anyone know where I can find objective and unbiased information on all current presidential candidates (not just Bush and Kerry)?

What other candidates, specifically?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm sure not voting for either of those two clowns, but I will vote if someone enters the race who I can feel proud to back.

Perhaps I should have requested if anyone can point me in the direction of where I might find out who is running for president besides Bush, Kerry and Nader.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Now if you would abstain from voting on American Idol, then you would be in the minority.

Actually, I don't vote on or watch American Idol... so I'm in the minority there.

I guess the freedom to vote really doesn't mean that much yet we go to war to give others that freedom. It is a strange, strange world.

Voting is a privilege, and one that should be exercised. Having the ability to vote is one of the cornerstones of freedom, in my book, and is, indeed, worth going to war over. However, I'm not going to vote for someone, just because he/she is the one I detest the least. Having the right to vote doesn't mean you have to vote (nor that you should vote) in every election. Failing to vote because of apathy is a waste of the right to vote. IMHO, making an informed and conscious decision not to vote because you don't like any of the candidates is as much an exercise of the right to vote as punching the ballot.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Actually, I almost pulled the trigger on Nader last time. I might go that way this year but I need to do little more research.

Wait a minute. This a political thread, right?

I'm out.

Voting is a privilege

To clarify, voting is a right.

making an informed and conscious decision not to vote because you don't like any of the candidates is as much an exercise of the right to vote as punching the ballot.

I would really like to agree with that. However, voting is also a civic duty, and there are consequences for our republic if we continue to neglect it, for whatever reason. Here's what should happen when the majority of citizens do not vote: Those in power should take it as a wake up call. Their reaction should be, "Geez, we must be doing something wrong. Most people are no longer voting for anyone at all. We need to fix this." Instead, the reality is that those in power love the fact that most people don't vote. It makes it easier for them to keep their grip on power, without having to bother overmuch with real statesmanship or leadership.

I can't offer a solution. I'm sorry.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I wish they had a category that was "abstaining to vote due to lack of better candidate"



I would be there in a second.

---

---------------------------------------------------------

"What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind and body can achieve; and those who stay will be champions."

I think it is a pretty weak argument to say "I'm not voting for a candidate just because they are the least terrible candidate". There will be a new president on November 3rd (inagurated later, but not the point). You are given a choice of a few candidates and are asked which you prefer, not which you like. Refusing to vote is similar to the following:

Say you dislike eating brussel sprouts (I'm sure many Triathletes love them, but just play along). If someone gave you the choice of eating sprouts or a pile of dog crap and you said you don't care most people would call you pretty dumb. (If you really would not care more power to you)

For the same reason most people should call you pretty dumb for not voting for a president you hate the least. Do you research, find which candidate you hate the least and vote. As for third party candidates, many of them probably haven't officially launched their campaigns yet, so wait a month or so.

But to all would be third party voters I warn you that one of Kerry or Bush will almost certainly win, so if you feel strongly that one should not be our president vote for the other, not third party.

I would really like to agree with that. However, voting is also a civic duty, and there are consequences for our republic if we continue to neglect it, for whatever reason... <snip>

I'm not "neglecting" it. I think it's worse that someone would "settle" for the "least offensive" candidate rather than abstain when they legitimately don't agree with any of them. Perhaps the practical effect is the same when you consciously abstain as opposed to abstaining because you just don't care enough to vote. But I think it cheapens your vote to select someone you really don't want to win just because he's a little less offensive than the next guy. Sorry. I won't do it. If you think I'm wrong, that's your right.

I like jackattack's suggestion. Put a category on the ballot that says "none of the above." Let's see how many people are interested but can't find a good candidate.

To clarify, voting is a right

I believe that felony convictions (at least some types of felony convictions) can permit the government to suspend/revoke voting privileges. We call it a right, but it's really only a privilege if it can be taken away.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

You are given a choice of a few candidates and are asked which you prefer, not which you like. Refusing to vote is similar to the following:

Say you dislike eating brussel sprouts (I'm sure many Triathletes love them, but just play along). If someone gave you the choice of eating sprouts or a pile of dog crap and you said you don't care most people would call you pretty dumb. (If you really would not care more power to you)


I think the analogy would be better if you compared it to a choice between eating dog crap or used cat litter.

Here's the problem: I think both candidates are equally bad. Equally harmful to the country. How do I, as a good and loyal citizen, vote for a man who I believe will be harmful to my country and the ideals it's based on?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Perhaps the practical effect is the same when you consciously abstain as opposed to abstaining because you just don't care enough to vote. That's what I'm saying, and that's the big problem I think we're faced with.

But I think it cheapens your vote to select someone you really don't want to win just because he's a little less offensive than the next guy. Sorry. I won't do it. If you think I'm wrong, that's your right. No, I agree with you. I just think we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.


We call it a right, but it's really only a privilege if it can be taken away. I think the big difference is that a privilege can be taken away for any reason, or for no reason. To take away someone's right, there has to be serious cause. Voting is a right.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

If you do truely believe both major candidates are equally as bad for this country and can't find a third party candidate you would support then write in a vote. If 100% of Americans voted but only 20% voted for Bush or Kerry don't you think that would send a better message that the American people are unhappy with the candidates we are given then if just 30% voted and the other 70% didn't bother?

Voting is a right. It is also a responsibility. It is far better not to vote in an election than to vote when you do not know enough about the candidates to decide between them.

The only people that get everything that they want are tyrants and kings (and some Supreme Court Justices). Living in a democracy involves making compromises from time to time to try to get closer to the way that you think things should be.

Party affiliation is a wonderful thing because, failing all else, it means that a given candidate adheres to one broad set of principles, and that can sometimes be enough information to cast a vote.

If you really cannot find enough difference between President Bush and Senator Kerry to make up your mind between the two, then you should not vote.

First, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

I think it is a pretty weak argument to say "I'm not voting for a candidate just because they are the least terrible candidate".

What I said was, "I may not vote for any candidate because I haven't found one I feel is worthy of my support."

If you're saying that I should vote for somebody... even if it's somebody I disagree with, who happens to be the least objectionable candidate, then I must say that is stupid! Why on earth should I vote for someone with whom I don't agree, just because he's the least unfavorable candidate? Just for the sake of voting? Talk about a wasted vote. Now all I've done is tried to get someone elected whom I really don't want in office. Get real!

Your analogy is a stupid one. If someone offered me brussel sprouts or poop, I'd have to abstain again.

Do you research, find which candidate you hate the least and vote.

If you want to use your vote like that, be my guest. I'd rather give it to no one, rather than endorse someone I really don't want in office.

But to all would be third party voters I warn you that one of Kerry or Bush will almost certainly win, so if you feel strongly that one should not be our president vote for the other, not third party.

Again, what a wasted vote, IMHO! Keep the worst out of office by voting for the second worst. Excellent use of your vote.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

The website for your Secretary of State will probably have information on who will appear on the official ballot, but it won't be there until some point closer to the election (the Republicans and Democrats aren't even listed yet in my state, because they haven't been formally nominated). As to the many third party candidates, some may appear on your state ballot, while most will not. You can find a long (complete?) list at this link, though I'm not sure how useful it will be:

http://www.vote-smart.org/...a3981e5d2770c75658df

I think the big difference is that a privilege can be taken away for any reason, or for no reason. To take away someone's right, there has to be serious cause. Voting is a right. I don't want to argue this point, but IMHO, the word "right" loses all meaning if it can be taken away at all. We have a "right to free speech." It can't be taken away. It can however, be either narrowly or broadly defined. That's what the Supreme Court is for. If they find a particular situation to be within the penumbras of "free speech" then it's absolutely protected. If they find it isn't, it can be suspended/revoked/regulated.

With voting, it's clear that you can lose that privilege if you're convicted of a felony. The government can prohbit you from voting. Thus, it's not a right.

It's all semantics, and depends on how you want to define "right" or "privilege." My take is that, despite voting being called a "right," it is, in fact, nothing more than a privilege you have as a citizen of the United States.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

If 100% of Americans voted but only 20% voted for Bush or Kerry don't you think that would send a better message that the American people are unhappy with the candidates we are given then if just 30% voted and the other 70% didn't bother?

Maybe I'm just cynical about it, but I don't think it would make the least bit of difference, as long as that 80% was divided enough that one of the two major candidates still won. I don't think they really care about the robustness of the electorate.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It's all semantics, and depends on how you want to define "right" or "privilege."

Time for me to get all SuperFundy on your ass.

It's more than semantics.

You have the right to move about freely, correct? Or is that just a privilege? After all, if you commit a crime and get caught, we're going to lock you up.

Now, can we just lock you up for a couple of years because we feel like it, even though you're not accused of a crime?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You have the right to move about freely, correct? No. You have the privilege to move around freely.

Or is that just a privilege? That is correct.

After all, if you commit a crime and get caught, we're going to lock you up. Yep. Your privilege is suspended.

Now, can we just lock you up for a couple of years because we feel like it, even though you're not accused of a crime? Nope.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

So. . . You don't believe in the concept of "rights" at all?

<Now, can we just lock you up for a couple of years because we feel like it, even though you're not accused of a crime? Nope.>

Why not?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Try the League of Women Voters here: http://www.lwv.org/...d.cfm?pid=candidates and perhaps this guide: http://www.congress.org/...id=1079&district=&

The latter only shows Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and whatever Nader calls himself. Pick the issues that are important to you, check the candidate's positions, and go with the one that best meets your criteria. Nobody (well, except for yourself, I hope) will match all your requirements.

But vote.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Didn't say that. I think it depends on how you defnie right versus privileges. Call it a right, call it a privilege, I don't care.

<Now, can we just lock you up for a couple of years because we feel like it, even though you're not accused of a crime? Nope.>

Why not?

It has nothing to do with the privilege/right of moving about freely. You can't do it because the law requires specific allegations of infractions before an arrest, and also requires things such as arraignments, indictments, etc.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Thanks. I wouldn't expect a candidate to meet EVERY expectation. I just object to being expected to vote for the guy I hate the least, because it's my "civic duty." If I can't find someone to get behind, I'd rather not vote.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins