Pam ([info]fledglingoflove) wrote,
@ 2004-10-30 14:53:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Share this!  Next Entry
Entry tags:politics

the voting process
Let me begin by saying that I don't really understand why your vote is supposed to be secret. If you support a candidate, shouldn't you publically support him or her, and encourage people to vote for that candidate? Ah, well.

But that aside, I finally decided to vote Libertarian -- Badnarik -- in this year's presidential election. I realize he is about as likely to win as I am to win the lottery. Still, I don't believe I should vote for a candidate I wouldn't want to see in office. That eliminated Bush and Kerry fairly easily. Of the third parties, the ones I liked best were Green and of course, Libertarian. I found the Libertarian position on the issues I feel most strongly about to be more clear-cut than the Green party's.

Firstly, small government. Both my ideals and the ideals of the Libertarian party support this. The government should exist to serve the people, not the other way around. All the government should do is uphold the Constituion -- that is, to protect the life, liberty, and property of all Americans. There are too many government programs that do not fall under these lines. Let private organizations take care of the extra things that government has taken on, such as Social Security and welfare. As an added bonus, this would lower taxes.

The War in Iraq. Badnarik's position is that we should bring our troops home, and if you know me you know I am all over that. Bring the troops home! Stop making the U.S. out to be the world's police. That isn't our job. The U.S. used to be all about not mingling in needless world affairs, but our leaders seem to have forgotten about that. And obviously, I'm against a draft, and so is Badnarik. Keep the Army a volunteer army. Those of us who don't want to fight aren't going to be good soldiers anyway.

Civil liberties. It's in the Constitution. The Patriot Act is not constitutional. It infringes on our liberties. Get rid of it. Yes, it's important to make sure that government agencies are able to talk to each other, but you don't need to infringe on our rights to do that. In addition, the genders of two people who are married is not of the government's concern. Either remove government involvement in marriage completely, or grant equal rights to both different-sex and same-sex couples.

Finally, abortion. This is the one area where I kind of disagree with Libertarians, but kind of agree. They say that the federal government should not control it, leaving me to believe they think it should be left to the state governments. But is murder against federal or state law? I would believe it is federal. So if murder is against federal law, abortion should be against federal law, too. But I am willing to sacrifice this one point, because Libertarians do at least oppose tax funding for abortion. The abortion battle is not one we are going to win any time soon. People as individuals need to realize that unborn babies are people too, before people realize that abortion is the same as murder.

As for Maryland's elections, I honestly didn't put as much thought into them as I did into the presidential election. I know, I know, I'm a horrible citizen. I did do a little bit of research on each candidate before voting, though. I voted on the same principles I described above. There were no other Libertarians on my ballot, however. I realized too late I could have done a write-in for a Libertarian candidate. Sigh.




(18 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]acdragonmaster
2004-10-30 12:05 pm UTC (link)
The purpose of votes being secret is that so that people can't be pressured into voting one thing or another. Someone could try to bribe you to vote one way, but you don't have to follow through on that because they'll never have any way of knowing what you *did* vote for, just your word on it.

(Reply to this)


[info]akilika
2004-10-30 12:09 pm UTC (link)
As I understand it, votes weren't always secret--they were, in fact, color-coded, and everyone could see who you were voting for.

But . . . well, you're familiar with the time of political machines, right? Boss Tweed and all that? If you didn't vote for the "right" people, you could be looking at more than a bit of trouble. At least, according to my high-school government class.

Granted, this sounds like it pertains more to local elections than federal, but the idea still stands . . .


Of course, not only did I learn this years ago, it was high school. I'm not quite sure how well I can trust the presentation.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]opt513
2004-10-30 01:58 pm UTC (link)
I would imagine that machine politics put more than a few representatives in the House in their time. They may have never elected a president on their own, but that's still Federal level influence.

[back to present]

As for state and local, as heated as the presidential races have been this year, I'd be surprised if most people even know who their local candidates are, let alone what they stand for. Never mind that their votes make a bigger difference in the smaller box.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]izuko
2004-10-30 05:23 pm UTC (link)
Tammany Hall was pretty darn influential in putting Jack Kennedy in the White House. Though they were based in Manhattan, their influence (though union connections) was felt in places like Jersey and Chicago. If you want to see true voter fraud, study Kennedy's election (and, understand, I like JFKennedy and support many of his policies and decisions, but fraud is fraud).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]countalpicola
2004-10-30 09:22 pm UTC (link)
> As for state and local, as heated as the presidential races have been this year, I'd be surprised if most people even know who their local candidates are

I know I certainly fell into that trap. Until the night I voted, I only knew for sure of one other race going on in my district. That'd be where my five hour research campaign and that huge LJ entry spawned from, though I suspect most voters wouldn't put in even that much effort.

