Suppose the other 80% voted for Kucinich

You say, “just imagine a federal government trying to function in the usual ways when only 20 percent of the eligible voters actually voted.”  Seems to me we already are functioning under Bush/Cheney that way -- ignoring the desires of 80% of the voters. Also, dictators function very well according to their own desires without interference of voters. Stalin said that it is not the voters who count but the vote counters. So I suggest that if people think that the two parties are really one--not enough difference to matter--then voting third party is not being a spoiler, as there is nothing to spoil. So, I recommend that 80% of the voters vote for Kucinich in the primary and in the general election. What a mandate he would have then. Here is what you would be voting for--in Kucinich’s own words: {The people} “are telling the candidates and the nation that they want the war in Iraq ended now. They want to stop the insanity that is leading us into another war in Iran. They want real health care reform, and they want a candidate who is willing to challenge the Bush Administration's Constitutional abuses to our civil liberties that are being condoned and advanced by the Democrat-controlled Congress,"

by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 149 comments) on Saturday, November 10, 2007 at 8:40:53 PM
 

divide and conquer

the Republicrats are grinning from ear to ear

(and possibly covertly funding the opposition)

having both Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich

actively engaging the population,

then the mono-party Republicrats are sure to win the vote, as the opposition has been diluted

by victoras (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, November 11, 2007 at 6:13:57 AM
 

Hirshhorn get a job.

Either we work within the system we have or have civil war. The FOAVC relys on state reps demanding changes when they are as bad or worse than the US reps. To effect a change under art.V would require citizens actually get involved on the state level and elect honest politicians, did you catch it HONEST POLITICIANS, its an OXY MORON. I suggest You get with the Ron Paul campaign or boycott writing to save bandwidth and electricity Hirshhorn.

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 395 comments) on Sunday, November 11, 2007 at 1:36:58 PM
 

I can't wait to see....

The assorted comments of all the supporters of Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich when they, obviously, do not get their party's nomination.  Will they have the integrity to say what Mike Gravel has said, namely that their supporters should NOT vote for whoever wins their party's nomination.  I figure my voting boycott will gain considerable more support when all the minor candidates lose the primary - if anyone should support the boycott it is certainly the delusional Ron Paul supporters.....

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (118 articles, 22 quicklinks, 54 diaries, 472 comments) on Sunday, November 11, 2007 at 5:39:07 PM
 

NOT VOTING CHANGES NOTHING;THIRD PARTY POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE

   The number of people who don't vote in U.S. elections is already notoriously higher than in the other economically developed democracies.  If, at the time of the American Revolution, someone had predicted that the percentage of citizens voting would decline to its
present level, someone might have said that such a low turnout would deprive the government of its legitimacy to the extent that it could not survive.  Yet the government is perfectly able to maintain its illusion of legitimacy with the present low turnout and it could continue to maintain that illusion even if the turnout declined to 5% or less.
   Not voting is not even civil disobedience since not voting is not illegal in the United States.
   You speak of "fixing the Republic without overthrowing the government," yet say in this post that when a democracy has lost its legitimacy and no longer represents the interests of the people, violent revolution is the only alternative.  I agree.  I do not think that a government that murderered nearly 3000 of its own citizens at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon would peacefully give up its power if it were voted out of power.  However, for legal reasons, we should always point out that if the ruling class attempts a military coup when the majority of the electorate votes for a President and Congress that really intends to remove the ruling class from power, it will be THEY and not WE who will be trying to overthrow the government and we will merely be doing our citizens duty to prevent them from overthrowing the government by any means necessary.  This is not just a mere legal dodge for it is literally true that if the ruling class attempts a coup and we have to vilently resist them, it is they who will be trying to overthrow the government and we will be the ones trying to defend the government.
   And this brings me to your advocacy of not voting rather than voting for a third party.  You say a third party can never win because the system is rigged against them.  But if people become so fed up that the majority of the electorate does vote for a third party that really intends to change the system, that party will win despite having to campaign without the ruling class funding that the two major ruling class parties receive -- unless the ruling class attempts a military coup or there is a fascist party large enough to attempt to overthrow the government.
   And I think that the majority of the electorate will have to elect a third party that runs without corporate funding and really intends to change the system, and see the ruling class attempting to overthrow the government they elected, before they realize that revolution is the only alternative.  Of course, if Bush or someone else cancels the elections and installs himself as dictator before that revolutionary third party is elected, it might be possible for the majority of the electorate to skip the stage of trying to elect a third party before they learn that our supposed democracy is an illusion.
   In short, not voting will change nothing,  Working on building a non corporate, revolutionary third party is the only think that has the potential of revolutionary change.
Robert Halfhill  rhalfhill@juno.com 

http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here:  aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-888-212-5537.

http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 2:44:23 PM
 

EVERY ATTEMPT TO REFORM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS FAILED

   I forgot to mention that I intend to vote for the Green Party candidate unless the Green Party repeats its 2004 fiasco of caving in to covert lesser evilism and nominates somebody like David Cobb who would not make a serious attempt to campaign in states where he could throw the election to the Republicans.  If that happens, I will have to see if I can find another third party candidate who is at least minimally acceptable.

   I am afraid I'll have to disappoint you on your expectation of hearing from a Kucinich supporter.  Kucinich  ran in 2004 but continued to adhere to Democratic Party discipline and supported that party's endorsed candidate in the general election.  When someone from the Kucinich campaign called to ask for my support, I replied that it was tempting because of all Kucinich's wonderful positions on the issues but I had given up on the Democratic Party and joined the Green Party and that people had been going into the Democratic Party to reform it for years and it had never worked.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, November 12, 2007 at 3:18:31 PM