Warning: Sensitive political question

[orrinjelo]

I am an independent. No party. None.

Now don't get messed up with "Democrats support this evil thing" or "Republicans support this evil thing" because that is NOT part of a party's declaration. I view democrats as begin more pro-choice, where republicans are more for-the-greater-good. I vote for the candidate and not the party.

As for voting for a candidate, I don't think you can label anyone as an evil or good person--they are all gray areas. I think yes, you will be accountable for your actions, but as with all gray-area decisions, you need to make one and live with it, or not make the decision and live with the consequences of that.

[Guest SisterofJared]

Because we are self-governed, I think it is very important that we vote for righteous men and women. I don't give a hill of beans who has the best chance of winning. I want to stand before the savior one day and know that I did my utmost to support that which was righteous, not that which has a good chance of winning.

This year my choices were between Chuck Baldwin, the candidate for the constitution party.... and a write in vote. Chuck Baldwin didn't have the tinest chance of winning, or else I would have supported him. Because he is a good man and supports righteous principle. He was the choice of Dr. Ron Paul. But I knew my vote in that direction wouldn't change things, so instead I voted my conscience. I voted for the best candidate that has ever run for the office in my lifetime: Dr Ron Paul. I wrote in his name knowing there was no possibility, but knowing that I had taken a stand for righteous government, and THAT is what I am accountable for when I stand before God.

If Hitler had been running against McCain and Obama, I would still have written in Ron Paul. I will never ever EVER again vote for the lesser of two evils. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you only ensure that you will have an evil in office. And IMO, you will be accountable for your support of evil.

The war in heaven was fought over agency.... the right for people to CHOOSE for themselves. A government that forces you to participate in socialism is an evil government... taking money from your check and giving it to others.... even widows and orphans.... is forcibly making you help the needy, and force is NOT the Lord's method. Taking taxes to support the myriad of social causes is immoral, and is most times fulfilling the goals of the communist manifesto.

Besides the presidential campaign, I voted only for people who best understand the constitution and the limits it places on government, and I voted for congressmen who had voted no on that stupid idiotic bail out that has enslaved our children and grandchildren.

My answer is YES we are accountable for the acts of our government when we do nothing to stop those acts!

Sister of Jared

[AnthonyB]

For those of you who would like to vote for a minor party but are afraid of wasting your vote can I suggest that you campaign for voting reform.

If you had preferential voting like Australia has (what you call Instant Runoff Voting) then you could happily vote for a third party and not waste your vote.

[Guest SisterofJared]

How does preferential voting work?

SoJ

[Curmudgeon]

Whatever our vote, whatever our action, we are accountable unless we have not achieved a level of intelligence and maturity to be accountable,

In the hypothetical situation of voting for someone who accepted abortion as a good solution to a bad situation, yes, we would be accountable. But if we voted against that person we would still be accountable.

Life simply is not simple. It is not simply avoid this or that and ignore the other because the few things you avoid are sufficent.

[a-train]

In my state, we actually had Libertarian, Constitutional, and other party candidates on the ballot. While I agree that we need some reform, I think the bigger issue is grass roots campaigning. The masses believe that they only have the Republican and Democrat parties to choose from because of this idea of "feasibility".

It is the internet that could prove to change the whole game. People everywhere are starting to see things with a much more informed view because answers to their questions are usually a click away.

It is indeed a shame that the masses did not see in Ron Paul what he really is. I often have people tell me he is a "kook". I ask: "How so?" They never have an answer. They just say: "He's kooky." I ask: "What does he do that is kooky?" They never seem to know.

The reality is that the media tried very hard to portray him as kooky. It was awful. There was a GOP debate with FIVE candidates. The news coverage and advertising only showed FOUR. During the recaps after the debate, he was briefly trashed by the commentators and then not mentioned again. He was stronger in the actual primaries than Giuliani and yet he got no coverage while Giuliani was constantly on television. He was even not allowed to attend one debate because he was deemed "unfeasible", all the while he was doing better in the primaries than some of the "feasible" candidates who were allowed to debate.

The fact is, he knows what he is doing and the others were scared to death of him. But nobody is more scared of him than big business elites who want to keep their hands on the throat of Washington. The internet is changing everything. The television will soon not mean quite so much. I have good hope for the future return to constitutionality.

