Originally Posted by curious
…doesn't voting for a small meaningless party make your vote sound meaningless?

Not in a country like Belgium or The Netherlands. Like belgium, The Netherlands (and many other european countries) has a multi-party system. This mostly means there is no single party that has a majority. So you need to find other parties and form compromises. At the moment we will end up with a three party government, that consists of a center party, a socialist party and a socialist christian party. The latter one has only 6 seats out of 150. A small party, but it made this government possible. So in this case a vote to a small party was not wasted.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
The latter one has only 6 seats out of 150. A small party, but it made this government possible. So in this case a vote to a small party was not wasted.

That is partially true, but in practice it oftentimes just makes you feel better about your vote and displaces the wrangling from front end to back end. In other words, in the US we are starting to see the factional elements being courted by major presidential players. In a way you could say that they are forming their coalition governments up front - each candidate gets a certain amount from the various elements which will then determine their ability to rule if elected. Of course, the problem comes in there because once elected the government is pretty well solid - in a true coalition format there needs to be constant wrangling to get stuff done. So less happens, but more of what happens feels directly connected to the electorate than to the special interest factions.

Or something like that …

Returning to talk of the ballots in '08, why no love for my fellow North Carolinian, John Edwards? Obama, Hillary, and McCain are getting a lot of the press right now, but Edwards has some excellent "street cred," especially in Southern states where he is viewed as a New South moderate, able to pull in minority votes on one side and "socker mom" votes on the other. He is pro-military, but anti-Iraq, which is a good stance at the moment in most of the U.S. He also is a dynamic speaker who has learned how to turn up the charisma dial when doing the talking head thing on TV.

On the Repub side, it is basically a one-man show right now: McCain. Rudy J. will give it a go and come up short, as will Mitt, the Mass. Mormon.

However, it should all make for some exciting TV viewing….

Originally Posted by Lord Alex
why no love for my fellow North Carolinian, John Edwards? come up short, as will Mitt, the Mass. Mormon.

Because he is a certified LOSER … and nobody wants to take a chance on him. '08 isn't his time, as there are 'anointed faves' in line before him. It is sad, as it completely denies a fair appraisal based on his actual merits, but the reality is his candidacy is DOA.

Originally Posted by Lord Alex
come up short, as will Mitt, the Mass. Mormon.

I hate the fact that Mitt, who used to have some fairly decent ideas, has had to sell out to the worst elements of the Republican party to get any support …

Yeah, I guess Edwards is too late to the party and he's a speedy welterweight stepping into a room full of Ali's and Smokin' Joe's…. Mitt is a tool… no other way to put it. The guy espouses whatever is fashionable at the time. McCain, on the other hand, sticks to his guns, which I respect (even though I don't agree with his policies).

Originally Posted by Lord Alex
Mitt is a tool… no other way to put it.

I thought he did some good stuff in Massachusetts (of course, Massachusetts Republican = Liberal Democrat in pretty much the rest of the country ) … but I really started hating him when he traveled the country on knee-pads with his pants around his ankles ready to service whatever hardcore set of right-wingnuts he met u pwith …

what imagery!!

@Myrthos- my disdain for using quotes has failed me again. i am in favour of the small 'meaningless' parties myself. i was trying to prod Corwin about his use of the word in the first place. i mean should you really be voting if you think your vote is meaningless? it seems like a 'falling back' which i guess could be explained by age. usually it is the younger people who don't vote for many reasons, one of which they think their vote would have no meaning. but once they 'learn' otherwise they become more involved and less likely to miss a vote. on the otherside is those that at sometime 'believed' their vote mattered for at least something but after countless dissapointments they are left with unpleasant feelings which they don't want to exhaust any more hope or emotions into. yet they unable to not vote as they have been ingrained with the act of it as almost an unquestionable civic responsibility. acceptance is a 'benifit' earned with age and experience, but like with many things the effects are not always positive. these are just generalizations of course but i am the perpetual 5 year old and i feel it my 'duty' to annoy people with "why"

You have to understand, that in Australia, voting is COMPULSORY!! If you don't vote, you get fined!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
You have to understand, that in Australia, voting is COMPULSORY!! If you don't vote, you get fined!!

You mean they have legislated against apathy? I don't know whether to be outraged or impressed. No wonder you're ticked. Sounds a bit Orwellian to me.('All that is not forbidden is compulsory,' eh?)

