Quit saying "vote your conscience."

[Perd Hapley]

Everyone "votes their conscience." The people voting for Romney McCain are voting their conscience just as much as the rest of us, and their conscience says they have to vote for the RINO, to stop a worse candidate. Most of you will only read that far into the OP, and you'll rant about how voting for RINOs is bad. Go ahead, Don Quixote. I kind of agree with you, but you're missing the point.

For the rest of you, if you think that a conservative voting for a RINO isn't voting their conscience, then you don't quite understand how a conscience works. If that person is voting for McCain, even though they really don't like him, they may be obeying their conscience even more than you are. After all, you probably like your 3rd party guy. Or at least you like him more than the RINO. It's easier for you. It's not as much of a struggle to obey your conscience.

FWIW, I voted write-in, in 2012. I may do the same in 2016. Or my conscience may tell me to vote for Jeb Bush (though I doubt it.)

[French G.]

My conscience is waiting for a decent 3rd choice. It's been there nationally for some, not for me. Sarvis was okay in VA, let's see what his next deal is.

I'm really close to labeling everything Rino, going off the reservation and such, I've got one big rub with diehard 3rd party advocates and that's when they say ________ is the same or just as bad as ________________.  When that comparison involves the current blankety blank blank blank that we got yoked with it falls more than a little flat with me. In fact, it makes me pretty hostile to the proponent of the argument. I've made Manchurian candidate jokes, McCain is senile enough to think he knows what's good for the little people, Romney was not ideal as anyone from the NE with an R behind them is likely to be, but you know what? Those two I mentioned have some or a good bit of respect and affection for America.Not to say their vision might wildly differ but I think both could say "American exceptionalism" without pausing to spit. The one the get compared to hates America plain and simple. He wants to destroy us. McCain might be a weapons grade *expletive deleted*che but he wouldn't go on a worldwide apology tour. Romney may be an elitist rich guy, but doubtful he would have intentionally set race relations back 30 years.

[freakazoid]

[Ron]

-snip-

I used to be right at what you are describing. Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that the end result of having my lesser evil in office still results in the expansion of government in all areas as well as loss of liberty. No longer can I see any true benefit to the lesser evil being in control.

The leadership of Bush and Dennis Hasterd did more damage to freedom than  eight years of Clinton did far and away.

[cordex]

You ain't the boss of me, fistful.
Vote your conscience.

[AZRedhawk44]

I think when people say, "vote your conscience," often times they mean to say "vote your ideals."

[Perd Hapley]

I think when people say, "vote your conscience," often times they mean to say "vote your ideals."

Yeah, that's probably a much better way to phrase it. Well said.

[Hutch]

Firmly in the camp of "vote your ideals".  If we continue to vote for RINO's, the GOP will never get the message that jumping off a 50-foot cliff is not an acceptable alternative to jumping off a 100-ft cliff.

[roo_ster]

I think when people say, "vote your conscience," often times they mean to say "vote your ideals."

This.

I was not violating my conscience when I coyote voted for McCain and Romney in the general(1) elections of 2008 and 2012.  It was one of those things that you think is the best among several bad options.  And the big-L libertarian running was a putz I could not support.

One last word on 2008 and 2012:
Ron Paul was righter than anyone on both the economy and foreign policy in 2008 and 2012.  For that, he will never be forgiven.




(1) Voted for neither in the primaries.

[lee n. field]

I think when people say, "vote your conscience," often times they mean to say "vote your ideals."

Most people's consciences are somewhat seared anyway.  Unreliable.

[dogmush]

Firmly in the camp of "vote your ideals".  If we continue to vote for RINO's, the GOP will never get the message that jumping off a 50-foot cliff is not an acceptable alternative to jumping off a 100-ft cliff.

Me too.  I haven't gone "the lesser of two evils" since 2004.  And the more info that becomes public about just what our intel services have been doing with the Patriot Act the more I am convinced that RINO's with a friendly legislature are worse for the country then Dems and an adversarial legislature.  While I don't believe that Bush was evil incarnate, I am coming to the conclusion that what he did in 8 years of earnestly trying will end up being more damaging to liberty then 8 years of Obama's ineffectual flailing around Washington.

Vote your ideals and convince as many people around you to do the same and we might actually change something without resorting to the cartridge box. Obviously YMMV.  One thing's for certain, what we've been doing for the last 40-50 years ain't working for liberty.

[TommyGunn]

Me too.  I haven't gone "the lesser of two evils" since 2004.  And the more info that becomes public about just what our intel services have been doing with the Patriot Act the more I am convinced that RINO's with a friendly legislature are worse for the country then Dems and an adversarial legislature.  While I don't believe that Bush was evil incarnate, I am coming to the conclusion that what he did in 8 years of earnestly trying will end up being more damaging to liberty then 8 years of Obama's ineffectual flailing around Washington.

Vote your ideals and convince as many people around you to do the same and we might actually change something without resorting to the cartridge box. Obviously YMMV.  One thing's for certain, what we've been doing for the last 40-50 years ain't working for liberty.

Yet Obama's ineffectual flailing has left us with the most tepid economic recorvery (if you dare call it that) since the Great Depression of the 1930s.   There is always a downside to "ineffectual."
To be fair I have to wonder if Bush had had four more years ... or eight ... if he would have done what it takes to kickstart the economy full bore.
Ever since FDR it seems the template for kickstarting the economy seems to be to toss stimulus $$ at it.
Now one wants to remember we had a serious recession circa 1920-1 and a really good recovery without all this stimulus spending and Rooseveltian ABC programs and such........

