?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Vote Early, Vote Often

During luch today, I wasted my vote by voting for Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) for President. I was able to do that because North Carolina has early voting -- they call it one-stop absentee voting. Today was the first day that early voting was open and beeler and I met up with reba_quate to go ahead and vote during lunch today. It was lots of fun and the voter turnout was much higher than the poll workers expected. I was the 349th person to vote today. Outside of the presidential and governor's races, I mostly voted Republican. I undervoted in 9 races where I didn't have enough information on the candidates to make a choice. I'm against all of the proposed state constitutional ammendments and bond issues.

So why did I vote for Badnarik? I'm definitely not a fan of Kerry, and I'm not really much of a fan of Bush. Given a choice for either of them, I'd rather have Bush, by my preference is only slight. I don't agree with all of the planks in the Libertarian platform, either, but I'd like the Republican party to see that they've really been moving too far to the left. Bush is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, and I want a conservative President. In the grand scheme of things, my vote really doens't matter much, especially since the main candidates are so similar. So I decided to vote for the candidate that most closely matches my beliefs, even though he doesn't have a prayer.

Now, if the votes in North Carolina are so close that my one vote would have really made a difference, I might regret today's vote. But I really don't think that's going to be the case.

Anyway, I voted. I can't wait for the political season (and inevitable lawsuits) to end.

[Edit: Thanks sonria for pointing out the list of one-stop locations in North Carolina.]

Comments

( 36 comments — Leave a comment )
kittles
Oct. 14th, 2004 06:33 pm (UTC)
Is there a reason why you didn't consider the Constitution party over the Libertarians?
drmellow
Oct. 14th, 2004 06:35 pm (UTC)
Yes, it's because they weren't on the ballot.
(no subject) - kittles - Oct. 14th, 2004 06:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drmellow - Oct. 14th, 2004 07:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - meep - Oct. 14th, 2004 07:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sonria - Oct. 14th, 2004 07:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - meep - Oct. 14th, 2004 07:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - rhiannonstone - Oct. 14th, 2004 07:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kittles - Oct. 15th, 2004 12:17 am (UTC) - Expand
sonria
Oct. 14th, 2004 06:37 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder.

A list of one-stop locations in North Carolina is available here:

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/pdf/OneStopLocationsGeneralElection2004.pdf

I'll probably wait until next week when I can go to the Pullen Arts Center, just because it's more convenient.
drmellow
Oct. 14th, 2004 06:42 pm (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the PDF, I added a link to it in my post.
(no subject) - cramer - Oct. 14th, 2004 07:59 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - sonria - Oct. 14th, 2004 09:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drmellow - Oct. 15th, 2004 01:57 am (UTC) - Expand
eagle243
Oct. 14th, 2004 06:38 pm (UTC)
I can't believe it - you were the one of the few holdouts I know, one of the few who I expected to vote principle over party, but who in the past voted party over principle. I expected you to do the same this year, so boy have you surprised me. :)

So you didn't vote for Ballantine? I'm ready to cast my vote his way, but since I'm in the A.B.E. camp, I would love to hear your reasoning behind that one.
drmellow
Oct. 15th, 2004 01:04 am (UTC)
I didn't really vote principle over party. If I thought that the election in North Carolina would be anywhere near close, I would have thrown my support behind the party all the way. But since I don't really think it matters, I figured it was safe to drop party ranks.

As for why I didn't vote for Ballantine, part of it is personal. Somehow, I got on his e-mail list -- I suspect it was when I signed up for something with the RNC and they gave (sold?) my address to him. I have been trying for over two months to get off his mailing list, to no avail. There's nothing about unsubscribing in the email and repeated messages to the various addresses in the email haven't helped. Bouncing the messages don't help. So, basically, he's annoyed the snott out of me for the past two months.

So, given that I was already annoyed by Ballantine, once I read a little bit about Howe, I was happy enough with her positions that it didn't take much to convince me to vote for her. 'Cause I certainly wasn't going to vote for Easley. Plus, again, I want the Republican party to realize that they're drifting too far to the left.
stop the presses... - sonria - Oct. 15th, 2004 03:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: stop the presses... - eagle243 - Oct. 15th, 2004 03:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: stop the presses... - sonria - Oct. 15th, 2004 09:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
vspope
Oct. 14th, 2004 06:42 pm (UTC)
If you voted for your preferred candidate, and DIDN'T vote for someone who's pointed in a very different direction that you'd prefer, then it wasn't a waste. End of story.

I voted for Nader in 2000, and have no reason to feel repentant about it. I distrusted Bush, but was lukewarm on Gore from the start, and wrote him off after his mindnumbingly awful choice of Veep. The pair gave me no reason to rethink that decision on the campaign trail, so I voted my conscience at the Presidential level instead of voting a straight ticket. If the Dems had made similar choices this year, I'd probably do it again.
meep
Oct. 14th, 2004 06:59 pm (UTC)
I liked Lieberman, disliked Gore. Bush seemed too inexperienced. So I voted Nader as an annoyance vote (I was ticked off at the Libertarians that year). If the Dems had nominated Lieberman for Pres, I may have considered voting for him.

