Who do you plan to vote for?

[Radar]

Here's an excerpt from the slashdot website questions asked of Badnarik posted by hot_pastrami.

Originally Posted by DrEldarion in a question to Michael Badnarik on Slashdot

When somebody you strongly dislike is running, it's very tempting to vote for the person who is more likely to win against them rather than the person whose views you agree with more.

What is your response to the people who say that a vote given to a third-party candidate is wasted and should have gone to one of the main two parties, if only to make sure that the "bad candidate" doesn't win?

Originally Posted by Michael Badnarik's Answer

If the "wasted vote" argument ever held any water, it doesn't any more. The two major parties have moved toward a weird, non-existent "center" for the last 50 years, to the point where it's difficult to tell them apart.

We could argue all day about whether Bush or Kerry is the "lesser evil." The fact is that they both support the war in Iraq. They both oppose gun rights. They both supported the PATRIOT Act. They both support the war on drugs. They both support confiscatory taxation. They both support ruinously high levels of spending, huge deficits and increasing debt.

It's hard to tell them apart on the real issues. They spend their time scrapping over "swing votes" in the gray area of the "center" -- which means, in practice, "how do I not make too many people too angry to vote for me?" That's no way to do politics. Politics, in my view, should be as unimportant as possible -- but where it's important, it has to value freedom, remain rooted in principle and be forward-looking.

All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil. If you don't like the way things are, how do you change it by voting for more of the same?

[hot_pastrami]

His argument there is based on his opinion that Bush and Kerry are essentially equal, which I disagree with completely. If I agreed with the sentiment that they are fundamentally the same, I'd agree with his point that a Libertarian vote was not a throw-away vote. But since I don't, then I don't (respectively). That is one of the few points I disagree with him on... by and large, my personal beliefs parallel those he describes.

[Radar]

I don't think he's saying they're equal although their positions are nearly identical. He's saying that no matter which of the two you find to be more evil, both of them are evil and support evil things.

I personally find George W. Bush not only to be the greater of the two evils in the major parties, but I think he's the single worst president in American history and is in the same ilk as Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Does that mean I should vote for someone else who is evil, but just less evil? Not at all. Any vote for someone who isn't the person who you believe is genuinely the very best candidate (regardless of their chances of winning) is a wasted vote.

ONLY Badnarik says he would pull completely out of Iraq immediately, and stop the American hegemony and imperialistic foreign policy that brought us there in the first place and created the hatred that spawned 9/11.

[Happy Monkey]

What if you think that ALL parties have positions you consider evil? I want there to be Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens (to name the top 4) all represented, and empowered, in government - to run interference on each other. At the moment, the most important step is to remove the Republican stranglehold, which Badnarik has no chance of doing.

[Radar]

The Libertarian Party as a whole has a great chance of doing it and is the only party that will make government smaller, and freedom larger.

[lookout123]

Well, it looks like Kerry's talk show appearances are helping him to look human in flyover country.
according to the polls, Bush lost 99 electoral votes since yesterday.

Electoral count

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by Radar

Does that mean I should vote for someone else who is evil, but just less evil? Not at all. Any vote for someone who isn't the person who you believe is genuinely the very best candidate (regardless of their chances of winning) is a wasted vote.

Imagine you have a raffle ticket in your hand, and you can drop it into one of three boxes.... the first gives you a chance to win $100,000, but the odds of winning are one in a billion (Badnarik). The second box offers $10,000 and a wedgie, with a 50% chance of winning (Kerry). The third will net you a buck fifty and an anvil dropped on your nuts, also with a 50% chance of winning (Bush).

I know which box I'm putting my ticket into.

I don't think Kerry is "evil" anyway... the "lesser of two evils" is just a figure of speech. Bush is evil; Kerry is okay, but not ideal. Badnarik is forward-thinking and intelligent, but impossible to elect presently, and too radical for today's society.

The priority is to remove Bush, and a vote for Kerry goes the furthest in accomplishing that goal.

[lookout123]

And then there is Michael Moore's ringing endorsement of John Kerry:

No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

To be fair, Moore still hates Bush more than he hates Kerry and his letter can be found here

[Undertoad]

A couple hundred thousand people vote for the L candidate every election.

This "evil" is still around and in power after 32 years of the LP's existence.

How many decades ya gonna give it?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

The Libertarian Party as a whole has a great chance of doing it and is the only party that will make government smaller, and freedom larger.

But they're not gonna win the Presidency. Start smaller. Of course, the Libertarians should still run for President, to stay in the public eye, but it really should just be PR for local and statewide candidates at this point.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Well, it looks like Kerry's talk show appearances are helping him to look human in flyover country.
according to the polls, Bush lost 99 electoral votes since yesterday.

Electoral count

It's all in the lean of the latest polls, but it is fun watching those sites swing to and fro. Here are two more.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

Imagine you have a raffle ticket in your hand, and you can drop it into one of three boxes.... the first gives you a chance to win $100,000, but the odds of winning are one in a billion (Badnarik). The second box offers $10,000 and a wedgie, with a 50% chance of winning (Kerry). The third will net you a buck fifty and an anvil dropped on your nuts, also with a 50% chance of winning (Bush).

I know which box I'm putting my ticket into.

I know which box I'm putting my ticket into also. But you have the wrong prizes setup.

Here's what you're really voting for.

Box #1 - Badnarik: 5% chance at freedom, prosperity, security, and liberty for you and your children

Box #2 - Kerry: 45% chance of being beaten severely and gang raped by thugs followed by a lethal injection.

Box #3 - Bush: 50% chance of your mother being anally raped in front of you, being raped by AIDS infested prison inmates, being tortured to death, being revived, and then getting the electric chair.

I'm voting for freedom, anything else is insane.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A couple hundred thousand people vote for the L candidate every election.

This "evil" is still around and in power after 32 years of the LP's existence.

How many decades ya gonna give it?

Well it took 200+ years for evil to screw things up this bad, I think 32 years is just the start. Also there are more than 600 elected libertarians right now and that number is growing.

I'd be willing to bet we'll either have a libertarian controlled congress and the freedoms that go along with it before I die, or we'll have complete totalitarianism and America will no longer have sovereignty because we'll be part of a larger government.

If you vote for anyone other than a Libertarian, you're voting to have the latter of those.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

But they're not gonna win the Presidency. Start smaller. Of course, the Libertarians should still run for President, to stay in the public eye, but it really should just be PR for local and statewide candidates at this point.

We are running for presidency and until this year we'd been on the ballot in all 50 states and D.C. but this year the exclusionary tactics of the Republicans and Democrats have kept us off in New Hampshire (supposedly a state that welcomes liberty) and Oklahoma which we're still in court over. We're still on in more states than anyone else including Nader.

Libertarians run at all levels of government and should continue to do so to stay in the public eye. We're not going anywhere.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It's all in the lean of the latest polls, but it is fun watching those sites swing to and fro. Here are two more.

Here's another one.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

We are running for presidency and until this year we'd been on the ballot in all 50 states and D.C.

That is necessary but not sufficent.

[Radar]

Getting your name on the ballot is one of the most important things, if not THE most important thing. Being treated equally under the law and eliminating the blatantly exclusionary tactics of the major parties is another huge obstacle. And getting people to realize the truth about the major parties being nearly identical and knowing all they have to do to get real, positive, and lasting change is vote for libertarians.