Are candidates owed our votes, or do they have to earn them?

[Solon]

Poll question: Are candidates owed our votes, or do they have to earn them?

I saw this post yesterday, and the responses make me fear for our democracy. Now, it seems like most responders just read the subject line, and were too lazy to read the rest of the post, and I really hope this is the case, if not, then its just sad. Cboy's only point was that the Democratic candidate will actually have to win him over to get his vote. Isn't that the whole point of participating in a Democracy? You know, I remember my Political Science class in college, and basically one of the assumptions was that the most basic things for candidates to do is to EARN the citizen's vote, citizens themselves are under NO obligation to vote for a candidate unless they feel the candidate deserves their vote.

The fact is that to mindlessly vote for a single party, without regard to positions, issues, current and past situations is foolhardy. A trained monkey can do that.

I just don't understand why so many people flamed him for basically saying he's going to act as a citizen of this nation instead of an acolyte for a political party.

[bunnies]

1. Mine has to be earned.

And mocking me isnt they way to earn it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. people have a responsiblity to vote for the greater good in my opinion.

atleast thats what i vote for

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. or the lesser evil depending on your perspective /nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. which ends up making the greated good.

i am against this lesser evil argument mostly because it was used against gore by the naderites. gore was hardly lesser evil.

[Solon]

7. You can't really compare the Gore of today with the Gore of 8 years ago...

8 years ago, Gore was just another politician, practically an empty suit himself, I voted for him, but to be frank, I did it because he was the lesser evil compared to Bush. When it comes to candidates for national office, I find none that are appealing, not now, and never since I started voting, almost 12 years ago now. I only vote for Democrats because they do less damage.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. the gore of the past was the same man, except he was a politician then

and politicians to a degree will always be a bit pathetic. i expect that.

[Solon]

11. If that's true, then we should stop electing politicians into office...

though Gore seems to be drifting further and further to the left, politically speaking, for example, on marriage equality, since being out of elective office. I don't know if Gore the politician is the same as Gore the activist, did his personal values change over the past 8 years, or were they hidden all the time he was in elective office? I guess the only person to answer would be Al Gore, though I don't know if he would.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. i think an office mandates certain traits and characteristics that you have to comply with

much like any other job. i think that is all gore was doing.

[leftofcool]

4. I think

that one of the reasons your poster was flammed is because the DU'ers are so passionate about their candidates and we forget that we owe no allegiances to anyone for anything. Personally, my vote does indeed have to be earned. Thus far, no one has and I will probably make my decision just before my vote is cast but I will weigh everything before hand. Please remember that the DU is not the real world and does not represent all Democrats.

Left of Cool

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I take great issue with one statement of yours

"The fact is that to mindlessly vote for a single party, without regard to positions, issues, current and past situations is foolhardy. A trained monkey can do that."

Perhaps it seems like a mindless activity to you, but you haven't considered the full scale of what you're talking about. Our system, unfortunately, is winner take all. That means the winner gets the White House, any Supreme Court and judicial nominations, the entire Executive Branch, and has a large foothold over our Legislative Branch as well. It's not a simple as the best man gets the job, because the "best man" is likely going to put people into those positions that are vastly out-of-line with my positions and morals. You're not just voting for McCain, Obama, or Clinton, you're voting for the hundreds of very powerful people from the nominee's party that will obtain high-ranking positions within our government.

Overly simplistic arguments solve nothing. If our government were structured differently, perhaps it would be a mindless activity to vote party line. However, I believe that, in our current system, the mere action of choosing a political party is a far, far cry from a mindless activity in and of itself, and if one does that thoughtfully and properly, they are making a very serious decision indeed.

[Solon]

8. And that's why we have one of the weakest democracies in the entire western world...

and why I hate it so much. We have a choice between the assholes and the fuckheads. Are we supposed to be happy with that choice?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. No, you're not. But it is what it is.

And good luck getting it changed. Too many overly patriotic morons stand in the way for that to ever happen in a significant manner.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Until The HUGE Gap In Risk Between Democratic Pres VS Republican Pres Closes Immensely, They Don't

have to be earned. When that large of a risk gap exists, the only right thing to do is to vote for the Dem whether they've 'earned it' based on that voters pet issues or not. It's called caring about more than yourself.

If and when there comes a time that the differences between a republican pres and a Democratic pres are a bit more safe, then that sort of mentality can come into play. But in the times we're in when having another republican president can have a potentially devastating impact on the WORLD, then a simple common sense check would deem that voting for the Dem is the right thing to do DESPITE how much they have or haven't earned that vote.