Of course, in New York State, where the balloting hasn't been close for awhile, my Nader vote didn't amount to much.
(no subject) - vspope - Oct. 14th, 2004 07:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drmellow - Oct. 15th, 2004 01:05 am (UTC) - Expand
sonria
Oct. 14th, 2004 06:56 pm (UTC)
I'm curious about some of your choices but don't want to start an argument or flamefest. Are you willing to discuss?
drmellow
Oct. 14th, 2004 07:02 pm (UTC)
If I wasn't willing to discuss, I wouldn't have posted. Or at least I would have disabled comments. ;-)

Ask away.
(no subject) - sonria - Oct. 14th, 2004 07:19 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eagle243 - Oct. 14th, 2004 11:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - drmellow - Oct. 15th, 2004 01:25 am (UTC) - Expand
seraphimsigrist
Oct. 14th, 2004 07:30 pm (UTC)
I agree in hoping to have the end ot the political season...
also North Carolina is probably safe for Bush and if it isnt
then the country as a whole is anyway going for Kerry.
But I wonder if there are not important areas in which
Libertarian thought does not work for...well I was going to
say for you, but for me...for me the areas touching social
issues I am open to being libertarian on legalizing pot
(it is not an enthusiasm though) not I think on other
social libertarian positions. I have also never understood
how a thoroughly libertarian state would provide effectively
for defense... To some extent the Confederacy had some of
these problems with at one point Georgia seceding from the
CSA didnt they...
well but people honorably differ on these things.
+Seraphim
drmellow
Oct. 15th, 2004 01:44 am (UTC)
Yeah, it's really funny to think that North Carolia is safe for Bush, what with the Democrat Vice Presidential candidate hailing from down here.

It's almost as sad as Al Gore not being able to carry Tennessee last time. I mean, if he could have carried his own home state, the whole "hanging chad" thing wouldn't have been an issue.

As far as Libertarian social issues go, I pretty much agree with most of them. Basically, 'cause the general philosophy is "get the government out of my life, let me make my own decisions and deal with the consequences." The drug issue is a good example. I've never smoked pot -- don't have the desire to -- but I don't see why it necessarily needs to be illegal. I'm not pro-drug, but I agree with the Libertarians.

I, too, wonder about how the Libertarians would do on the issue of national defense. In that respect -- well, in most respects, actually -- I'd probably find myself more in concert with the Constition Party, but as I mentioned earlier, they haven't made it to the ballot in North Carollina yet.
(no subject) - sonria - Oct. 15th, 2004 03:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
rhiannonstone
Oct. 14th, 2004 07:45 pm (UTC)
also in Mass.
For your MA readers (are there any besides me?), MA has the same thing. They don't give it a fancy name, but you can apply for your absentee ballot and cast it at the same time, which is what I did the other day. Just call ahead to your city's election commission to make sure they have the ballots for your ward and precinct in. They're supposed to have all ballots available 3 weeks before the election.
sidelobe
Oct. 15th, 2004 02:47 am (UTC)
WasteYourVote
So, is the wasteyourvote site a "call to arms", so to speak, to overthrow the two-party political system? The two-party assumption seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as people assume that their vote is wasted if they don't vote D or R, they'll continue to vote D or R regardless of how absurd both messages get. The problem is that it's really hard to organize people into a disorganized group. If enough people get behind a specific party, we could end up with a third. Same with a specific candidate.

I like their message (if I really understand it), even though the web site is scary.
drmellow
Oct. 15th, 2004 02:54 am (UTC)
Re: WasteYourVote
I don't think it's a "call to arms" to try to overthrow the two party system, but more of an attempt to get the two party system to pay a little more attention. *shrug* I do agree that their web site is kinda frightening, but their underlying message is a decent one.
bodnej
Oct. 15th, 2004 07:19 pm (UTC)
I'm close to the Libertarians in a lot of ideas on domestic policy and fiscal policy, but on foreign policy we part ways. It's nice to believe that if we leave people alone, they'll leave us alone, but I can't think of any examples in history to support that idea. It's really a blame-the-victim mentality. Not to tempt Godwin's law or anything, but I don't think that there's anything that my father's family did that justified shoving them into ovens. And furthermore, to turn your back on actions like genocides and say "not my problem" seems immoral to me.

As Hillel said, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"
drmellow
Oct. 15th, 2004 07:30 pm (UTC)
You didn't trigger Godwin's law.

And I agree with you, there. On foreign policy issues, I'm not very keen about the Libertarians. But I still want the Republicans to see that they're getting too liberal for me.
( 36 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2013
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow