Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: REDHEAD-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject:  M-INTRO: Buying your vote? a response to BUCKFUSH


As long as everyone keeps saying "my non-Republican
vote wont make any difference in Utah" IT WON'T! If
you look around you, dont you see alot more Pro-Kerry
or "Buck Fush" stickers on cars as opposed to Pro-Bush
propaganda.  Also, I know alot of Utah Republicans who
are voting for Kerry because they agree that Bush and
Co. blows/sucks.  Utah is ever changing.  There is a
growing ballance between right and left.  SLC has a
democratic mayor, we also have democrats in congress. 
I believe that the first step to changing a polarized
State is to change our attitudes.   Redhead

 
--- buckfush-AT-pseud.pseud wrote:

> Since a candidate receiving 5% of the popular vote
> becomes eligible for
> government funding in the following election,
> wouldn't it make sense for
> all of those people who are in the minority in their
> state to trade (or
> sell) their votes to those who live in swing-states?
>  (It is legal to
> sell pollution permits...why not votes, which are
> just another form of
> pollution permits).  My Kerry vote in Utah doesn't
> make a hill-of-beans
> difference to the outcome.  But an extra Kerry vote
> in Florida just
> might.  If I make a deal with someone in Florida
> that says they will
> vote for Kerry if I will vote for Nader, then it has
> two positive
> outcomes.  That makes it more possible for Kerry to
> win (and Bush to
> lose) and it secures a better chance of government
> funding of Nader in
> the 2008 race.  A win-win situation...unless you are
> a republican.  They
> will probably cry "unfair" and Scalia will
> 'interpret' the constitution
> again.  
> Unfortunately, it isn't true that Nader caused the
> democrats to lose in
> 2000.  Only looking at the total percentage of the
> popular vote is
> terribly misleading, due to the current make-up of
> the electoral
> college.  It doesn't matter if a candidate loses the
> state by one vote
> or by 100,000 votes...the result is the same.  So
> what if Nader got a
> good chunk of the 2000 votes...the relevant question
> is, which states
> did he get those votes in?  Votes in non-swing
> states are fine, so if
> all of his votes came from those states (Utah, for
> example), then his
> presence in the 2000 race did absolutely nothing to
> effect the outcome. 
> However, if he was receiving a lot of votes in the
> swing-states, then
> the people living in those states should have known
> better than that and
> voted democrat.  It should have been obvious that a
> non-republican or
> non-democrat candidate had no chance to win.  The
> slogan "you make your
> voice heard by voting" is true, but not necessarily
> for the reasons we
> might think.  Voting Nader in Florida definitely
> made your voice
> heard...it said loud and clear that you wanted Bush
> to win.  They chose
> to vote Nader, knowing that they live in a swing
> state.  Maybe they have
> learned something after the 2000 debacle.  
> I see nothing wrong with selling votes.  Wouldn't
> Marx say a vote is a
> commodity - something produced for sale or exchange?
>  The value of my
> vote is exchanged for the use-value of a certain
> candidate in the White
> House.  By selling a vote from a non-swing state to
> a swing-state, it is
> only making my vote heard.  It will never be so
> heard using the present
> system.  If we live in the greatest democracy, why
> does my vote only
> matter if I live in a certain geographical region? 
> Are we not one
> union?  The fact is, we are not made up of 50 equal
> states, but rather
> there are only 12-15 states that have any say in a
> presidential outcome.
>  I will gladly vote for someone other than Kerry if
> in so doing it
> doesn't secure Bush to another 4 years.  Depending
> on where you live, a
> vote for anyone other than Kerry is tantamount to a
> vote for Bush.  You
> don't need a certain total amount of votes to win an
> election,  you only
> need 1 more than your opponent.  If I take that 1
> vote from Kerry and
> give it to anyone else, then Bush has a 1-vote lead.
>  I am not voting
> for either Kerry or Bush but I am open to any
> un-decided swing-state
> voter to vote for Kerry and in return I will vote
> for whoever they want
> me to vote for.  The buying and selling of
> commodities in a beneficial
> manner to all of society...Marx would be smiling in
> his grave.
> 
> >>> REDHEAD-AT-pseud.pseud 10/15/2004 6:50:23 PM >>>
> Don't forget that Nader received a healthy chunk of
> funding from the Republican party.  He was
> theoretically blamed for the loss of the last
> election
> by the Democrats.  It seems that the majority of
> conservatives tend to vote Republican.  On the other
> hand, the liberals don't all tend to vote Democrat. 
> Many liberals will vote 3rd party because they want
> to
> "fight the norm", when in turn it just dilutes their
> voting power.  That was my mistake during the 2000
> election when I wasted my vote on Nader.  I would
> like
> nothing more than to elect a 3rd party to office.  I
> just don't know if America/Rest of the World, can
> endure 4 more years of the current regime while we
> wait for it.  Just remember that their is a good
> reason why Nader got his funding.     REDHEAD 
> 
> 
> 
> --- nhuggs-AT-pseud.pseud wrote:
> 
> > Yes, there is actually a website that explains it.
> 
> > Here it is:
> > 
> > http://www.votepair.org/ 
> > 
> > I don't really agree with it, but oh well.  The
> > issue of getting a third
> > party candidate money is an interesting one.  If a
> > candidate receives 5% of
> > the popular vote the party then qualifies for
> > government funding in the
> > following election.  It seems like most people in
> > this election are voting
> > for one candidate or the other only because they
> > cannot stand the other.  I
> > think we as Americans should have more than two
> > choices and should therefore
> > explore the platforms of the other parties.  We
> all
> > know who will win the
> > vote from Utah, but don't forget the third party
> > candidates.  Here are a
> > couple of links for those who want info but don't
> > know where to find it:
> > 
> > http://www.elections.utah.gov/2004candidates.htm 
> > 
> > http://www.voteutah.org/ 
> > 
> > Voteutah.org is a great site that gives
> non-partisan
> > info on where the
> > candidates stand on the issues in the local races.
> 
> > To me the local offices
> > are much more important and affect our lives much
> > more than the presidential
> > race.  Get informed and get out and vote!!!
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU 
> >
>
[mailto:owner-marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]
> 
> > On Behalf Of
> > JimmieJ-AT-pseud.pseud 
> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 9:24 PM
> > To: marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU 
> > Subject: M-INTRO: Buying your vote?
> > 
> > Today I heard a report on trading Nader votes for
> > Kerry votes.  I found it 
> > disturbing and intriguing at the same time. 
> Living
> > in Utah, we have no sway
> > 
> > in the Electoral College, pretty much not giving
> us
> > any choice in our 
> > president but the report was saying there are
> > websites that will put 
> > individuals together to vote for their candidates.
> 
> > So if a Nader voter in 
> > the east will exchange his vote for a Kerry vote
> > than Nader is given more 
> > government funds for his next campaign.  It is
> > ironic though, that the 
> > person on the east could possible say he'll vote
> for
> > Kerry but end up voting
> > 
> > for Nader to give him more money.  I wonder what
> > Marx would say about this 
> 
=== message truncated ==


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com


     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---