We need to think outside ourselves and always keep things in the proper perspective. Right now, there is only one goal and one goal only; and that's keeping a republican from being elected to the highest office on the globe. Anyone thinking otherwise is thinking naively and foolishly.

[Solon]

16. Using that as an argument means that all Democrats would get a free ride from me...

for the rest of my life, and for possibly generations hereafter. I don't find that to be healthy in this supposedly democratic nation.

ON EDIT: Just to let you know, the gap isn't nearly as large as you make it out to be, the differences between Democrats are Republicans are basically in degrees, rather than complete opposition to each other. Only on a few key issues are they generally in opposition, even though this varies greatly from candidate to candidate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. "the gap isn't nearly as large as you make it out to be"

Sorry, but if that's your mentality/perception, then you've proven yourself to not even be worthy in my opinion of having a real discussion.

When you are feeling more grounded and can show that your perception is a bit less skewed, maybe we can chat then.

In the meantime, have a nice day! :hi:

[Solon]

20. I don't know where you come off saying that...

I've read both parties' platforms, and to be honest, I'm unimpressed with both, and every time I see "market solutions" for solving social or economic problems I cringe.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. From Right In Front Of You, Looking You Right In The Eyes, Telling You The Straight Truth.

That's where I come off.

And if you stand behind statements like that, then it really does show your perception to be way off from what's real and what's not.

[Solon]

24. Well, see, this is my perspective, correct me if I'm wrong...

Now, these are general PARTY positions, candidates, of course, can vary greatly, but let's show some differences between Republicans and Democrats:

Health Care, Dems:Do something market based, Repubs: Do pretty much nothing

Choice, Dems:Pro-Choice(some conditions), Repubs: Anti-Choice(some conditions, sometimes)

Social Security, Dems:Several contradictory positions(privatization to raising the ceiling), Repubs: Pretty much the same.

Trade, Dems: Pro-Free Trade(maybe some conditions), Repubs: Pro-Free Trade(maybe some different conditions)

Marriage Equality, Dems: Against it(oppose constitutional Amendment), Repubs: Against it(support constitutional Amendment)

Foreign Policy, Dems: Historically interventionist, may change? Repubs: interventionist

This is but a summary, I never said there were NO differences between the Repubs or Democrats, I also didn't say the differences weren't significant, but they aren't HUGE differences either.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. My Advice Would Be Stop Reading Things On Paper, And Actually Look At The World Around You Instead.

Your summary is one of the most politically simplistic things I've ever come across and it is glaring how out of touch with political reality you are as it relates to the HUGE differences we'd see between a republican president and a Democratic one.

I think it's clear that you are going to perceive things as you wish rather than what they actually are, so I really don't feel the need to waste any more time with this skewed discussion.

[Solon]

27. Of course it was simplistic, I wrote it for you after all...

If you want, I could go in and analyze both parties' policy positions in detailed book form, but a simple summary would suffice to start a discussion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. The Problem Is This:

In order to have a discussion, I'd have to climb into your comfortable little bubble. It's a really small bubble. I just have no desire to crawl in there, with all due respect.

Until you step outside of that bubble and can stand up and agree that there ARE in fact HUGE differences between what might happen with a Dem pres vs a repub pres, and agree that there is a HUGE difference in risk between the two, then there is really nothing more to say to you since until that time comes, you are not on an appropriate enough level of reality for me to even begin to want to discuss issues with. Sorry, and bye now.

[Solon]

30. Is the risk there? Of course it is...

Especially when it comes to abuse of Executive power, and the reigning in of such, that's important. The Iraq war is another important issue that needs to be addressed, badly. There are quite a few issues, not insignificant ones, where the gaps between the Dems and Repubs are quite large, its just not every single issue out there.

Now, the question is whether the candidates from the Democratic party, either of them, would actually deliver on their promises in regards to either of these issues. I'd like to say yes, but its more or less a "I'll believe it when I see it" thing. I'll most likely vote for either of them in the General election(didn't vote for either in the primary), and, to be honest, I fully expect to camp my ass on the White House lawn when they fuck up.

[TooBigaTent]

14. The "party line" here is that we must vote for the nominee, no matter what they

say they stand for.

By registering as a Democrat, we clearly owe allegience and our vote to whomever is selected for us.

Not good, but unfortunately, the truth.

[Solon]

17. That's not the smartest argument I've ever heard...

No one owes their allegiance to anything but their own values, no more, no less. Oh, by the way, I'm not a Democrat, I'm one of those Independents you guys are supposedly "winning" over.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. DU is NOT supposed to be about winning over independents.

It's a forum for Democrats, by Democrats.