I don't vote as much as I used to, mainly because the candidates all seem like the same people wearing different masks. But to me four years of U.S. government under the former First Lady is a virtual guarantee of global warfare, so there's no doubt in my mind I will be voting this time.

Originally Posted by Corwin
You have to understand, that in Australia, voting is COMPULSORY!! If you don't vote, you get fined!!

Same here, Corwin, but 'luckily' I have to work on that day a,d so nog obligated vote for me.

Not voting has an influence, just like voting has, but an uncontrolled one. In a democracy people end up with the government they deserve. If you don't vote you shouldn't be allowed to nag about your government either.

Yeah, but at least you can say; "Well I didn't vote for them!!"

In a democracy people end up with the government they deserve. If you don't vote you shouldn't be allowed to nag about your government either.

The trouble is that in many of the major western so-called democracies the scope of debate has been so narrowed by corporate propaganda machines, a.k.a. the mainstream media (whose effect in imprinting values on people is not unlike that of the state propaganda of totalitarian regimes, though much more subtle) that democracy has become a hollow word. It is analogous to an elected monarchy in which citizens can vote for their King, but each candidate is committed to preserving the privileges of the nobility while keeping an iron grip on the peasantry.
True, in our present system we indeed have fringe parties whose platforms are fundamentally different from those of the main contenders, but without access to the propaganda organs, they have no chance of attaining power under normal circumstances.

As concerns the act of voting, I agree with Corwin. When stuck in a two party system in which the differences between the two contenders are minor and their policies are both unappealing, you might as well vote for a small party or independent that more closely reflects your values, or don't vote at all. By subscribing to the logic of the lesser evil you only help to legitimize and perpetuate the very system you oppose (assuming this is the case) while undermining those movements and organizations working toward change.

…the scope of debate has been so narrowed by corporate propaganda machines, a.k.a. the mainstream media (whose effect in imprinting values on people is not unlike that of the state propaganda of totalitarian regimes…

Geist, that's a very lucid description of life as we know it these days. Very few people seem to realize that behind the media's mask is a rather ugly face.

I also have to agree with your final statement, and with Corwin's position. Your half-hearted, compelled vote for a candidate you don't believe in is counted the same as any other and will do as much to elect that person as if you devoutly agreed with him.

The decision to withhold your vote at least spares you that moral responsibility, and actually can be a factor, because if enough votes are lost someone will be lusting after them and attempting to woo them out of people by changing a policy or two.

I also think that most countries get the government they deserve. Government is an unholy wedlock of the expression of order in a society and the lust for power and domination. It's generally the result of mass choice or series of choices in one form or another, barring sheer overwhelming conquest by a superior power.

Many socieities are fooled or bullied into a government they wish they didn't have and then are victimized by their own worst elements, but if you believe in human will, then there is a choice there also.

When I saw 'corporate propaganda machine' I assumed it would be against corporations … but I think that the 'corporatization' of the media (not just liberal or conservative bias, either) has had a profound impact on worldwide debate - we *should* have the greatest worldwide ability to get *accurate* information … instead we just have unprecedented information access.

I still remember with fear and trembling, the former masthead slogan of one of our leading news magazines: ALL THE NEWS YOU NEED TO KNOW!!

Well, unless something MAJOR changes, Hillary's got my vote.

Overall, I liked Bill's Presidency (other than his famous indiscretion) and wouldn't mind having him in the background as an "Ambassador to the World". It's like getting an extra VP for free.

I liked the fact that Hillary at least tried to get us a Universal Health-Care system. It's something that I believe we desperately need. I was also impressed that she stood by Bill through some very embarrassing moments.

She was there, (watching and listening) beside Bill through the years he was Governor as well as President and she's done a credible job as a Senator herself.

I'd like to see what a woman President would do and she impresses me as being tough enough to take on the job. I don't think there are a lot of women who could.

I think she'll be more of a uniter than a divider. God knows I don't believe that she can bungle things as bad or worse than Bush has. I'd like to see Edwards as her VP.

One things for sure. This election will be an interesting show to watch!

I'll do a write-in vote for Thomas Jefferson.

I'd vote hillary if i was living in usa just because It would be intresting to see if she could improve the image of U.S globally and concentrate more on serious issues like education instead of starting stupid wars all over the globe.

I'd vote for Geena Davis!!