Cheney huge fan of Obama's record on civil liberties

[Zaune]

I hate to say it, Broomstick, but I have to wonder whether that attitude towards third-party candidates isn't a significant part of the problem. Your reasoning seems to be that it's not worth voting for third-party candidates because not enough people will vote for them, and if that isn't the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy then I don't know what is. What has anyone got to lose by casting their vote for the person they personally believe is best-suited for the job, regardless of that person's perceived chance of winning?

[Big Phil]

Couple of points:

1. (For Thanas) - why the fuck should any American care what you think of their morals? We're not electing saints, we're electing politicians. If I want a fucking Lawful Good Paladin who stands for truth, justice, and the American way, I'll watch Superman. Otherwise, I'll vote for the options that are presented to me. The choices there aren't between good and evil, but between Asshole, Racist Asshole, and a dozen Irrelevant Assholes.

2. There are any number of issues voters must consider when deciding who to vote for. Civil liberties isn't the only issue. We also have abortion, civil rights, defense spending, deficit reduction, education, healthcare, the environment, etc. On the majority of those issues, there is a significant difference between Obama and anyone the Republicans will nominate. Obama is not my ideal candidate, but since he is pro-choice, willing to repeal DADT, calling for reduced spending, in favor of government healthcare, etc., he's substantially better than the Republican candidate.

Look at it this way, during Shrub the Lesser's presidency, he accomplished virtually NOTHING that I approved of or supported. Between wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gitmo, out of control spending, deregulation, torture, unsupportable tax cuts, abortion, Supreme Court nominees, etc., the ONLY thing that I like (although it's purely selfish and I support their repeal) are the middle-class tax cuts. Contrast that with Obama, where I support perhaps half of the things he's accomplished: he passed some sort of healthcare bill, repealed DADT, supports abortion rights, is making (half-hearted) efforts at getting out of Iraq, etc.

[Big Phil]

I hate to say it, Broomstick, but I have to wonder whether that attitude towards third-party candidates isn't a significant part of the problem. Your reasoning seems to be that it's not worth voting for third-party candidates because not enough people will vote for them, and if that isn't the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy then I don't know what is. What has anyone got to lose by casting their vote for the person they personally believe is best-suited for the job, regardless of that person's perceived chance of winning?

It's the nature of the system - in an all or nothing system like we have in the states, only one person wins.

[Samuel]

1. (For Thanas) - why the fuck should any American care what you think of their morals? We're not electing saints, we're electing politicians. If I want a fucking Lawful Good Paladin who stands for truth, justice, and the American way, I'll watch Superman. Otherwise, I'll vote for the options that are presented to me. The choices there aren't between good and evil, but between Asshole, Racist Asshole, and a dozen Irrelevant Assholes.

Well, Thanas is from a country that believes commiting war crimes is wrong and that you shouldn't elect people who do them because then you are morally culpable for their actions. But apparently in the US only fictional characters and saints can run a country without condoning torture. It a pity Nixon is dead. Or every single president before Bush. In fact the only time I can think of an exception might be during the Philippine insurgency.

Of course Americans shouldn't care what foreigners think of them... it just means that her enemies are willing to fight harder and more of her soldiers will die. But fuck the troops who are going to die or get tortured in return, right?

[Alyeska]

A sad fact of reality. Some times you gotta let things get worse before they get better. It could be argued that voting 2 causes 3, but eventually causes a swing towards 2.

That of course means deliberately allowing bad things to happen. And what if 2 doesn't happen?

I don't know what you mean by deliberately allowing bad things to happen but #2 hasn't happened since 2008.

When you vote for a third party, you knowingly take the risk that the party you least want to win will.

Now there is the old saying "things will get worse before they get better". Maybe you have to vote 3rd party and let the worst possible thing to happen to inspire people to do the same. But that might not happen.

[Broomstick]

I hate to say it, Broomstick, but I have to wonder whether that attitude towards third-party candidates isn't a significant part of the problem. Your reasoning seems to be that it's not worth voting for third-party candidates because not enough people will vote for them, and if that isn't the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy then I don't know what is.

You do have a point there.

