So it would appear that Barack Obama has all but clinched the Democratic presidential nomination. According to the Associated Press, Obama has the most delegates, putting him far enough in front of Hilary Clinton that she will probably concede the nomination sometime soon.
Now it’s Obama versus McCain for the presidency, assuming Ralph Nader doesn’t make a surprise comeback and ruin everything. Again. However, I’ve heard that a strong third party candidate would be more injurious to McCain than to Obama. I guess that remains to be seen.
As to who I’ll be voting for…I’ve decided that in November, I will be voting for Obama. Yes, I know how often I go on about third parties and how I’m not, in fact, throwing my vote away. But when I look at what’s available, I have to say that Obama is a better choice than any of the third party candidates I’ve looked at. The Libertarian Party candidate, Bob Barr, is anything but a libertarian (well, not the kind I am, at least; he even wanted to ban Wicca from the armed forces), Ron Paul is still crazy, and I have yet to hear about any good independents. My favorite candidates (like Mike Gravel) have vanished back into pre-presidential anonymity, so I’m left with a bunch of candidates I can only half-heartedly support.
Therefore, I’d rather put my vote in for Obama. I hate to buy into the “vote for the guy who’s most likely to win” mentality, but he’s the best choice I’ve got.
Sphere: Related Content
There is a lot I don’t like about the world: slow walkers, erratic drivers, people who chew with their mouths open, txt-speak, and kittens. Okay, I don’t hate kittens. Kittens with spikes all over them (war kittens!), maybe, but not regular kittens.
Anyways, there’s one thing I hate above all else: the idea that there are only two kinds of people in politics. Everyone encounters it. You’re either a Democrat or a Republican. You’re a conservative or a liberal. You’re a crazy, left-wing, terrorist-loving moonbat or a war-mongering, right-wing, bible-thumping wingnut. You’re either with us or against us.
This is bunk and everyone knows it. The world isn’t black and white, people. There’s a hell of a lot of gray in there.
Continue reading ‘False dichotomy’
Sphere: Related Content
The Nevada Supreme Court sided with NBC in their decision to retract an invitation to Dennis Kucinich to the Democratic debate tonight. NBC had originally invited Kucinich, but then changed their criteria to only allow candidates who’d placed first, second, or third in the primaries. Kucinich sued and got a district judge to file an injunction against NBC. NBC complained to the state supreme court and it was decided that NBC didn’t need to include him–one hour before the debate was scheduled to start.
This is hardly surprising, actually. As unfortunate as it is, it’s typical of the mainstream media. Excluding and poking fun at the so-called “long shots” is what the media does best. NBC News correspondent Kevin Corke put it best: “We were expecting to have the three major candidates. Why? Well quite frankly, because those are the probable candidates. That pool is the most viable pool. And truthfully, most people want to hear what Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama have to say. After all, those are probably the three they’re going to be picking from.”
Most of what he says is true. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are the frontrunners, and they’re the most likely to be nominated by the Democratic Party. However, the people of America still have a say. I, for instance, don’t want to hear Clinton and Obama bickering over race and gender and Edwards whining that he’s not getting enough attention. I want to hear from the candidates that I identify with. That means Kucinich and Mike Gravel. I don’t care if they’re long shots for the nomination. I happen to want to hear what they have to say.
It’s ironic that NBC invoked their First Amendment rights in keeping Kucinich out of the debates. What about Kucinich’s First Amendment rights? Doesn’t he have the right to appear in a debate he was originally invited to? Heck, don’t viewers have the right to hear from all the possible candidates? This situation actually reminds me of the midterm elections in 2006. During the race for senator in Washington State, the Libertarian candidate, Bruce Guthrie, actually made it into the debate between the Republican and Democrat candidates. He had to struggle like Kucinich and other long-shot presidential candidates, but it was worth it just to get recognition, even if he didn’t get that many votes (hey, 1.4% is a decent amount for a third party candidate).
If I were Dennis Kucinich, I’d strongly consider running as an independent. I know a lot of people who would vote for him. He’s the one candidate I like.
Sphere: Related Content
There are more than two political parties in the United States. You’d be surprised at how many people don’t realize this. I frequently am. Indeed, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are the biggest two political parties so they’re bound to get the most attention, but the general ideas is that they get the attention because there aren’t any other parties to speak of. This kind of thinking is absurd. Not only does it limit democracy, it also suppresses the so-called “third parties”, such as the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. Parties like that shouldn’t be a footnote in elections. Unfortunately, the people of America have turned the term “third party” into a joke, or even an invective.
“So do you think a third party will win this year?”
“What, do you mean like Ralph Nader, that damn vote-stealer?”
Regardless of Nader’s position as thief of votes (I’m looking straight at the 2000 election here), people should realize that their votes are not just limited to “Democrat” or “Republican”. Too often third parties are seen as annoyances, detracting from the “true” parties. This is because the United States has been limited to a two-party system for years. The last time a third party candidate came even close to winning a presidential election was in 1912, where Theodore Roosevelt, as candidate for the Progressive Party, carried 6 states and won a bigger share of the popular vote than the Republican candidate, William Howard Taft. He lost to Woodrow Wilson, but his second place finish has never been duplicated by a third party. Even Ross Perot only got as much as 8% of the popular vote in 1996.
A common argument I’ve heard against third parties is that a vote for a third party candidate is wasted because they’ll lose anyways. Can anyone else see the flaw in this? It’s a circular line of reasoning. A third party candidate will lose because no one votes for them. No one votes for them because they think they’ll lose. It’s self-fulfilling. I really think that if everyone voted for the party they liked most (instead of the party they thought would be most likely to win), the Libertarian Party would get a lot of votes. Most people don’t even know what a libertarian is, though I bet most of them would identify as one (who doesn’t like a small government?). I blame that on the media for inundating us with the whole “liberal vs. conservative” idea. Note to the American people: the political spectrum stopped being a line a long, long time ago. There isn’t just “left” and “right”.
Anyways, I’m just saying this because I’m a libertarian (ideologically, as denoted by the small “l”). I’m not registered with the party (denoted by the big “L”), but I may register before this next election. It doesn’t seem that the Democrats or the Republicans are going to be putting out candidates I like, so I’ll probably vote Libertarian. Wasted vote? Perhaps, but at least I’m voting for someone I like. That’s a little more important than going along with the status quo.
Sphere: Related Content
