The other day a friend of mine made the statement that he dislikes Libertarians because we have a two party system and they steal votes from Republicans. I disagree with this thinking for a number of reasons. I think the two party system has done great damage to our nation and that you shouldn't have to vote for a "lesser of two evils" to make an impact.
If you agree with everything or even a majority of what a Democrat or Republican stands for, then you should vote for them. What if you don't though? Is everyone that's for lower taxes also against gay marriage? If you support certain social programs do you also have to support abortion? I'd like to think that people aren't as cookie cutter as that. Voting straight party is about as cookie cutter as it gets. It requires little thinking and no looking at things on an issue by issue basis. That's almost robotic.
Now let's take into account that both parties have led us to the place we are today. Both have led to increased government and excessive debt. Would a true fiscal conservative vote for that? Both parties have led to terrible foreign policy and bombing nations that never attacked us. Why vote for them if you disagree with these policies? The lesser of two evils? Sometimes it's hard to tell which is the lesser when they're both so bad. Voting for the lesser of two evils is basically deciding on which party you want to rape you. You just have to decide which one will be less unpleasant, but really is any rape pleasant?
Recently Ken Cuccinelli lost the Virginia governor election to Terry McAuliffe. Republicans were quick to blame it on votes "stolen" by Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. There's no such thing as stolen votes. No candidate owns these votes. Sarvis didn't sneak into Cuccinelli's place one night and find them in his sock drawer along with his secret porn stash, (don't worry we won't tell Santorum). These were votes that Cuccinelli didn't earn. Maybe Republicans should look at the extremely small voter turnout or the GOP's currently low approval rating. A third party didn't lose the election for Cuccinelli, that blame lies elsewhere.
Why would someone want a two party system? Since when do people want less options? It's like when you have only one or two cable providers in an area. The service is usually shit. Democrats and Republicans are basically like those shitty cable providers. When you think they're the only options you settle for them. You end up voting for people that you never would if you really stuck to your ideals. When Bush was in office many Republicans disliked McCain because of his criticisms of Bush. They also thought he was too moderate but in 2008 he was their man and every Republican had a copy of "Faith of My Fathers" sitting in their bathroom. Republicans once called Romney a RINO and the engineer of Romneycare. In 2012 they touted him as a smart conservative and great businessman. Then there's Obama, who bombed Libya and extended the Patriot Act. War and the Patriot Act were two huge issues for Democrats during Bush's term but they mean much less to them now that Obama has done the same. People gave up on their "convictions" instead of looking for a third party that suits them better. They voted on (R) or (D) instead of on the issues. That's what a two party system gives you.
Maybe people like less options when it comes to voting. Maybe they like it simple and don't necessarily care about the results as much as they like to complain about them. Though maybe someday people will want more options. Maybe they'll grow a little backbone and vote on issues as opposed to canned cookie cutter parties or the "lesser of two evils".
they're haven't 2 parties since 1776. that's a completely inaccurate & uneducated statement. there were no parties until the federalist party, begun under the power hungry desires of alexander hamilton around 1792. george washington you'll note did not belong to a political party. some incorrectly list him as a federalist. he was not. the only reason thomas jefferson, who saw parties as a danger to true liberty, began the democratic republican party was to counter the stranglehold the feds had on congress & also his personal disdain on hamilton, which anyone who knows anything about hamilton can certainly understand. he began this party with james madison around 1792. so if you want to say 2 parties screwing america since ____, say 1792. cause it sure as hell is not 1776.
ReplyDeleteTimothy, you appear to be referencing the picture at the top of the post. That was only an internet meme used for the topic. While it's admittedly lazy to just reuse an internet meme as a picture, so is the complete lack of capitalization in an entire statement. It comes off looking like a text message sent from a twelve year old, minus the use of emotes. Not to harp on errors but if you misuse the word "they're" when it should be "there", you probably shouldn't follow it by calling another statement uneducated. These aren't personal attacks; they're merely friendly recommendations much like your comment. (Insert smiley face emote)
Delete@ BeardsofFury --- Bravo!
DeleteActually the "Libertarian" candidate in Virginia was bank rolled by a Obama campaign bundler to split the votes among Conservatives. Take the % of votes from the sham candidate and Cuccinelli wins.
ReplyDeleteAustin, Texas, software billionaire Joe Liemandt is the Libertarian Booster PAC’s major benefactor. He’s also a top bundler for President Barack Obama. This revelation comes as Virginia voters head to the polls Tuesday in an election where some observers say the third-party gubernatorial candidate could be a spoiler for Republican Ken Cuccinelli.
There's the theory that Sarvis was a Democrat plant or the argument that he is a LINO but does that translate to him stealing an election? According to conservative websites such as thefederalist.com and the Daily Caller, Sarvis didn't cost Cuccinelli the election. According to bearingdrift.com, a website claiming to be Virginia's conservative voice, Sarvis almost cost McAuliffe the election. Let's look at some actual numbers though; granted exit poll numbers aren't infallible but neither is plain speculation. According to exit polls, the majority of Sarvis voters were in the 18-29 age group. A group is traditionally a democrat base. In 2012 the 18-29 group of VA voters went 61% to Obama and 36% to Romney. Exit polls also had Sarvis taking 3% of the conservative vote and 7% of the liberal vote. According to exit polls, in a two-way race the majority of Sarvis voters would have gone over to Slimy Mac instead of The Cooch. This makes sense considering some of Sarvis' liberal stances on issues such as: not expanding new tax cuts, expanding Medicaid and the possibility of new transportation taxes. It makes sense that Sarvis would draw more voters from McAuliffe than Cuccinelli.
Delete