Ask Green Party Presidential Candidate David Cobb 919
Today you have the opportunity to ask questions of the
Green Party's candidate for President of the United States,
David Cobb. Standard interview rules apply: we'll select a dozen or so of the best questions and Mr. Cobb will give us his answers next week.
Re:Why do you hate America? (Score:2, Insightful)
You know what? I agree entirely. Let's put Bush out on the front lines of his war and we'll stand behind him!
(By the way, do the moderators not like free speech? This guy has a perfectly valid viewpoint. He's not a troll or flamebait just because you disagree with him.)
Re:The Nature of Grassroots (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to me like it'd be a pretty cost-effective way to reach the people that aren't too into politics... the people that tend to vote every four years, at best.
Re:Obvious answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for President, is on the ballot in more states than either Cobb or Nader, you're leaving out another obvious choice.
I wouldn't vote for either Cobb or Nader -- I disagree with them more often than I do with Bush or Kerry. I will likely vote for Badnarik.
In the event you win, what about congress? (Score:3, Insightful)
All politics is local (Score:5, Insightful)
What is this desire to aim directly for the Whitehouse? Why not pool resources and fight the local battles? By aiming for the presidency (and ignoring the local politics), you are setting yourselves up for a fall. We all know that in a 2-party system, rigged the way it is, your chances of winning the Whitehouse are somewhere between 0.00 and 0.000. Then why waste the resources on this race?
How many members of Congress do you have? How many locally elected officials does the Green Party have? How many judicial appointees do you have? See the pattern here?
Maybe this isn't a question as much as a rant, but if you feel like, please answer why you are wasting the time and effort on a run for the Whitehouse, when the same resources, applied at local levels, would yield immensely more benefit.
Re:I love their protest slogan... (Score:3, Insightful)
We all know no what a crock that was. Kerry has said as much. What's unfortunate is that this inaccurate right-wing trope has also become a soundbite for some on the left.
Re: wow... That was wierd. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's acceptable in some parks not in all. You can't ride in all areas... ask a better question. A park isn't museum, it's also a recreational area.
what the point is behind conflict of interest stanzas in employment contracts
what do you think the point is?
ask him why we have a national oil reserve
We have a national oil reserve so that if the production of oil stops and there is a dire need for oil, we will have some. dire need does not include assholes w/ SUVs who are sick of paying $2/gal at the pump. It's dry friendly wells and a world war where real American's need to put their lives on the line in tanks, planes and boats to save your sorry ass while you sip a mochachino and debate which broadway play you liked better you noodle armed nancy pants.
Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically
According to the laws of this country Bush was elected. Get over it.
Meanwhile MTV has their bullshit voting campaigns where they brainwash millions of already-mindless american youths to vote a certain way...
I'd love to know (not with some bullshit poll, but with some cosmic brain that knows all or by asking god or something) what percentage of voting americans (or anyone) actually knows anything about the candidate they are voting for, except for what they've seen on TV commercials or other biased media?
How many go out and actually look at the record of this person's voting in the senate? Or the bills that this person vetoed/approved while in his last term? Or this persons personal actions in life? Bush has made some fuck-ups and so has Kerry... almost every politician has, because they're generally power hungry and assholes to boot.
The Constitution & The Green Party (Score:5, Insightful)
here goes again (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you approve of, and what would you think would be the results of, the following election reforms:
1. Abolition of electoral college, president is elected by simple popular vote.
2. Federal mandate that electoral votes from a state be split proportional to the popular vote within that state. (e.g. if California splits 60-40 Kerry-Bush, then their electoral votes are split 60-40 as well). This helps move away from the very brittle "all or nothing" electoral system, where as few as 1 fraudulent or defrauded vote can change the outcome of the national election for president.
3. Constitutional amendment granting naturalised citizens the eligibility to run for president or vice president. This would allow for the 2008 ticket for the new political party, C.O.P. (Cast Of Predator) to field Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Jesse Venutra as their presidential ticket.
Lastly a question: is the democratic system as instituted in the United States hopelessly mired in a two-party stranglehold, leaving corporate interest in defacto charge of the discussion? Is legal election reform necessary, or even possible?
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps he feels, like many of us, that Bush is the worst president in a very long time, and has to go. Kerry, for all of his flaws, can't help but do a better job.
