My interview with Jill Stein changed my mind drastically about how I look at voting.
“Our values should be the driver of democracy,” she said.
The first year I could vote for president was 2000. George Bush was running against Al Gore, and Green Ralph Nader was a third party candidate. I voted my values; I voted for Nader. That was the first and last time I thought of voting as an exercise of free will.
The backlash I got from all corners of my social circles was severe — “I was the reason Bush won,” “How could I be so stupid as to take votes away from Gore,” “Now look what I have done!”
As the years passed, it was obvious I made a grave mistake. Super-nationalism and a sharp political shift to the right after 9-11, backtracking environmental gains of the 1990s, and worst of all, the Iraq War, have all weighed heavily on my conscience.
Until I had the privilege of interviewing Jill Stein for IVN, I had made up my mind — I would strategically vote in a manner that will make sure my vote does not threaten what I hold dear as an American: civil rights, conserving natural resources, and good international leadership. I would sacrifice voting for a candidate I liked if it meant a candidate who stands against my values did not win.
Read the full article here.
The corollary is less well known, yet equally true.
Just because they are out to get you doesn’t mean you’re not paranoid.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you! 😉
Some people assume it must be conspiracy bugaboo, but there are actually quite a few public documents available about it.
Agenda 21 is not a “conspiracy theory”. It’s an actual program being implemented across the globe. Many of the words they use, such as “green” and “sustainable” seem like good things, but the ultimate goal is to stack people up in big cities, and remove private passenger vehicles and private home ownership. Oh, and depopulation.
Bugaboo?
I agree too.
But I admit, come the general election I’d vote for a yellow dog as long as their not a Democrat or Republican. Whether or not they don’t share my politics. I’ve even voted for a woman for state rep whose central issue was that “Agenda 21” bugaboo.
I heartily agree, Mr. Stryder!
She makes some good points, but ends the article stating that if there is not a candidate running who represents her interests, she will vote for the lesser of two evils. There is another option: not voting if there is no candidate you believe in, either by turning in a blank ballot or no ballot. For a libertarian, that might be preferable, perhaps with exceptions for “defensive voting” in the few cases where the outcome actually matters in some tangible way.
Would it have “mattered” between Gore or Bush? Not in my view, in the same way that the regime under Obama has done little to distinguish itself from the regime under Bush, if your objective is greater self-sovereignty, peace, and freedom. Instead the continuing erosion of personal freedom just seems to unfold in slightly different ways.
I much prefer voting for a candidate who “can’t win” even if not perfectly representative of my views, instead of voting who somebody with a chance of “winning.” I hate the thought of providing any justification for a candidate who use the election as a excuse to rule over me and millions of others who will profoundly disagree with his/her diktats and ruling philosophy.