. The Packer Party!

Who's wants to be considered for our rep?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

I don't really see the big problem. Ballot scanning machines seem to be the ideal hybrid - accurate electronic tabulation plus a paper trail. I think more states are moving that direction.

---

I agree! And then Florida, after the 2000 debacle, started investing millions of dollars into touch-screen voting. No paper trail, one computer glitch away from a disaster, and if the the Florida oldheads were too feeble to work a punch ballot just wait til you park their walkers in front of an electronic device that says "Quieres continuar en ingles o espanol?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

I don't really see the big problem. Ballot scanning machines seem to be the ideal hybrid - accurate electronic tabulation plus a paper trail. I think more states are moving that direction.

---

True...but why has it taken so long to figure that out, and by wasting millions in taxpayer dollars in the process???

Cuz no one thought of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Leaper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

I don't really see the big problem. Ballot scanning machines seem to be the ideal hybrid - accurate electronic tabulation plus a paper trail. I think more states are moving that direction.

---

True...but why has it taken so long to figure that out, and by wasting millions in taxpayer dollars in the process???

---

We've used the optical scanner/paper ballot up here for years and it's worked well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fosco33

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

When I hear somebody call themselves an independent voter in presidential elections I just shake my head. You may think you are choosing the best person available, but in our stinky political system, you are not.

A presidential election is about electing a party to power. If you help elect a republican, thousands of republicans will pour into Washington to steer the Interior Department, Education, etc. etc. in a direction along republican philisophical lines. And then there's the all important Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments, which will also be chosen largely from a pool of party loyalists.

Grow up, dumb ass. Decide whether you are more philisophically aligned with the Dems or Republicans and pull the appropriate lever. Stop all that thinking. It's not a good system, but it's reality.

---

I hate our system - I want much bigger changes. Neither party does shit for me. I pay as much in taxes as many people make in wages - and I'll never benefit from this tax. Remember, taxation without representation.

How about taxation without utilization?

And a significant 3rd party vote can have serious repercussions for the election - 'taking' votes from one party (i.e., I may vote for an independent or a Republican - the independent vote would then help the Democrats).

---

Amen brother. And why can't we opt out of Social Security? Why in the world should the government run retiriement plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Campbell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fosco33

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

When I hear somebody call themselves an independent voter in presidential elections I just shake my head. You may think you are choosing the best person available, but in our stinky political system, you are not.

A presidential election is about electing a party to power. If you help elect a republican, thousands of republicans will pour into Washington to steer the Interior Department, Education, etc. etc. in a direction along republican philisophical lines. And then there's the all important Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments, which will also be chosen largely from a pool of party loyalists.

Grow up, dumb ass. Decide whether you are more philisophically aligned with the Dems or Republicans and pull the appropriate lever. Stop all that thinking. It's not a good system, but it's reality.

---

I hate our system - I want much bigger changes. Neither party does shit for me. I pay as much in taxes as many people make in wages - and I'll never benefit from this tax. Remember, taxation without representation.

How about taxation without utilization?

And a significant 3rd party vote can have serious repercussions for the election - 'taking' votes from one party (i.e., I may vote for an independent or a Republican - the independent vote would then help the Democrats).

---

Amen brother. And why can't we opt out of Social Security? Why in the world should the government run retiriement plans.

---

I just heard Huckabee call for a National sales tax to replace the income tax. Intriguing idea.
I don't mind Social Security at all....it's a rather small portion of the "taxes" I pay out overall. I pay way more in Federal withholding...I like to call it the "fucked zone". I'm with Fosco...neither of the parties now do much for me anymore.

Fair Tax is an excellent idea. You don't pay a lot simply because you make a lot, you pay a lot if you live a baller lifestyle. If you're out buying new cars every year and wasting money, then you pay the piper. If you're a wealthy, thrifty person like most of the upper middle class people are, you pay very little in taxes when you don't spend your cash.

I would like fair tax since I am big on used merchandise. However, it will change the way people shop. Wal-mart won't be nearly as crowded.

I see the Fair Tax as another screwing of the middle class. These are the people who have to spend the highest percentage of their income just to put food on the table and clothes on their kids. I don't know all the details of Huckabee's plan, but I'm skeptical.