Party Image (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the name "Green Party" invokes in many people images of socialism and even ecoterrorism. The ecological movement has been painted as an anti-worker and even anti-American concept by people who believe that conservation and the reduction of pollution should be voluntary undertakings. I know that's not what the party is about, but that's doesn't stop older voters like my father from equating the movement with, for lack of a better term, neo-hippism.
How does the party plan to improve its public image and distance itself from more radical anti-corporate, anti-ecological groups? And how do you intend to endear your humanistic social goals to the institutions that currently fund the political system, namely rich individuals and corporations?
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
For that matter, how do you respond to donations from Republicans :)
Re:Obvious answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. Did you forget or purposely omit Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org]? Badnarik will be on 49 state ballots. Can Cobb say that? No!
Cut it out with the 'obvious' crap and trying to mislead people.
Public financing for elections (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bible (Score:4, Insightful)
Please Define "Freedom" (Score:2, Insightful)
While a certain level of both is necessary to run a nation, but at what point do you believe they become an unacceptable burdon to a country's people?
Given that many Green Party ideals stem from increased government involvement, and would rely on higher levels of taxation to fund, please justify to us how such increases contribute to a free society.
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A "true" third party (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mainstream Perception (Score:3, Insightful)
Whta kind of political party would have a "policy" on same sex marriage, beyond saying that it's none of their business?
Let's ask about their policy on oral sex next.
Changing the voting system (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm wondering why ALL third parties in the United States don't band together on one issue that would help all of them: changing our voting procedure.
Whether you are Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist, Natural Law, Reform, or anything else...you would benefit if the United States adopted a voting system similar to Australia's, where instead of voting for one (and only one) candidate, we could put our candidates in order of preference, so that if our preferred choice wasn't a contender, our vote would automatically be cast for our second choice, and so on.
It seems to me that our two party system is guaranteed by the mathematics of the constitution, and that a simple modification like that would make third parties more viable, in that even though they still probably wouldn't win, at least people would feel free to vote for the candidate who most represents their ideals, thus enhancing the visibility of the platforms you espouse.
Wouldn't it be in your interests to spearhead public debate with all third parties (even if you don't agree with them on other issues) in order to make change like this possible?
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear Power (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for taking our questions, Mr. Cobb.
Your party's issue statement on nuclear power [gp.org] calls for "the early retirement of nuclear power reactors as soon as possible." Could you please explain your party's position on nuclear energy (1) in light of new [wikipedia.org], safe reactor designs and (2) in light of the necessity of the United States to wean its dependence on foreign oil?
Thank you.
Is the Green Party a tool of the Democratic Party? (Score:3, Insightful)
the Green Party and your candidacy in particular has been accused of being dominated by Democratic Party insiders who seek to undermine Nader's campaign using un-democratic methods.
A well-researched example [counterpunch.org] of this is Marnie Glickman, one of the three members of the Green Party's National Co-ordinating Committee, who has a history as a committed and succesful (over $10 million) Democratic Party fundraiser.
The article referenced above concludes:
Given that your campaign would appear to have a number of recent "ex Democratic Party" activists and that your campaign seems mainly to have served to attack Nader's candidacy do you feel that you've been played for a patsy by more experienced politicos?
* PGP = Pacific Green Party
Re:Reparations (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I beleive we should acknowledge that slavery was wrong and appologize for it. But the whole concept of reparations is flawed on two fundamental issues: who should receive reparations, and who should pay?. Ancestry is nearly impossible to trace; should someone whose great-great-great grandparent was a slave receive 1/32 of a reparation payment? Not all blacks are descended from slaves. A few blacks were even slave owners! This issue is simply not as black-and-white as everybody seems to think...
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
Socialists? (Score:2, Insightful)
I Love This Open Mindedness!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you favor a voting system that makes it easy for a new party to spring up?
Re:here goes again (Score:3, Insightful)
Abolition of electoral college, president is elected by simple popular vote.
As a practical matter, not even worth discussion as a Constitutional ammendment to this effect will never happen. There is no way that the small states for whom the EC gives more voting power would vote for this, hence this ammendment will never be ratified. Nevermind the discussion on whether or not it is a good idea. It is an excellent recipe for civil war, however as candidates will simply pander to the small, densly populated urban centers - failing to address the concerns of much of rural America.