[Solon]

45. other progressives are invited too...

besides, its not like I can advocate for a third party in my area anyways, the only one that exists is the Libertarian party, and I hate them more than Republicans. Hell, Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate in my area to get a billboard, think about that. This area is nuts.

ON EDIT: Ugh, I just realized I called myself a "progressive", uhm, hell no, I'm a leftist, not one of those wishy washy folks that call themselves "progressive".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. Progressives may be invited, but don't expect to come here to be wooed.

This is not a staging ground for ass kissing. It's for like-minded individuals to bitch and moan to each other.

[Solon]

47. Besides that, I wasn't talking about being wooed here on DU anyways...

I was talking about generally, IRL. It isn't happening, but that's expected.

[SteppingRazor]

15. I don't think you're asking the right question.

It's not a matter of whether our vote is owed or earned to Politician X. It's whether we, the voters, are mature and responsible enough to cast our general-election vote where it matters most. It's not just about doing the most good, it's also about preventing the most evil.

[Solon]

18. The problem is the lesser of two evils is still evil...

I've seen some bad shit come from both Democrats and Republicans, the fact that the Republicans suck worse than the Democrats is hardly a ringing endorsement.

[SteppingRazor]

21. But there you're assuming that this is a lesser-of-two-evils argument...

when in fact, either of the two Democratic candidates will (in my humble opinion) be able to do a lot of good over the next few years, especially with the huge gains we'll make in Congress in 2008 and (hopefully, if we get shit done in '08-'10) 2010.

You're assuming this is a kind of evil (Democrat) vs. a really evil (Republican) argument, when in fact, it's a kind of good (Democrat) vs. really evil (Republican) argument.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Yup.

[Solon]

25. And what would be this "lot of good" that you are talking about?

See that's the question, I have yet to see this "good" people keep on raving about with the Democrats, since I was old enough to vote in 1996, and even before that, we've had Democrats deliver on NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, DMCA, and numerous other things that I wouldn't classify as "good". So please tell me where I'm wrong with my perception.

[SteppingRazor]

31. Seriously? I mean, you've got to be familiar with the issues both these candidates are bringing...

to the table at this point. Obama has, quite recently, spoken out about environmental and labor-rights concerns regarding free trade. Both he and Clinton are against DADT, and I'm not positive about Clinton, but I know for a fact that Obama has said he would rescind it. Neither of these two is for the DOMA -- in fact, both are for federal civil unions.

And, of course, there's the whole range of other policy issues that differentiate them from Republicans. An end to the Iraq war, including no permanent military bases in Iraq. Health care. Green jobs. Tying the minimum wage to inflation. Ethics reform and open government. The end of no-big contracts.

I mean, my goodness, I could go on and on and on here!

[Solon]

32. All that is fine and good, but can they deliver?

That's the question, even assuming they get large majorities of Democrats in the House and Senate in 2009, the question will be, how many are going to be blue dogs and DLC dems that will throw a monkey wrench into all these grand plans by the two Democratic candidates?

Also, just a note, I don't view "civil unions" as a good, its a cop out at best, and I really wish these candidates were better than that. Marriage equality for all.

[SteppingRazor]

33. But the question here is whether these two presidential candidates are good, not bad...

not whether they can deliver. And I think that, clearly, this is not a lesser-of-two-evils argument. Clinton and Obama are both net-goods.

As for your worries, the potential of DLC candidates in Congress, I'm not worried about that. They may vote against, say, federal civil unions, but they won't filibuster. You can go back and look at previous Senate votes from when the Dems controlled Congress, and it worked out that way almost every time -- Conservative Democratic senators would vote against liberal Democratic bills, but they wouldn't hold them up in the Senate.

As for the nature of civil unions, I agree with you. But this goes back to the very nature of the argument we're having -- it's the old pragmatism vs. purity argument. I used to be for civil unions, I am now for gay marriage. I came to that conclusion after reasoning that there was no way to argue for civil unions without, in the end, having to argue that gay love was somehow lesser than straight love. But at the same time, I recognize that civil unions are a step in the right direction, toward eventual gay marriage. Just as the candidates' health-care plans are a step toward universal, nonprofit coverage. Just as the candidates' plans for ending the Iraq War represent a step in the right direction of rethinking our policy in the Middle East entirely. Just as their energy plans represent a step toward an oil-free, pollution-free energy supply. In a representative democracy, change does not come in huge leaps. It comes in small steps. The desire to ignore those small steps -- each one a force for good, a move in the right direction -- because we want to see total change overnight is an understandable desire, but it is one that will eventually kill us, and kill our political philosophy. Progressivism will be morally pure to be certain, but it will also be relegated to a dusty wing in a conservative Museum of Extinct Politics.

