Vote for Sale........................................Mine!

[OldGreyEagle]

Ok, lets say I am tired of being an independent and want to align my self with a political party, please why I should become a Democrat or Republican (yes I know there are others but please)

 

 

 

Oh, and one other thing, make your arguments about the party you support, no shots at the other guys allowed

[TheScout]

The Republican Party, it stands for choice. It trusts you to make your own decisions. It has had a long history and state and federal levels of cutting taxes because it believes you can spend your own money better than the government. Many wanted to privatize Social Security allowing Americans to choose for themselves how to invest their retirement savings. It stands for allowing you to choose whether you wish to own a firearm or not to protect your family. It stands for allowing charter schools to allow parents to choose what where they would like there children to get an education.

 

It also stands for equal rights for all Americans as it opposes preferential treatment under the guise of affirmative action. The Republicans appoint judges who believe that the Constitution is not a living document that changes will the will of the Supreme Court. It is not hostile to and instead works with religious leaders to provide service to the American people.

 

It does not cave in to international pressure on the United States. Republicans have fought against the International Criminal Court which would allow American soldiers to be tried by foriegn judges, it opposes the Kyoto Protocal which would require devasting cuts to the American economy while requiring none to developing countries like China and India.

 

 

"In government, you either have a system where you say 'Would you like to learn how to be rich, would you like to learn how to be successful?' Or you have a system where you say, 'Well, you really ought to feel envy and resentment, so let's see if we can mug them.'" -Newt Gingrich

 

"This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. -Ronald Reagan

[scoutldr]

Voting along party lines means you don't have to think about, understand or even know about the individual issues or the candidates. My MIL is a died in the wool liberal democrat and votes a straight ticket by absentee....if it was good enough for FDR, it's good enough for her.

 

Thinking people are independents and vote the issues, not the party.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[Kahuna]

I could not support either party as it is today. I always register Libertarian and usually vote Republican. Voting Libertarian (which is pretty much my philosophy) means throwing away my vote, so I don't do that. I will give money to a party to oppose someone I fear on the other side or to a candidate. People who are active members of either party will usually tell you that you can only make changes by working within the system. That sounds reasonable, but judging the actions of the leadership of both parties, it doesn't appear that they are responsible to their constituancies. It is also true that if you don't register as a Democrat or a Republican, you are excluded from voting in the primaries and therefore have no say in who actually runs in the main election.

 

I agree with Scoutldr, it's better to vote the issues and the candidates, not the party.

[GernBlansten]

I'm a paleo-conservative. One who believes in limited government, fiscal responsibility, a foreign policy based on defending our borders not building foreign governments. A party which encourages rugged individualism, self reliance and individual civil liberties is one I would gravitate too.

Unfortunately, neither Republicans nor Democrats have any of these qualities. Neo-cons (New Conservatives) now stand for an expanded government, fiscal irresponsibility, a foreign policy of open borders and building nations, a government that demands compliance, wants us to be in constant fear and take our civil liberties all in the name of national security.

So how do you correct the course of the Republican party, vote for the only party that can punish them for their lost ways. Vote Democratic and send a message that the neo-con movement is not conservative. At least not conservative in the sense of Ronald Reagan.

[frankj]

Its not that simple OGE, as just picking a party although many people do just that. But I think you posed that scenario as a way of stimulating discussion and highlighting the fact that we do have only two parties to choose from and neither one is great shakes right now, are they? I tend toward the Republican ideals, but am very disappointed in their big spending. I am discouraged by something George Wallace said when running for President -- "in terms of legislation passed, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties."

 

 

[scoutldr]

I am against having party affiliations listed on the ballot. Just list the name. Then the morons who insist on voting even though their only knowledge of "current events" is Britney Spears' sex life would at least have to pick at random.

 

This is a hot button for me...does it show? Sometimes Democracy can be dangerous, as we are finding out.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[TheScout]

Party labels on ballots are simply more information for voters to help them pick canidates. Everyone should be for that.

[GernBlansten]

Scoutldr's idea is excellent. Informed voters know the party affiliation of their candidate. Uninformed voters shouldn't just vote R or D. In fact, they shouldn't even vote at all. I can't believe a random result be any worse than those elected just because of their party affiliation.

[TheScout]

Though I do not embrace the nonpartisan idea, such a system does exist for the Nebraska legislature. There is a primary and the top two canidates make it to the general election. No party labels are used in the election or in the legislature itself.

 

 

To quote the legislature's website, http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/learning/history.htm

 

"Another unique aspect of Nebraskas legislature is its nonpartisanship. Before becoming a unicameral, the Nebraska Legislature was a partisan one. The change to nonpartisanship was included in the successful 1934 unicameral amendment.

 

Being a nonpartisan legislature means that a candidate's political party is not listed on the election ballot. The two candidates who obtain the most votes in the primary election face each other in the general election. In other states, each party selects a winner in the primary, and the winners of each party run against each other in the general election.

 

Unlike other states, Nebraska's legislative leadership is not based on party affiliation.

 

Norris, who advocated nonpartisanship said that such a body would allow senators to concentrate on local interests without being influenced by national party lines. National party lines, he argued, often have little to do with local government. A voter who votes according to party lines might vote for a state candidate who disagrees with him or her on matters over which the senator will have jurisdiction.

 

Norris worked to eliminate partisanship in the legislature because he believed that elected officials would stand on their own records. Nonpartisanship would allow lawmakers to base their actions on their own convictions and the needs of their districts, rather than according to party dictates."

 

[Trevorum]

I think we should be able to vote for "None of the Above"

[SR540Beaver]

Amen Trev! My guy always seems to get knocked out in the primary and all I'm left with to pick from is liver or gizzards when I really wanted the wing.

[Trevorum]

Yes, most pullet-icians are turkeys and should be roasted!

[captainron14]

Trev,

You said it! Roast them and those who blindly support them!

Too many people are Democrat or Republican BEFORE they are American! They vote the party line no matter who it is. Hitler could be on the _______party ticket and there are people who would vote for him just because there is a "D" or "R" by his name.

Both parties have merit. However neither will admit it!

Then you have the idiots who HATE the President (either Bush or Clinton, you pick)so much, that there is nothing he could do or say to get their approval (short of rolling over dead). Get over it!

You can't always win! Work with who is there to make the country better. Don't celebrate when there is a tragedy (Katrina) so the other side looks bad!

Sad but true!

 

There should be some kind of "test" that someone would have to take BEFORE they vote. This would weed out a lot of the fools. That will never happen. Too bad!

 

Hopefully in 2008 there will be a new candidate from either one of the parties who will be a real leader and inspire and bring together the country.

None of the current candidates/possibilities are worth spit.

Wishful thinking?

I hope not

[TheScout]

captainiron14,

 

We used to have literacy tests in parts of this country but they were branded as racist and were finally made illegal by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which many civil rights leaders are demanding gets extended as it appeals sometime soon).

 

Apparently there are many in this country who don't think one should have to be literate to vote.