On a local level, even on a state level, voting third party is much more common because third party candidates actually have some chance of winning. But remember - Americans do NOT directly elect the President. The electoral college throws a wrench in the works. If we didn't have the electoral college then third party candidates would be much more likely (in my opinion) to be viable for PotUS but right now for each state (with maybe one or two exceptions) it's winner take all for the electoral votes. A PotUS candidate need only win the barest margin to get ALL the electoral votes for a state, with the result that 51/49 split on the popular vote can manifest as an electoral vote "landslide". The third party candidates will get no electoral votes at all in such a system. On top of that, it's even possible for a PotUS candidate to lose the popular vote, that is, the direct democracy vote, and still win as President due to simply winning key states. In other words, the PotUS may NOT necessarily be the guy who got the majority of actual votes by citizens.

This does skew the process.

What has anyone got to lose by casting their vote for the person they personally believe is best-suited for the job, regardless of that person's perceived chance of winning?

If you vote for the person you like best even though you know there is NO chance they can win then you face the potential prospect of the candidate you like least getting the job because you didn't vote for the guy marginally better than the worst.

Sure say "no compromise", but that's not how the real world works. Sure, don't compromise on human rights but wait - what if you have one guy who's pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and anti-gun control but you're FOR strict gun control? What if a guy is pro-choice AND pro-death penalty when you feel strongly pro-choice and ANTI-death penalty, and the only alternatives to that guy are both pro-life and pro-death penalty and religious nutjobs as well? You may not have a choice that doesn't represent a compromise on something.

And if in six months Obama closes Gitmo then the one of the major objections to him in the OP falls apart entirely, doesn't it? You may think that is unlikely, but six months ago it didn't look like DADT was ever going to go away and yet it's gone now. This "don't vote for Obama in 2012" supposes a level of knowledge about the future that is impossible to know. Quite a bit can happen between now and November 2012 and it needs to play out.

Yes, people are supposed to vote FOR a candidate, not against the opposition, but in reality sometimes you don't like either guy very much. In that case you can either choose not to vote, or try to prevent the worst of the candidates from getting elected. Neither is the ideal choice, but I'm not going to criticize either path so long as the not voting is the result of thought and research and not simply being a matter of being too lazy to vote. When the choice is conscious and deliberate choosing not to participate is a valid choice, but so is working to minimize the damage resulting from nothing but bad choices.

[Big Phil]

1. (For Thanas) - why the fuck should any American care what you think of their morals? We're not electing saints, we're electing politicians. If I want a fucking Lawful Good Paladin who stands for truth, justice, and the American way, I'll watch Superman. Otherwise, I'll vote for the options that are presented to me. The choices there aren't between good and evil, but between Asshole, Racist Asshole, and a dozen Irrelevant Assholes.

Well, Thanas is from a country that believes commiting war crimes is wrong and that you shouldn't elect people who do them because then you are morally culpable for their actions. But apparently in the US only fictional characters and saints can run a country without condoning torture. It a pity Nixon is dead. Or every single president before Bush. In fact the only time I can think of an exception might be during the Philippine insurgency.

Of course Americans shouldn't care what foreigners think of them... it just means that her enemies are willing to fight harder and more of her soldiers will die. But fuck the troops who are going to die or get tortured in return, right?

Was that sarcasm, or are you serious? The Germans believe committing war crimes is wrong... hmm

In any case, my question still stands unanswered - why should the approval or lack thereof from some dude in Germany matter in terms of who I vote for here in the United States? Germany's approval of our voting process doesn't dictate who wins the election, and there other factors that simply torture to consider.

[Broomstick]

Well, Thanas is from a country that believes commiting war crimes is wrong and that you shouldn't elect people who do them because then you are morally culpable for their actions.

Not everyone in the Nazi party was lined up against a wall and shot after 1945, either. If they had, there wouldn't have been hardly any Germans left.