All I'm saying is that, instead of dismissing the little steps in the right direction that these candidates want to take as "the lesser of two evils," we should be celebrating them as small moves toward the better world that all of us hope to one day see.

[Solon]

34. Actually, I never heard of either candidate supporting "federal" civil unions...

I don't even know if that's possible, there is no federal marriage after all. It would be enough if these candidates rescind DOMA enough for the "full faith and equal credit" clause to be enforced. At least then, marriages performed in Massachusetts would have to be recognized by the other 50 states. This would create a cascade effect that would effectively nullify all those anti-gay marriage statutes and amendments nationwide.

As far as babysteps in the correct direction, for example in Health Care, I really wish I could believe that, most likely what will happen is that their suggested reforms, which will NOT leave congress unscathed, by the way, will backfire badly, and will set back meaningful reform by a decade or more. I'm still puzzled by how either candidate will pay for either plan, they are awfully general about it.

As far as having an oil-free economy, uhm, well, most likely that will end in disaster, to be honest, our American way of life is extremely wasteful, whether its powered by oil or some other energy source. Its not sustainable, and I doubt either the Democrats or Republicans have the answer here, we'll face disaster and crisis well before either of them can come up with reasonable and workable solutions. They haven't yet, so I don't have hope there.

As far as the Iraq war, well, it seems they want to at least get the troops out, even permanently, but will this represent a shift of American foreign policy from interventionist to staying out of other people's business? I doubt it.

And let's not get into this "purity vs. pragmatism" BS, okay? Its a bullshit argument, what good is it to come up with a plan that's political feasible at the time, but literally blows up in your face when you try to implement it?

[SteppingRazor]

35. But like it or not, that's the argument we're having.

I agree it's a bullshit argument, but likely for different reasons than you. In any case, I can't speak for Clinton, but I know Obama has been against the DOMA since day one -- he spoke out against it in 1996.

And from his gay-issues page, pride.barackobama.com, we get this, in regard to civil unions:
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples
Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.


The rest of your arguments seem to consist of "Can this happen? Well, I doubt it," and I have to reject that sort of cynicism. Doing nothing is disastrous. Even if we fail, striving to do better is better than doing nothing at all, and these are all issues that we need to address, like, yesterday. Even a step in the right direction is better than saying that there's no way we can accomplish everything we need to accomplish on this issue, so we might as well just give up.

[Solon]

37. I'm not saying give it up, I'm saying do it right in the first place...

Take the idea of weaning our nation off the oil teat, there is a WRONG way and a RIGHT way to do this. The wrong way is to latch onto the wrong technologies as our "savior" while completely forgetting that we waste too much energy in this country. A lot of talk of making us an "hydrogen" economy is exactly the problem I'm talking about, its fucking stupid and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, to even think about that. At least now, unlike a few years ago, our politicians are finally getting this, even if our car manufacturers are still being stupid.

The fact is that they aren't being serious about real reform in this area, and we are running against time here, no to ways about it. Trying to keep our CURRENT consumption levels of oil and just replacing it with some other substance, like biofuels, is simply impossible. I'm not talking politically impossible, I'm talking PHYSICALLY impossible. Never mind that our demand for such energy increases, year after year.

The fact is, in a case like this, is that the only PRACTICAL solution is one that isn't politically feasible, until its too late.

Here's a small sample of what needs to be done, and done soon, before we really pay for our ignorance:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=232796&mesg_id=233156

Until our candidates seriously consider reforming our society along similar lines, to decrease total energy consumption, they are just blowing smoke up our asses. Feel good solutions don't mean shit.

Oh, and as far as health care reform, all fine and dandy, if they work, I'm not so sure they would, here's my answer to that question, note this was before all three of the primary candidates actually came out with their plans, and only had brief summaries to work off of, Edwards improved with time(too bad he dropped out since then), the other two, not so much:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3288834

[SteppingRazor]

38. Totally agree with you (re: energy)...

that energy independence in this country cannot be accomplished solely with a transference of fuels, but must also involve a pretty severe restructuring of urban planning. Great post!

[Solon]

40. Yeah, I hope you can also see that its political suicide to bring it up...

basically we would have to have a candidate for president who has the guts to stand up and say: "You know that whole American dream stuff we have been selling to Americans for over 50 years? Well, we were full of shit, and have to give it up."

That isn't going to happen anytime soon, not until we start having oil shocks like in the 1970s or so, but worse, a lot worse. I wish I could be an optimist, but the fact is that we should have started on this shit back in the 1980s, not building more highways instead.