Food isn't taxed. Clothes are. But, if you buy affordable clothing and live within your means than it isn't that expensive on a 10 dollar shirt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joemailman

I see the Fair Tax as another screwing of the middle class. These are the people who have to spend the highest percentage of their income just to put food on the table and clothes on their kids. I don't know all the details of Huckabee's plan, but I'm skeptical.

---

I agree. I hate sales taxes...anyone who makes under 30,000 a year shouldn't have to pay a dime in taxes to the US government considering the vast corporate wealth in this nation. Make the corporations pay their fair share...and force them to keep workers in this country to receive any kind of tax breaks.

The only individual tax that makes sense to me is a graduated flat tax with limited deduction capacities and loopholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freak Out

I don't mind Social Security at all....it's a rather small portion of the "taxes" I pay out overall.

---

You really should mind Social Security, it is the single greatest screw job against lower and middle class people. Social Security taxes are capped at 75K (or some such figure.) Meaning people making more than 75K pay a smaller rate as they earn more.

And the real killer: SS taxes only apply to labor! If you earn your money through investment, you pay ZERO SS taxes.

And BTW, "tax" is theoretically the wrong term. It is supposed to be like paying a premium for an insurance policy, which is the justification for capping it for rich folk. But in reality, the SS moneys collected goes immediately towards the purchase of treasury bills - which makes it effectively identical to a tax! The SS money acts as an EXTREMELY regressive tax that keeps progressive income taxes artificially low.

I'm telling you, unless you're making a lot of money, or earning your money through investment, you are getting f-u-c-k-e-d.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joemailman

I see the Fair Tax as another screwing of the middle class. These are the people who have to spend the highest percentage of their income just to put food on the table and clothes on their kids. I don't know all the details of Huckabee's plan, but I'm skeptical.

---

You're right to be skeptical. On the face of it, it's not a good deal for the lower and middle classes.

But I am still intrigued. The devil is in the details, there are ways to recompensate people at the bottom end. I'm open minded, it could be fairer than the income tax. Europe works well with a similar system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freak Out

I don't mind Social Security at all....it's a rather small portion of the "taxes" I pay out overall.

---

You really should mind Social Security, it is the single greatest screw job against lower and middle class people. Social Security taxes are capped at 75K (or some such figure.) Meaning people making more than 75K pay a smaller rate as they earn more.

And the real killer: SS taxes only apply to labor! If you earn your money through investment, you pay ZERO SS taxes.

And BTW, "tax" is theoretically the wrong term. It is supposed to be like paying a premium for an insurance policy, which is the justification for capping it for rich folk. But in reality, the SS moneys collected goes immediately towards the purchase of treasury bills - which makes it effectively identical to a tax! The SS money acts as an EXTREMELY regressive tax that keeps progressive income taxes artificially low.

I'm telling you, unless you're making a lot of money, or earning your money through investment, you are getting f-u-c-k-e-d.

---

I didn't say that some type of reform was not needed...I just like the thought that it is going to help many Americans that are not saving at all right now. It is going to mean very little to me in my retirement years....at least I am hoping so. :doh:

freaky, I'm not being critical of the Social Security system. It just should be funded out of the general treasury, instead of the current shell game where only the working people pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

freaky, I'm not being critical of the Social Security system. It just should be funded out of the general treasury, instead of the current shell game where only the working people pay.

---

The entire system fucks the working class as it stands now. We need to march on the castle with our torches and pitchforks.....wait a second..I'm not working class. But I was so count me in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joemailman

I see the Fair Tax as another screwing of the middle class. These are the people who have to spend the highest percentage of their income just to put food on the table and clothes on their kids. I don't know all the details of Huckabee's plan, but I'm skeptical.

---

You're right to be skeptical. On the face of it, it's not a good deal for the lower and middle classes.

But I am still intrigued. The devil is in the details, there are ways to recompensate people at the bottom end. I'm open minded, it could be fairer than the income tax. Europe works well with a similar system.

---

Actually, I think I heard Huckabee say there would be a rebate for low income people. He didn't say exactly how low. It's the effect on the middle class I would worry about. I applaud him for being willing to suggest something as bold as this. I wonder if it could cost him though. Makes him an easy target for opponents who could try to misrepresent what the effect of the tax would be.