2. Federal mandate that electoral votes from a state be split proportional to the popular vote within that state. (e.g. if California splits 60-40 Kerry-Bush, then their electoral votes are split 60-40 as well). This helps move away from the very brittle "all or nothing" electoral system, where as few as 1 fraudulent or defrauded vote can change the outcome of the national election for president.
First, a "federal mandate" for this would be insufficient, as it would require a constitutional ammendment to enforce. The Constitution clearly states that the states will decide how their electors are allocated.
As a practical matter, why would any state want to do this. Consider California for instance, right now it has some 55 electoral votes. Under a proportional system, lets say that Kerry gets 30 of these and Bush gets 25. The outcome of California voting has now been reduced to that of a 10 vote state.
3. Constitutional amendment granting naturalised citizens the eligibility to run for president or vice president. This would allow for the 2008 ticket for the new political party, C.O.P. (Cast Of Predator) to field Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Jesse Venutra as their presidential ticket.
Now this I'd like to see,... maybe Alien and Predator can be on the opposite ticket!
Re:Taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that it is a Slashdot audience that will read the answers, bias is appropriate. Although we might try to convince people otherwise, our natural reaction to any kind of change is to seek what impact it will have on us personally. Will we be better or worse off, and by how much? Actually caring about others usually takes place after we've assessed the potential damage to ourselves.
Clean Campaign (Score:3, Insightful)
If the price of admission is trashing the environment - so how does the good side compete?
(Arrested in NC for cleaning up illegal signs - including political signs.)
AIK
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
When the votes start getting tallied up, and 3rd parties or independants are getting 30, 40, 50+ percent of the vote, that sends a LOUD AND CLEAR message.
The message, is this: "You are president by purely a game of numbers, the majority of the citizens are sick of your policies and want change."
3rd party votes count, they've always counted. They scared the 2 major parties so much that they've twisted and warped the system to include 3rd parties as much as possible. Why? They're scared of them.
There've been plenty of 3rd party/independant congressmen, senators and governors. But when presidential elections come around, all of a sudden people tell you 3rd party votes are wasted?
Bah. The lesser of two evils still sucks. If you vote for Kerry, you send the message that you approve of Kerry and his positions, regardless of the fact that you merely voted because you don't like Bush.
Whore your vote out if you want, I vote for who I want to see run the country, not for who I don't.
I'm tired of "which of these two is less of an asshole" elections.
Kerry won't change anything Bush has done, and you're a fool to think he will. Reps and Dems are the same for all intents and purposes.
Iraq, War on Terror (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
The states, 14% source [mecep.org]
So, I don't know that your taxes would be that much higher
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. If people want to vote for a third party candidate, they should just do it.
Re:Reparations (Score:3, Insightful)
Over 360,000 Union soldiers died during the Civil War, largely to put an end to slavery. How much more can possibly be said?
What about pebble beds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: wow... That was wierd. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention, this *HASN'T BEEN FIXED*.
Shouldn't you be with the Dems? (Score:3, Insightful)
Regulation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A "true" third party (Score:5, Insightful)
I very humbly think that the Iraq issue should be the starting point for the green party to finally become a strong, third US party. Your party was clearly opposed to the US/British invasion on Irak, while the Democrats were somehow shy in their criticism before the military actions started, and explicitly supported the so-called war afterwards. Shouldn't you be making it more clear that the two big parties are essentially the same, and that you represent a fundamentally different, actually progressive perspective ? Are you doing it ? What are your thoughts in this regard ?
Why the Presidency? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the same question I ask of all third party candidates and supporters, and I have yet to receive a good answer.
Why the presidency? I have read your campaign materials and spoken with some of your representatives and the universal and overwhelming impression I get is that your party's agenda is almost entirely based around policy and the amendment of it or contribution to it. Given that that is the case, why are you standing a candidate for our country's foremost executive position? It would seem that since your goals are legislative in nature, you would be better served by standing candidates for election to those bodies, namely the House and Senate.
The only answer I have been given to date is that it would be a good way to get the message out and apply the powers of the executive to support your agenda (by vetoing key policies, etc.) This is a basic abuse of the system, however, and there are more appropriate ways to go about it. I refuse to believe that your party's only reasoning in this election is to strong-arm Congress out of its Constitutional duty and to use media time granted the President for political gain on non-executive issues.