[SteppingRazor]

41. Granted, it'd be political suicide...

but again, should we wait until those drastic oil shocks to do anything? Or should we at least try to do SOMETHING now? I'm of the opinion that beginning to wean us off oil, even a little bit, is better than waiting for the whole shithouse to go up in flames, to quote the late, great Jim Morrison.

[Solon]

42. The biggest issue is time...

Frankly we don't have enough of, maybe not enough to even cushion the blow. We have the ENTIRE infrastructure of the nation to rebuild and modify to even make such a transition palatable. Unless we started a crash program, YESTERDAY, even then, it may not be enough. We are talking about, in a very literal sense, rebuilding the entire nation, that could take a generation or more, easily, even if the government had the political will to do it. Besides that, I really don't want us to all of the sudden start using up more arable land for biofuels, as an example, when our stock of fertilizers and food surpluses are hitting all time lows. I really don't want to starve so someone could drive a damned car.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Again, that's what the system gives us.

You can bitch all you want about Democrats, but the party isn't necessarily the problem. The system itself is less than ideal.

[Solon]

49. Hence the reason I'm for PR representation in the House...

Using either a party list or multi-candidate districting system. Oh, and abolishing public law 62-5. The districting system, with first past the post elections, is just another way to deprive people of their voice, through gerrymandering and backroom deals between the two major political parties. Hell, my district used to be Democratic, until the Repukes and Democrats made a deal with redrawing the district, so now this district is safely Republican, and nothing, absolutely nothing, can be done to change it into Democratic hands without redrawing the lines again.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. And I'd agree with you, for the most part.

PR isn't all roses and apple pie either, but it's better than what we've got. Right now, our political system is a lot like the human body. No matter how delicious or nutritious the food is that goes into the system, we all know what comes out the other side.

[Solon]

51. Exactly, better than what we have now...

Right now, all a candidate has to do is win 50.00000000000000000000001% of the vote, and boom, they get it all, yet that doesn't mean they represent an entire district, hell that's barely representative at all. It would be nice to have things be more representative, not less, like it is now. Its not perfect, no system made by humans can be, but an improvement is an improvement.

The kicker is that it doesn't even require anything as drastic as a Constitutional Amendment or anything, the Constitution left Representation of the House up to the States.

[Umbram]

28. They only need to "earn" your vote at this point if you are uneducated

or, perhaps truly on the fence.

98% of what there is to know about these candidates that is there to be known is already out there at this point. There'll be a few skeletons in the closet and policy adjustments, but at this point - you should be able to say whether or not you would support ALL of the present candidates.

These B.S. posters claiming they'll have to "think about" voting for their non-preferred candidate are simply begging for attention and far too self-important. If you are incapable of objectively looking at the other candidate until yours is out of the picture, you aren't rational enough to deserve the right to vote.

For those who are just plain undecided if they are willing to support the present candidates: please define earn. Some people around here wouldn't settle for anything less than the candidates personally showing up at their house with chocolates and begging them to vote. What will it take to 'earn' the vote? Is the candidate going to make a magic promise dedicate to your pet issue?

[robcon]

36. "Win him over" or "earn your vote" or what... vote for McCain or Nader?

I don't get it. Vote for the best candidate.

Expecting someone to "win you over" is an egotistical affectation, IMO.

[anigbrowl]

39. I think part of why he got flamed...

(and I didn't comment in that thread) is that people have had plenty of time to make up their mind by now. You're not obliged to have made up your mind, but saying 'X will have to earn my vote - and it hasn't been earned yet' at this stage of the campaign is equivalent to saying 'I can't won't decide on who I like because none of them suit me 100%'.

Fair enough. But it's a little egotistical to make it into personal thing when a candidate has no possible opportunity to meet up with you and listen to all your personal concerns in detail. Realistically, candidates have to think in terms of thousands and soon millions of votes, and the odds that any candidate will be an exact 100% fit for any voter are impossibly low. People sometimes seem to expect more from a political candidate than they would even demand of a long-term relationship partner. My feeling is that if you can get a 70% or greater overlap between your position and a presidential candidate's, you're probably going to be very satisfied with them in office.

[Medusa]

48. Here's the problem I've been struggling with. ..

in case my favored candidated is not the nominee: why should I then keep faith with a party that has not kept the faith with me? The behavior or more correctly, the lack of action of our "leaders" the past eight years against this corrupt, descpicable, evil administration has been deplorable. And now they want me to jump on board and forget what they haven't done? And in same cases forget what they did do (i.e., support the GOP)? I really do not know what I'll do if my candidates is not the nominee. It will take a lot of soul-searching and perhaps holding my nose and rolling my eyes as I cast my vote.