Fact is, damn few if any people are morally pure. Most are a bundle of contradictions. Oskar Schindler was a full member of the Nazi party, he earned a fortune selling war materials to them... and yet he also took considerable personal risk to save something like 1,200 Jews from certain death. One of his "tricks" was employing children to make ammunition. And the 1,200 Jews he employed were really slave labor. That's leaving aside the black market selling and the bribes he passed around freely. Is he a sinner or saint? I mean, he was a fucking Nazi, cheated on his wife, a war profiteer, slave holder, used child slave labor... but he also saved 1,200 lives by doing some of those things.

Maybe the truth is that in bad times things are not so black and white as we'd like them to be.

You know, I wanted to vote for McCain at one point. I thought that surely a man who had been a POW himself, who had not only been regularly beaten but had been subjected to such things as strappado and who suffers permanent disability and life-long chronic pain from such treatment would be opposed to torture and want to shut down a place like Gitmo. But then he goes and votes against a ban on waterboarding in 2008. WTF?

So... you may not like Obama's record on Gitmo, but is it better or worse than the alternative in 2008, a man who had experienced torture first hand but voted against banning waterboarding? Let's look at what the OP's article had to say in part:

It overstates the case to say there are no differences. There were some: Obama formally ended the "enhanced interrogation program" (the authorization for which had been withdrawn when he took office); banned CIA black sites (which were empty when he took office); and has not invoked the Article II lawbreaking theories of Bush's first term (Bush largely abandoned them as well in his second term as Congress began legalizing his programs).

Let's look at this: Obama ended "enhanced interrogation" i.e. torture whereas, when given a chance, McCain didn't vote against it even though he personally knows what it is like to be a tortured POW. Obama also ended the "black sites" and isn't using the legal bullshit used under Bush II to justify this shit. McCain pretty much sang along in the Bush II chorus from 2001 onwards.

So.. in a choice between Obama and McCain on these issues I'd say Obama was the better choice. Not that he was a good choice but better than the alternative. I agree that Obama hasn't done enough but there has been faint progress (if we couldn't close Gitmo but we stopped torture that's a gain, for example) and there might be more going forward. I'd much prefer a candidate who I can trust when he stands up and says "I'll shut down Gitmo" but the fact is there may be NO such candidate on the ballot in 2012. Do I decide that one issue is sufficiently dire to forego all other voting choices in front of me and elect to not vote at all, or do I try to find the candidate who will either do the most good or the least harm on all the other myriad issues out there?

[Broomstick]

In any case, my question still stands unanswered - why should the approval or lack thereof from some dude in Germany matter in terms of who I vote for here in the United States? Germany's approval of our voting process doesn't dictate who wins the election, and there other factors that simply torture to consider.

You know, if you swap "German" with "American" in that paragraph a lot of folks would be pointing out the wrongness of that stereotypical bad American behavior... but maybe some in Europe think it's OK when they make that sort of arrogant pronouncement because... um... they're not American and it's only bad when someone else other than they do it?

[Alyeska]

And yet according to Thanas you are fully complicit in every decision Obama makes simply for voting for him.

[Zaune]

You do have a point there.

On a local level, even on a state level, voting third party is much more common because third party candidates actually have some chance of winning. But remember - Americans do NOT directly elect the President. The electoral college throws a wrench in the works. If we didn't have the electoral college then third party candidates would be much more likely (in my opinion) to be viable for PotUS but right now for each state (with maybe one or two exceptions) it's winner take all for the electoral votes. A PotUS candidate need only win the barest margin to get ALL the electoral votes for a state, with the result that 51/49 split on the popular vote can manifest as an electoral vote "landslide". The third party candidates will get no electoral votes at all in such a system. On top of that, it's even possible for a PotUS candidate to lose the popular vote, that is, the direct democracy vote, and still win as President due to simply winning key states. In other words, the PotUS may NOT necessarily be the guy who got the majority of actual votes by citizens.

This does skew the process.

I was unaware of this, so my apologies.

If you vote for the person you like best even though you know there is NO chance they can win then you face the potential prospect of the candidate you like least getting the job because you didn't vote for the guy marginally better than the worst.

Sure say "no compromise", but that's not how the real world works. Sure, don't compromise on human rights but wait - what if you have one guy who's pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and anti-gun control but you're FOR strict gun control? What if a guy is pro-choice AND pro-death penalty when you feel strongly pro-choice and ANTI-death penalty, and the only alternatives to that guy are both pro-life and pro-death penalty and religious nutjobs as well? You may not have a choice that doesn't represent a compromise on something.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that you have to agree with the candidate you vote for on everything. But would the occasional lunatic-fringe candidate getting in really be worse than an endless procession of centrists who do nothing but perpetuate the status quo?

[Straha]

Wasn't Broomstick's point that choosing #2 will just make #3 more likely?

Yes, but by choosing #1 you make the possibility of #2 happening just about zero.

[Big Phil]

I'm not for a moment suggesting that you have to agree with the candidate you vote for on everything. But would the occasional lunatic-fringe candidate getting in really be worse than an endless procession of centrists who do nothing but perpetuate the status quo?

The only lunatic-fringe candidates getting elected in the United States today are Teabaggers. Left-wing lunatics have no chance of getting elected to national office outside of a few liberal bastions (Seattle, San Francisco, parts of New York and Los Angeles). So in Congress today you have less than a handful of left-wing lunatics (all registered Democrats) and 80+ right-wing lunatics (all registered Republicans).

[Broomstick]

And yet according to Thanas you are fully complicit in every decision Obama makes simply for voting for him.

Well, yes, because we can all clearly see the future. We're all precogs, over here. That's why I've won the lottery three times over - oh, wait....

You do have a point there.

On a local level, even on a state level, voting third party is much more common because third party candidates actually have some chance of winning. But remember - Americans do NOT directly elect the President. The electoral college throws a wrench in the works. If we didn't have the electoral college then third party candidates would be much more likely (in my opinion) to be viable for PotUS but right now for each state (with maybe one or two exceptions) it's winner take all for the electoral votes. A PotUS candidate need only win the barest margin to get ALL the electoral votes for a state, with the result that 51/49 split on the popular vote can manifest as an electoral vote "landslide". The third party candidates will get no electoral votes at all in such a system. On top of that, it's even possible for a PotUS candidate to lose the popular vote, that is, the direct democracy vote, and still win as President due to simply winning key states. In other words, the PotUS may NOT necessarily be the guy who got the majority of actual votes by citizens.

This does skew the process.

I was unaware of this, so my apologies.

Quite alright. It is a strange practice. I think most of the democracies established after ours avoided that bizarreness (I think Finland had one for awhile, but I'm not sure how much it resembled ours, and maybe one or two others out there), but unfortunately for us it's in our base constitution and thus removing or altering it requires a great deal of effort, as we have to amend the constitution. In fact, our twelfth and twenty-third amendments did make changes to the electoral college but there is a constant low-level debate that spikes every four years about whether it should be entirely scrapped or changed again.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that you have to agree with the candidate you vote for on everything. But would the occasional lunatic-fringe candidate getting in really be worse than an endless procession of centrists who do nothing but perpetuate the status quo?

That's a decision the voters have to make. Of course, when people around the world stand ready to condemn your choice (and for damn sure no matter how you vote you're going to make someone unhappy) they might think they're exerting a influence for change when really the result might be making people more inclined to choose the status quo. Anyhow, sure, the occasional "out there" person being voted in happens, but the perceived risk of that is less on the local and state level. I mean, really, do you feel inclined to vote a "lunatic fringe" candidate into a position with the authority to launch nuclear weapons? The PotUS is an extremely powerful position, how much risk do you want to take with that office?

[Serafina]

Was that sarcasm, or are you serious? The Germans believe committing war crimes is wrong... hmm

In any case, my question still stands unanswered - why should the approval or lack thereof from some dude in Germany matter in terms of who I vote for here in the United States? Germany's approval of our voting process doesn't dictate who wins the election, and there other factors that simply torture to consider.

Looks like someone knows nothing at all about current-day Germany and lives 70 years in the past

And yes - of course the approval of "some german guy" does not matter for american politics.
On the other hand, international relationships DO matter. Electing idiots or fools will not exactly elevate other countires opionon about ones own.