So please, tell us, why are you standing for election to a post whose Constitutional duty is solely to put into effect the very policies which you find so abhorrent?
Re:Reparations (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, how 'bout the bit about the War between the States not being even remotely related to slavery? You know, that whole thing about it being a federal gov't vs. states' rights thing, and Lincoln using the elimination of slavery as a tool to win that war.
I was raised in the North, and didn't fully grasp the lies I was taught as a child in school until I read a letter in Lincoln's own hand spelling out his feelings on the slavery issue (the letter I read is currently part of the collection at the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, CT). I don't mean to imply that I'm in favour of reparations--I'm not, doubly-so since my ancestors weren't even in this country during the time period in question. I do think it's important to do things for the right reasons, though.
Single Transferable Vote voting system (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Affirmative Action (Score:1, Insightful)
Uh, reparations and affirmative action are solely based on giving people fair treatment. Am i missing something?
Re:Reparations (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny, the first time my teacher (in middle school) told me that the war wasn't about slavery, I was pissed. The older I got, the more I learned and realized that the only reason slavery even BECAME an issue was that it was the South's main economic tool. Without slaves the South's economy would go to shit..Lincoln realized this, hence he issued the emancipation proclamation. He said himself that if he could unite the country without freeing slaves, he would do it.
And think about it, how could the war really be about slavery when lincoln owned slaves?
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Reps and Dems are the same for all intents and purposes."
I think the last election proved once and for all just exactly how misguided and wrong this sentiment is. There is a profound difference between Bush and Kerry, if you can't see it then you are blind.
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
The American Dream... (Score:2, Insightful)
How will you educate Americans to stop being so selfishly greedy and gain some of the same sense of proportion and responsibility that the rest of the world has, especially in the face of powerful self-serving political, business and religious groups?
Re:What is the best way to move America leftwards? (Score:3, Insightful)
See, the thing is, by global standards CNN is very conservative. When Americans complain about their "liberal media" they are complaining about media that in unashamedly biased toward the Democrats. That's not a liberal media, that's just supporting the other partisan side of a debate that ignores a wide variety of issues.
In general the US media, in its politcal reporting, has a very narrow focus. There is a lot of argument over Republicans and Democrats, but not much real discussion of issues. Ever seen many news stories about actually making a smaller federal government? How about limiting the rights, or expanding the responsibilities of corporations? How about discussions of the size of the US military? How about discussions of intellectual property? How to deal with waste disposal given the increasing amounts of waste we produce?
Several of these questions have 2 sides, and the Republicans and Democrats are on neither of them - they just blithely ignore the issue remaining with the status quo. Which is, I might point out, the very definition of conservative.
Jedidiah.
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel there are three reasons why I will "waste my vote" on a third party this November, even though I live in a swing state this year (Pennsylvania.)
national relevance (Score:3, Insightful)
What can be done to coerce the media into covering third-party or independant candidates? Most people are unwilling to vote for a candidate they don't believe can win. Most identify canditates they haven't seen on the news as candidates that cannot win.
Short of spending 30 years building a national party infrastructure from scratch to rival the Democrats or Republicans, what can be done? Does relevancy require infrastructure?
OT - well, kind of (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a question to the Green party candidate, but to the slashdot person(s) who organize these interviews; well, where are the interviews with Kerry and Bush?
I would tend to think that a medium with the traffic and mindshare of slashdot, the credentials in terms of all the people it had interviewed in the past, the political nature of many of the issues discussed on slashdot in 2004, and the fact that these elections may prove to be a one in which every vote counts would be ver persuasive to them to respond. After all, and without meaning to disrespect other candidates, it's either one of those two that is going to be the next president of the US and "leader of the free world".
Re:Reparations (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are very misguided.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest" - can't remember who said it
The power of democracy is not in voting people in, its in voting people out. Given enough time even the most honest man will be corrupted by power or screwup in some other way. Then its time to vote in the people that have learnt from the previous governments mistake.
It doesn't really matter exactly who gets in power and when, all that matters is that we keep changing our government regularly, pushing politicians to work for their people whatever party they ascribe to.
