Comments on: The voting game

By: A Christian Prophet

A Christian Prophet — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

The Holy Spirit might say that democracy itself is a dangerous and stupid game. The real question is: can democracy facilitate peace anywhere? As the Holy Spirit’s messages point out on the Christian Prophet blog, democracy is a system of conflict. It always leads to political factions fighting against each other. Democracy does not teach peace. It teaches attack and defense.

By: sabinal

sabinal — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I voted Green party in 2004 and am proud that I did to this day. To me, neither candidate had either a straightfoward idea on how to handle domestic or foreign problems. It was a protest/sincere vote, as I agree with many things the Green party believes.
However, I do not suffer BDS – BDS is just nothing more than a spoiled brat temper tantrum for people who have nothing constructive to deliver to the situation/conversation. I’m tired of angry yet clueless Democrats who are ready to bash Bush but have no idea – or refuse to accept – how to handle the war on terror

By: BeckyJ

BeckyJ — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

The last French presidential election saw the same phenomenon. The French always use the 1st round of voting in presidential elections as a protest vote. Last time however, Le Pen came in 2nd ousting Jospin (the Socialist candidate) from the run-off election. French voters expressed shock at the results of the 1st round voting. Chirac won in a landslide in the 2nd round.

I put it all under the heading of "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

By: Tom Grey

Tom Grey — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

While I fully agree with the conclusion that voting for TweedleDee while wanting TweedleDum is stupid, most of this post I disagree with.

If one is convinced in Palestine that CORRUPTION is the BIGGEST problem, and that Fatah is corrupt, what is the right vote?

The desired outcome is moderation, less terrorism, less Israeli response/ repression, but especially less corruption.

The Palestinian cited wanted a "Fatah" that doesn't exist. Every vote is for both the good AND the bad -- but you're only responsible for the bad if your guy wins!

I voted Libertarian, often -- because I didn't like Reagan/Bush big gov't (socially) Reps; nor big gov't Dems. Had school voucher supporting Libs gotten enough votes to decide an election, it's likely the loser would have adopted the "most popular" Lib position. This idea worked for the Socialist party.

(Why it works much less well for Libs is simple: Socialists favor big gov't, Libs small gov't -- both politicians AND news folk naturally like big gov't out of self interest.)

[By the way, Nader helped Bush win/ Dems lose; but Ross Perot even more helped Clinton win/ Reps lose in 92; and most importantly Wallace (the ex-Dem racist) made Nixon win/ Dems lose in 68. Most Wallace Dems voted Nixon in 72; many voted Carter in 76; many Reagan in 80; most are now Reps. It might well be that it's easier to change your politics thru a third party; revelant to mind changing.]

By: Promethea

Promethea — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Ralph Nader voters in the 2000 election should remember that they’re the ones who put in President Bush. If they now have BDS, well that’s too bad.

By: terrye

terrye — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

If that is true, then the reign of Hamas should be short lived.

But you are right, refusing to vote or voting not out of conviction but to just send a message is self defeating and ultimately dishonest.