And frankly - torture SHOULD matter a LOT. To put it into an extrem form to illustrate my point:
Would you elect (someone) Hitler if he promised you jobs, a good economy etc. (and could probably deliver it) - and outright adovcated treating foreigners (not citizens) like he did historically with the jews?
I'm not saying that the situation is that extreme, but it's the same in principble, only on a lesser magnitude. Someone who does morally reprehensible things is morally reprehensible, and voting for such a person is likewise morally reprehensible.

And yet according to Thanas you are fully complicit in every decision Obama makes simply for voting for him.

See above. Helping someone to commit a crime is itself a crime. Even doing so passively is morally wrong - and voting is not passive, but rather active.
Of course, every voter only contributed a tiny little bit to Obamas victory. And most voters probably did not know what Obama would actually do.
So essentially, someone who voted for Obama has the same degree as guilt as someone who was deveived to give some minor help in a crime without better knowledge. Right now, i would say that there is not much guilt from that.
Now if Obama get's reelected, the story will be different - because then voters have knowledge about his actions.

However, the nation of which Obama is president bears responsiblity of his actions, because Obamas actions are also the actions of the USA.

Quite alright. It is a strange practice. I think most of the democracies established after ours avoided that bizarreness (I think Finland had one for awhile, but I'm not sure how much it resembled ours, and maybe one or two others out there), but unfortunately for us it's in our base constitution and thus removing or altering it requires a great deal of effort, as we have to amend the constitution. In fact, our twelfth and twenty-third amendments did make changes to the electoral college but there is a constant low-level debate that spikes every four years about whether it should be entirely scrapped or changed again.

The problem is simply that you have too much power in a single person who is not directly elected by any parliament.
You can not really combine multiple parties in a single person - that is already preventing a third party system. You can do that somewhat if that person needs the votes of multiple parties to get into office (like Merkel in Germany right now, who was elected by a coalition of CDU and FDP) - in that case that person has to respect the opinion of both parties, but will likely still work much more for one of them.

The problem is similar with the US Senate - because every state has only two senators, there is simply no way for a third party to get a good amount of influence, unless it manages to be a big party in that state.

Compare that to a large parliament, where there is room for third parties at least in theory. However, since it is still solely a disctrict-based system rather than a list-based system. In a list-based system, a number of votes that is not large enough to beat the two major parties in any of the districts could give you at least some seats, thereby increasing the viability of voting for a third party.

[Zaune]

Anyhow, sure, the occasional "out there" person being voted in happens, but the perceived risk of that is less on the local and state level. I mean, really, do you feel inclined to vote a "lunatic fringe" candidate into a position with the authority to launch nuclear weapons? The PotUS is an extremely powerful position, how much risk do you want to take with that office?

That's a much bigger moral conundrum than it sounds, because the downside to democracy is that you have to take the rough with the smooth. If a "lunatic fringe" candidate wins a clear popular majority, does anyone have the right to stand between them and office?

[Broomstick]

And frankly - torture SHOULD matter a LOT. To put it into an extrem form to illustrate my point:
Would you elect (someone) Hitler if he promised you jobs, a good economy etc. (and could probably deliver it) - and outright adovcated treating foreigners (not citizens) like he did historically with the jews?

While I do not, in any way, think that would be a good thing (after all, most of my father's family was obliterated by the Nazis in Europe) I do have a deep, abiding fear that there are people selfish enough in my own country that yes, they would happily sacrifice others for a good economy and secure employment.

That's why I think the kneejerk reaction of "vote third party" isn't always the proper choice. If it's a situation where voting third party virtually guarantees the bad guy will get into office, or voting for the guy of not-so-good credentials who stands a chance of winning and won't be as bad as the neo-Hitler... well, if I'm truly intent on doing everything possibly can to keep neo-Hitler out of office then is choosing the not-good-but-not-as-bad-as-Hitler an inherently wrong choice? If accepting four years of not wonderful stuff prevents another holocaust is it morally better to endure those four years than to increase the risk of neo-Hitler getting into office?

Again - we don't know who will be opposing Obama in 2012. Until we do, you can't definitively state he's worse than the opposition. We've got some asshats and nutjobs in our political parties (doesn't everyone?) that might advocate for going back to waterboarding and transporting people to other nations to be tortured and Og knows what else. In that case who is worse, Obama or the opposition or not voting?