Democracy is as much of a negative process as a positive one.
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll vote Third Party (Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party), because I do give a shit about who will run this country. As Mr. Badnarik said when he answered
The difference between these two influence peddling career politicians is not significant enough for many of us to distinguish between them. If you can't see that, then you are the blind one.
I'll agree that Kerry is the lesser of two evils, mostly due to the fact that a Republican Congress will oppose many of his ideas, but as Mr. Badnarik pointed out: if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.
100% income tax (Score:1, Insightful)
Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage.
OK, if you guys ever take over, then I'm going to become a f**king bus driver. What's my incentive to do anything else?
Remember, you can dress it up, call it progressive, socialist, whatever. It's still communism. And while communism looks great on paper, and even works great at the family and neighborhood level, it has failed OVER and OVER and OVER. Each new communist thinks he can do it the RIGHT way this time.
I'll also just note for the more hard-headed among you (which is about 90% of
Be careful what you wish for.
Power Corrupts (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil is near or at the Hubbert peak for global production. Greens apparently are opposed to both fossil fuels and fission-based nuclear power. Hydrogen, while perhaps a viable storage mechanism, is not naturally available chemically unbound in measurable quantities, much less enough to constitute a fuel source. Modern American civilization is highly dependent on economical electricity and low-cost long range transportation of manufactured materials. And the Nixon era demonstrated the nasty effects of supply shocks on the economy, especially for something as fundamental as the cost of energy.
Annual energy use in the United States is on the rough order of 100 quad. How would you propose that the United States continue to meet demand? Or, in three specific parts: What long-term technologies do you think we should pursue? What percentage reduction by conservation in the US annual energy use do you feel we should realistically try to achieve? And, most important, what technologies to you propose for use in the short term to sustain the supply needed (despite conservation) until whatever long-term technologies you plan for are successfully deployed?
giving more power to Government (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, these are also invalid arguments: some americans murder, therefore americans are murderers. Or, some american soldiers torture prisoners, therefore all americans are torturers of prisoners. Some Republicans are reactionary flat-earthers, therefore all Republicans are reactionary flat-earthers. Some Republicans are not like Democrats, therefore no Republicans are like Democrats, or Republicans are not like Democrats. These of course are not valid arguements.
I think what is meant is that for the most part, is that most party members of either party do similar things political things, and hold similar political stances.
As for there being a difference between Kerry and Bush, I agree. But if Bush happened to be a conservative Democrat, and Kerry a liberal republican, how much would this change?
What do you think of the Free State Project (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think a similar push by Greens would work, and would would you personally move to a place where green activists chose to concentrate their presence?
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not this time, where several Supreme Court judges, as well as a large number of other judiciary judges, are on the verge of retiring. If Bush is re-elected he might be able to appoint 3 new Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. That's one hell of a legacy, even if Green Party candidates are elected for the next 5 presidential terms.
Another term of Bush could also very well mean a few more invasions to deal with in 2008, he's already threatened Iran, Syria, and North Korea, who knows how many more quagmires he'll create.
I voted Nader in 2000 (I wasn't in a swing state), but I'm voting Kerry this time around. I realize there's a time to be idealistic, and a time to face reality and be practical.
Bush has wreaked too much havoc on the planet and our country to risk electing him again, IMHO. Of course Kerry's not perfect, but he's a damn better choice. Even many ultra-liberals are voting Kerry because, as they say, "When the house is on fire, you don't talk about remodeling the kitchen. You put out the fire first."
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, people who vote for third party candidates are people who don't give a shit who will run the country for the next four years. But what they do care about is the long-term idealogical direction of the country, and that kind of change takes time. So if you care enough about the long-term direction of the country, you'll vote for your preference, not for expedience or the lesser of two evils.
Re:All politics is local (Score:3, Insightful)
According to http://greens.org/elections/ [greens.org]
429 Candidates in 2004
40 States
74 Types of Offices
And I do indeed see a pattern:
37 Victories in 1996-7
44 Victories in 1998-9
131 Victories in 2000-1
146 Victories in 2002-3
Considering the obstacles faced by third-party candidates... I like what I see so far.
