Carolyn Baker at Vermont Commons sees no real choice in this election. In fact she finds it downright immoral to participate. Her analysis is harsh, but correct.
On sunday I was visited by two young ladies who wanted to solicit my vote for Barack Obama. I cordially invited them an and we spoke for about fifteen minutes about the "situation". I wish I could say that I had been as eloquent as Ms. Baker, but I did convey my distrust of the bizarre "election sports" playing themselves out on every TV and radio station with a broadcast license. She conceded (and seems to accept as given) that America was a "two-party" system and I asked her why she thought that was. She replied that it was because the public has not yet come to accept that a multiple-party system is possible but that one day they might. I politely directed her attention to the staggering sums of money involved and suggested that that might have something to do with it. Her rebuttal was that a vote NOT cast for Mr. Obama means that McCain is one vote closer to being Commander in Chief of the Empire - which I admit is a terrifying specter in its own right - but this only outlines the basic flaws inherent in the federal voting systems. I had a poster on the wall stating that "You can count your options on one finger (meaning the middle one): You only choice is their vote, but their vote is no choice." I pulled it off the wall and gave it to them as they left. I did let her know that I was a secessionist and therefore casting any vote for president of the Federal empire would be disingenuous. I could tell from the looks they gave me that it was the first time they had heard such talk locally. I pray it will not be the last.
4 comments:
In theory, maybe.
But when other people are out voting for major parties, dont you feel like your vote is going to waste, harold?
Ben:
I feel that when I vote for a major party candidate that my vote is still going to waste, for the reason Carolyn Baker describes.
It's not an easy position to take; but if you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for an evil.
Harold
On sunday I was visited by two young ladies who wanted to solicit my vote for Barack Obama. I cordially invited them an and we spoke for about fifteen minutes about the "situation". I wish I could say that I had been as eloquent as Ms. Baker, but I did convey my distrust of the bizarre "election sports" playing themselves out on every TV and radio station with a broadcast license. She conceded (and seems to accept as given) that America was a "two-party" system and I asked her why she thought that was. She replied that it was because the public has not yet come to accept that a multiple-party system is possible but that one day they might. I politely directed her attention to the staggering sums of money involved and suggested that that might have something to do with it.
Her rebuttal was that a vote NOT cast for Mr. Obama means that McCain is one vote closer to being Commander in Chief of the Empire - which I admit is a terrifying specter in its own right - but this only outlines the basic flaws inherent in the federal voting systems. I had a poster on the wall stating that "You can count your options on one finger (meaning the middle one): You only choice is their vote, but their vote is no choice." I pulled it off the wall and gave it to them as they left.
I did let her know that I was a secessionist and therefore casting any vote for president of the Federal empire would be disingenuous. I could tell from the looks they gave me that it was the first time they had heard such talk locally. I pray it will not be the last.
"Ohio secessionism arrives in Cleveland..."
Great story, Matt!
Post a Comment