I'm not saying that the situation is that extreme, but it's the same in principble, only on a lesser magnitude.

But one day it might be that extreme, which is why conversations such as this can get quite heated.

Someone who does morally reprehensible things is morally reprehensible, and voting for such a person is likewise morally reprehensible.

Not all morally reprehensible things are equally reprehensible. Cheating on one's spouse is morally reprehensible, but I laughed when Clinton got caught because, compared to some abuses of power the PotUS could do, it's actually pretty minor on the world stage. McCain refusing to vote to ban waterboarding in 2008 - that's huge and was a major reason I did not vote for McCain. I was under no illusion Obama was pure as the driven snow - he's fucking Chicago politician, for sure he's got skeletons in his closet, they just are still thoroughly buried.

You might not like Obama's record on Gitmo, but I'm still convinced it's better than his 2008 alternative would have done. Yes, that's damning with faint praise, I realize that. Until I know his 2012 opposition I can't say if Obama is better or worse than that man or woman.

Quite alright. It is a strange practice. I think most of the democracies established after ours avoided that bizarreness (I think Finland had one for awhile, but I'm not sure how much it resembled ours, and maybe one or two others out there), but unfortunately for us it's in our base constitution and thus removing or altering it requires a great deal of effort, as we have to amend the constitution. In fact, our twelfth and twenty-third amendments did make changes to the electoral college but there is a constant low-level debate that spikes every four years about whether it should be entirely scrapped or changed again.

The problem is simply that you have too much power in a single person who is not directly elected by any parliament.
You can not really combine multiple parties in a single person - that is already preventing a third party system. You can do that somewhat if that person needs the votes of multiple parties to get into office (like Merkel in Germany right now, who was elected by a coalition of CDU and FDP) - in that case that person has to respect the opinion of both parties, but will likely still work much more for one of them.

The problem is similar with the US Senate - because every state has only two senators, there is simply no way for a third party to get a good amount of influence, unless it manages to be a big party in that state.

We do have third party Senators from time to time - usually called "independents". The 111th Congress had two, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and another, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is a self-described "socialist" modeled on the social democrats in Europe. But yes, you're more likely to see third party Federal legislators in the House rather than the Senate.

The last time a third party in the US came to prominence was in the 1850's - when the upstarts calling themselves the "Republicans" replaced the Whigs. I'm hoping were not heading into times that turbulent. I don't think another US Civil War would be a good thing for anybody anywhere.

Compare that to a large parliament, where there is room for third parties at least in theory. However, since it is still solely a disctrict-based system rather than a list-based system. In a list-based system, a number of votes that is not large enough to beat the two major parties in any of the districts could give you at least some seats, thereby increasing the viability of voting for a third party.

I'm not familiar with this term "list-based system" - I've probably heard of it, but not with that terminology. Could you expand on that a bit?

[Serafina]

The last time a third party in the US came to prominence was in the 1850's - when the upstarts calling themselves the "Republicans" replaced the Whigs. I'm hoping were not heading into times that turbulent. I don't think another US Civil War would be a good thing for anybody anywhere.

The reason why your third-party candidates are crazy is because third parties are not viable in your system. A serious politican whose politics is at least somewhat compatible with either Democrats or Republicans will join either, because he simply has no real chance at anything otherwise. Thus, the only third-parties are composed of extremists who are incompatible with either of the two big parties.
Compare that to Germany where there are three minor parties who have pretty non-crazy politics.

I'm not familiar with this term "list-based system" - I've probably heard of it, but not with that terminology. Could you expand on that a bit?