About cars (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition of being quite destructive to the environment and making the US dependent on foreign oils, the automobile addiction is a prime source of economic disadvantage, because of the cost of operating an automobile (both the individual and the collective & social cost) is forcing salaries to be higher than in countries the USA is competing against.
The recent outflux of high-tech jobs to third-world countries because salaries over there are cheaper is certainly a cause of the obligation for employers to subsidize the indispensable automobiles of their workers.
Emerging countries want in some way or other to equal the US standard of living; this includes the obligatory automobile. Now, being quite doubtful that the planet Earth would be incapable of sustaining the BILLION additionnal automobiles that would be needed if China and India would raise their standard of living to match the US, it is quite obvious that, just for the reason of being the example everyone else wants to emulate, the USA would have to significantly decrease it's dependence on automobiles.
What does the green party intend to do towards this inescapable goal?
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
What they need to do is build up. Get some mayors and aldermen. Work from there for state legislature. Then with that fame run a governor and some representatives, maybe a senator. Shooting at the presidency right now is a waste of time, money, and effort.
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a bunch of hyperbolic bullshit. There are many of good reasons to vote third party, and many circumstances where doing so is not a waste of your vote. If a certain candidate has a significant lead in my voting area, then my vote doesn't matter in determining who wins the election anyway. So why shouldn't I for my favorite candidate, regardless of their party?
"Reps and Dems are the same for all intents and purposes."
I think the last election proved once and for all just exactly how misguided and wrong this sentiment is.
You are right that they are very different, but that doesn't mean that either of them is good. If I think that both candidates are equally bad, even if they are bad in different manners, then it doesn't really make any sense to vote for either of them.
If you look through history, you will see that both major parties have changed substantially as societal views changed, and voting third party is a very effective way of letting them know that they no longer are in sync with my viewpoints. In past situations where the major parties did not change, third parties indeed replaced them. Furthermore, it is not unheard of to have third party candidates elected in state government today.
In fact, the only time that it makes sense to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than my favorite candidate is when A) one of the two leading candidates is significantly worse than the other B) I live in a voting district which has a chance of casting it's vote for the lesser of the two evils C) the overall race is close enough that the result of my voting district could make a difference in the overal results. All other times I vote for my favorite candidate, which is sometimes third party, sometime major party.
In my particular situation, all three do apply so I do plan on voting for a major party in this presidential election. But saying that I don't give a shit about my country because I vote third party most of the time is pure garbage.
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
At the very least, third-party voting numbers do infulence the policies of the two major parties. If Kerry loses in 2004 because 7% of the nation voted third-party, the leading Democratic candidates in 2008 are going to incorporate some of the issues and viewpoints of these third parties to appear more attractive.
Voting for a Republican or a Democrat when you don't believe in their views means you don't give a shit about the country. The system isn't going to change unless you work with it, a little at a time. Or start an armed revolution, but that's a bit more costly and difficult. I'd much rather start fighting now for a reasonable president in 2016 than continue the Rep and Dem crap that's been going on for so long - a situation that isn't going to change by embracing the status quo. Try having some long-term goals. They're good for you.
Re:Your vote is Dubya's Vote? (Score:2, Insightful)
Chastising Cobb, or any other independent candidate for not "running like a real candidate" (according to expectations set by the two corporate parties) would be like criticizing Gandhi for not acting "like a real leader" in the style of the British empire.
I personally supported the Green Party running no candidate for president in my state's (MN) delegate selection process. I did this not because I support Kerry (what a bastard), but because the atmosphere is dramatically different than in 2000, so different that I think it would be a waste of time and energy to throw into an all-out pres. campaign.
Look folks, the corporate parties want you all to focus on the presidential race (except in 1996, when Clinton wanted a non-event), and talk only about wasted votes and swing states. National politics are the arena in which corporations, powerful interests have the most leverage over citizen activity.
The real opportunities for changing the system, whether you are a Libertarian, Green, or Socialist Worker, are at the local level. Nader 2000 showed that a gutsy national campaign can get folks interested, but no independent political movement will survive by jumping incessantly after the easiest, broadest publicity. The Green Party needs to work on turning that momentum into real victories at the local level. That's what I'm working on in St. Paul.
Please argue all you want about wasting of votes, not running a campaign like a real man, or whatever, but also please work on some local, independent, issue-based or electoral campaigns.