Presidential years suck.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]vorkon
2004-10-31 08:26 am UTC (link)
I fell into that trap too, and based my decisions on a similar night of webcrawling. Of course, I haven't lived in my home state for over 2 years now, so I don't suppose I can really be expected to be all that up to date on local issues. Ah well. I didn't get my state absentee ballot in time, and ended up needing to use one of those federal write-in dealies, so I couldn't vote for anything other than senate and the house anyway. (And have I mentioned yet that CT's official policy on those things is that they don't need to accept them, but do anyway? Grr... >.<)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]haibane_rachan
2004-10-30 12:11 pm UTC (link)
*wanders in and steals some cookies*

-Rachan, "As random as it seems"

(Reply to this)


[info]brentdax
2004-10-30 02:11 pm UTC (link)
But is murder against federal or state law?

I think I mentioned this once, possibly in a comment to this journal. 18 USC § 1111, part of federal law, covers murder, but restricts that coverage to "the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States"--i.e. all the areas in the US outside of the individual states (territories, territorial waters, the District of Colombia, etc.). Murder within any state is covered by state law, not federal.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fledglingoflove
2004-10-30 02:14 pm UTC (link)
Ooooh, sweet. I do support the Libertarian position on abortion, then. Thanks Brent. ^_^

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]countalpicola
2004-10-30 09:04 pm UTC (link)
To expand on this a bit, murder has traditionally been viewed as a federal issue in some other circumstances as well. Murders committed on federal property or against federal officials on duty may also fall under the jusrisdiction of the federal government. This would be among the reasons why it's a Really Bad Idea to kill your letter carrier.

States, though, also have jurisdiction over these cases, which can sometimes lead to someone being tried for murder both in state and federal court. This is the only Constitutionally perimssible way of getting something that is essentially double jeopardy, allowed only because the federal and state governments have separate soverigenty. [/legal trivia of the day]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]vorkon
2004-10-31 08:30 am UTC (link)
Except, of course, when you are also governed by the UCMJ... Triple jeapordy would really suck. Urgh... There go my plans to kill the mailman...

Maybe we should call that final jeapordy?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

>_>;;
[info]vorkon
2004-10-31 08:31 am UTC (link)
...or maybe we could just call it jeopardy, like everyone else... <_<;;

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]izuko
2004-10-30 05:31 pm UTC (link)
The purpose of secret ballots is the ablility to cast your vote without fear of reprisal. This is especially important in strong union (as opposed to Right to Work, not as opposed to Confederate) states. At one time, union representatives even went into the booth to "assist" the voter in making the proper selection (in order to make sure the voter didn't accidently disenfranchise himself, mind you). Everone pretty much agreed that that was a bad thing.

Now, I know some people will condemn me for asking this question (screw 'em), but I know you saw Kerry as the greater of all evils. If he gets elected, how will you view your vote? Will you believe that your vote for Badnarik helped Kerry win, or will you stand firm behind your choice?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fledglingoflove
2004-10-30 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Kerry is the greater of the evils only by a small margin. I flip-flop back and forth sometimes as to whom I dislike more. I will be displeased no matter if Bush or Kerry wins the election, because I don't want to see either in the White House, not to mention at least one group of people will be angry. I stand firm behind my choice of Badnarik. He is the one I would like to see in the White House, even if I won't get to see it happen this election year.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]countalpicola
2004-10-30 09:19 pm UTC (link)
> The Patriot Act is not constitutional.

Actually, that's really hard to say. The Constitutionality of the Patriot Act has been brought up in front of the Supreme Court on a few occasions already, and nobody has yet found an argument that shows it to be unconstitutional. Can't say that I've read any of those opinions, though, so I can't say whether they're any good or not. In my opinion, though, the law is definitely in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, if not the language.

(Reply to this)


[info]sarianna
2004-10-31 04:16 pm UTC (link)
Do you ever read [info]being_homeless? She went on a 3-week tour with the Green Party in September, pretty cool stuff. (And we're going to IKEA on Friday, yey!)

Good for you for voting with your heart. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fledglingoflove
2004-10-31 04:25 pm UTC (link)
I actually voted Green Party for Maryland's US Senate seat, though that seat is going to go to the incumbent Democrat, no doubt.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mordath
2004-11-01 06:47 am UTC (link)
You have no idea how happy it makes me to see so many people voting Libertarian this year. We're making progress, step by tiny step.

Maybe we can get on the polls next time! Bandarik's polling around 3%, higher than Nader, on polls where he's actually asked about.

(Reply to this)


(18 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Log in with OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…