-a-train

Edited November 11, 2008 by a-train

[Hemidakota]

Of the many distinctions between Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, the social issues have the affect of causing a deep divide. Question......... If you vote for a candidate of a party that supports abortion or gay marriage...will you be held accountable for this? Some view this as supporting immoral acts that only can lead to eternal consequences and heartbreak. Perhaps another divisive issue that Republicans see as an economic issue and the Democrats see as a social issue is economic equality and support for the poor. Truly the scriptures implore us that we should care for the needy and have-nots......whether they are in there situation by chance or by choice.

Any thoughts?....and be nice...

Since there is no real differences between parties anymore [corruption], exception of far right and far left within each party, our family votes for the lesser evil. Neither candidate from this media ploy two party system, was a good choice for this country at this time.

[threepercent]

please watch this to discover some truth about this subject.

YouTube - -DVD Version: P5. Proper Role of Government

its only 5 min, please watch the entire thing.

[Hemidakota]

I don't believe Nazism is a right wing organization but follows the same path as Communism - being on the left. Both are considered thuggism. The rest of the video was quite good. Thanks

[Elgama]

I don't believe Nazism is a right wing organization but follows the same path as Communism - being on the left. Both are considered thuggism. The rest of the video was quite good. Thanks

both communism and facism are extremes - I remember the political viewpoints being represented as a circle in my history classes, you could swing so far to the left or the right that you actually ended up in the same place, because any extreme requires force to keep it going. People just don't live comfortably under an extremist regime

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

I agree...both are dangerous. Those who are considered theocratic, what would you call them?

[AnthonyB]

How does preferential voting work?

SoJ

You number the candidates in order of preference. If a candidate gets over 50% of first votes they win, if not the candidate with the lowest number of votes is first eliminated. His votes are taken and distrubuted to the other candidates according to what the number 2 votes is on the ballots. This process is repeated until someone acheives 50% +1 of the valid votes.

[Moksha]

Those who are considered theocratic, what would you call them?

The Utah Legislature....

[Elgama]

I agree...both are dangerous. Those who are considered theocratic, what would you call them?

Depends who is in charge lol:)

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

Ok...that made me laugh. Thanks Charley.

[Elgama]

The Utah Legislature....

or failure lol- technically in the UK our Head of State is Head of the Church of England has been since the 1500s but when our country has tried to be a theocracy it has usually ended up as merely fascism. Human's can't do theocracies imo without God.

-Charley

[RachelleDrew]

Exactly. The Christian right is being bamboozled. It floods to the polls to vote in someone who has no real care for it and its principles only because he/she pays lip service to pro-life and pro-family: GEORGE W. BUSH.

Then, the Christian right seems to have nowhere to turn because the Democrats are the only alternative. The only thing holding them back from a third party victory is their own disbelief.

-a-train

I think that a-train brings up a GREAT point.

If you have the decision between two candidates and one upholds pro-family ideals and the other does not; but candidate 2 reflects all other of your political views. Who do you vote for? It's becoming increasingly common now days for pro-family politicians to do zilch for the family once they gain the power to do so. Bush did nothing to actually uphold conservative values in this country, so if abortion and preservation of the traditional family are the only reasons you voted for him then was that not a vote wasted?

Now what if you stumble across a third party who serves all of your needs? Who shares all of your values, be it economic, social or moral? Are you going to overlook that person just because the guy who does nothing, but is a slave to the GOP seems like a safer bet?

People like Ross Perot, and heck even Ralph Nader have proven that Americans are looking for something other than just a Dem vs Rep cage match every four years. Miscellaneous parties are picking up steam, albeit slowly. It's not a throw away vote if you really believe in that vote.

[a-train]

Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties. Therefore, in this election year, we urge you to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government. (First Presidency Statement Sept. 11, 2008)

It doesn't say "the two parties", it says "various". Is this not telling us to focus on candidates and not parties?

-a-train

[bytor2112]

Don't fall for those lies. The claim that any vote is thrown away, the ol' "A vote for the Libertarian is a vote for the Democrats" is a joke. It amounts to fear-mongering. The Republicans and the Democrats are the same, their Presidents staff their administrations with the same Council on Foreign Relations members, who churn out the same Council on Foreign Relations policies regardless of the D or R after the President's name. A third party vote is not a vote for a Republican or a Democrat and all this talk of how different are the two faces of the one great evil is hot air. We are expected to pick either the right or left arm of the same liberty destroying machine. Let us choose liberty and reject the machine. Don't fall for the lies that only build votes for the same machine.

-a-train

"The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by

their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of

oppression, if they are strong enough, whether by withdrawal from it, or by

overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable."

- General Ulysses S. Grant

[a-train]

Wow, that sounds remarkably like:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

(Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson)

-a-train