Uh, i'm not even sure whether it's an official term. I'll explain it anyway

Okay, here in Germany, we have two votes in every national election (for our parliament, which then elects a chancelor).
The first vote goes to a candidate from your district - pretty much like your elections for the house of representatives. Whoever gets the most votes in his district get's elected into the Bundestag - this could even be someone of a very minor party. This amounts to about 300 seats in the Bundestag.
The second vote does not go to a candidate, but to a party - to a list of candidates. All votes for a party are counted together nation-wide - if it amounts to at least 5% of all votes cast, that party will move into the Bundestag - they can decide which of their candidates off that list will get those seats. The amounts of seats is simply divided according to the percentage of votes each party got (discounting those with less than 5% of all votes) - so a party that got 20% of all votes will get about 20% of the ~600 seats available for this part of the election.
Note that you have the same rights, votes etc. no matter how you got into the Bundestag, tough people elected from their disctrict tend to care more about local stuff than those elected from the list.

This system ensures that every party who manages to get at least 5% of all votes will have some represenation. The typical way for a small party to assert that influence is to ally with a big party: Of course the governing party needs to have at least 50% of all votes, so that coalition often ensures that Big Party A + Small Party B will have that majority.

So i can vote for one of the smaller parties without wasting my vote here in Germany (as long as the party is not too small), because it will be represented in the house and might actually become part of our next government, even tough it will be a minor part. This is mostly due to the list-votes, which just don't exist (to my knowledge) in the USA.
All you get are a very small number of independents - but they just don't have the same kind of influence, do not form an official part of the government and so on.

[mr friendly guy]

Lets use a variation of Broomstick's scenario. I will come outright and say that is a moral dilemna with the usual standard lines than a dilemna is not an ideal situation but its designed to test your moral code, blah blah blah. Any one who says moral dilemna's are worthless because they are contrived can shove it, because the situation postulated where American voters have to choose between the so called "lesser evil" is all too real.

If you vote for Obama you are culpable for what he does. Ok. If you however did not vote for him and the other guy (who is worse) wins (assume it was a narrow margin on the basis of people who chose to abstain or vote third party), aren't you morally culpable for what the other guy does, since you had the chance to put a lesser evil in the White House? Now you could argue that by voting third party (or not voting at all) you stick to the high moral ground and you opposed both of them. So your moral principle is intact. However tactically the decision is poor, is it not? Because right now we are stuck in a situation with the other guy, who is worse of.

Moral principles are in general supposed to help give us the better outcome (ie maximise human happiness). In this case if it did not (because the other guy is worse than Obama), does it not indicate that your system needs some refinements?

I would go on to say, that in this shitty scenario, the only way to have your cake and eat it too, that is you 1) maintain the high moral ground by not voting for either and yet are b) not responsible for putting the worse candidate in power (by refusing to support his chief competitor) is if

a) the polls are so skewed that it looks like Obama or the other guy is going to win anyway (assuming even if these people who vote for third party or abstains vote en mass for the underdog candidate) - not an unreasonable scenario or

b) you believe your third party will eventually become a force in politics (assuming they will enact legislation which is more moral, and they can eventually try to correct the wrongs done by the current administration), but it requires voters like yourself to get it off the ground so to speak, and show it can become a force - even if you believe it, the nature of American politics make it unlikely this will come ot pass.

[Cecelia5578]

Was that sarcasm, or are you serious? The Germans believe committing war crimes is wrong... hmm

In any case, my question still stands unanswered - why should the approval or lack thereof from some dude in Germany matter in terms of who I vote for here in the United States? Germany's approval of our voting process doesn't dictate who wins the election, and there other factors that simply torture to consider.

The other thing is, we here in the US have to live with the consequences of being idealistic, focusing on one single issue, and letting Republicans win.
Maybe, if I was a foreign leftist, or had the ability to a foreign country, my attitudes would change. But I find Thanas' attitiude to be...slightly callous towards the vast majority of Americans who would be hurt by a Republican government, much more so than the Democrats.

Focusing on civil liberties to the detriment of everything else reminds of of anti-abortion protesters who think that is the sole issue worthy of outrage.

[Soontir C'boath]

Focusing on civil liberties to the detriment of everything else reminds of of anti-abortion protesters who think that is the sole issue worthy of outrage.

This isn't an issue of definitions of what's life or not and the possible lives that won't see a day outside the womb. Nor is it just idealistic. This is a case where there are ACTUAL PEOPLE who have been interred for years without due process. For a nation that continues to talk about fighting for freedom, it is a constant reminder that it rings hollow.