[Brad Johnson]

"Vote Your Ideals" without adding the suffix "between the candidates most likely to win" is a makes-me-feel-good way of saying "I don't care about results as long as I get to play my way".  It's pat-yourself-on-the-back self righteous emotional fluff.  Period.  You can spin it any way you want, but the end result is the same.  At some point reality has to intervene, as reality is this thing we all live in and have to face each morning.

To use an analogy - A bus is plunging off a cliff.  There are two people in the front seat.  One is an abysmal driver, the other only so-so, but both are close enough to grab the wheel and at least get the bus headed away from the cliff.   There is also a professional driver in the bus, but so far enough back that he will get to the wheel just in time to enjoy the final plunge.  Your option is to either A) vote between the better of the two bad drivers or B) vote your conscience and select the professional driver.  Using the "vote your conscience" logic, you would choose the professional driver.  Why?  Because he is the best person for the job, never mind the fact that he has no chance of getting to a point where he/she can actually do the job.

"Voting your ideals" for a candidate with absolutely no chance of winning (i.e. voting for some guy you like, but who is only getting five or six percent in polling data) is pissing in the wind.  If you want change, you put your time, efforts, and vote into the thing, cause, or person with the greatest chance of being in a position to make that change.  Sure, your candidate may think just like you, but he/she will be about as effective as a tootsie roll in a cat box if they're sitting at home watching the inauguration ceremony just like you.

For those in the "I don't do 'lesser of two evils'.  If I don't like either candidate then I don't vote" camp... well... kiss off.  If you suborned reality to righteous indignation and decided not to vote because you "don't like either candidate", then screw your pious whining.  If you chose not to vote, shut the hell up and enjoy the outcome you contributed to. 

Brad

[lupinus]

Now Brad, don't go making sense.

[Fitz]

I think a more apt analogy is that both drivers will drive you off the cliff... But one will do it more slowly, while wearing the same party affiliation as you.

[Ron]

To use an analogy - A bus is plunging off a cliff.  There are two people in the front seat.  One is an abysmal driver, the other only so-so, but both are close enough to grab the wheel and at least get the bus headed away from the cliff.   There is also a professional driver in the bus, but so far enough back that he will get to the wheel just in time to enjoy the final plunge.  Your option is to either A) vote between the better of the two bad drivers or B) vote your conscience and select the professional driver.  Using the "vote your conscience" logic, you would choose the professional driver.  Why?  Because he is the best person for the job, never mind the fact that he has no chance of getting to a point where he/she can actually do the job.

You are making the assumption that the two closest potential drivers actually want to keep from driving off the cliff. As I see it the bus is heading right where they both are determined it should go. All you are doing by choosing them is giving your assent to their insanity.

[lupinus]

I think a more apt analogy is that both drivers will drive you off the cliff... But one will do it more slowly, while wearing the same party affiliation as you.

Sure, if both are blind and sure to do so.

But the guy that drives decent 90% of the time is a better choice than letting it go over the cliff by sticking with the great driver that aint got a chance in hell of making it to the wheel.

That goes out the window in both of the closer options are going to gun the throttle and insist their make believe bridge is in place. But that's not often the case.

[roo_ster]

One day,I will create an analogy to voting that does not include a cliff and a bus, but does include liverwurst and a pogo stick.

[Fitz]

The GOP at large has shown little interest in keeping us from going over.

[AZRedhawk44]

Instead of sitting in the bus and yielding to the two mental midgets that sit closest to the front (because it's always the retards that sit behind the bus driver anyways), how about I just open the emergency exit and jump out?

I reject your authority to compel me to sit in the bus.

(Damned anarchists.)

[Boomhauer]

Instead of sitting in the bus and yielding to the two mental midgets that sit closest to the front (because it's always the retards that sit behind the bus driver anyways), how about I just open the emergency exit and jump out?

I reject your authority to compel me to sit in the bus.

(Damned anarchists.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfVbiefMdNU

[Ben]

But the guy that drives decent 90% of the time is a better choice than letting it go over the cliff by sticking with the great driver that aint got a chance in hell of making it to the wheel.

I would place McCain at being a "30% driver" and Romney at being a "50% driver". That just ain't cuttin' it for me anymore. Don't see any "establishment guys" as of yet that would be better drivers than Romney for 2016. We need more than 50%.

[Perd Hapley]

"Vote Your Ideals" without adding the suffix "between the candidates most likely to win" is a makes-me-feel-good way of saying "I don't care about results as long as I get to play my way".  It's pat-yourself-on-the-back self righteous emotional fluff.  Period.  You can spin it any way you want, but the end result is the same.  At some point reality has to intervene, as reality is this thing we all live in and have to face each morning.

To use an analogy - A bus is plunging off a cliff.  There are two people in the front seat.  One is an abysmal driver, the other only so-so, but both are close enough to grab the wheel and at least get the bus headed away from the cliff.   There is also a professional driver in the bus, but so far enough back that he will get to the wheel just in time to enjoy the final plunge.  Your option is to either A) vote between the better of the two bad drivers or B) vote your conscience and select the professional driver.  Using the "vote your conscience" logic, you would choose the professional driver.  Why?  Because he is the best person for the job, never mind the fact that he has no chance of getting to a point where he/she can actually do the job.

"Voting your ideals" for a candidate with absolutely no chance of winning (i.e. voting for some guy you like, but who is only getting five or six percent in polling data) is pissing in the wind.  If you want change, you put your time, efforts, and vote into the thing, cause, or person with the greatest chance of being in a position to make that change.  Sure, your candidate may think just like you, but he/she will be about as effective as a tootsie roll in a cat box if they're sitting at home watching the inauguration ceremony just like you.

For those in the "I don't do 'lesser of two evils'.  If I don't like either candidate then I don't vote" camp... well... kiss off.  If you suborned reality to righteous indignation and decided not to vote because you "don't like either candidate", then screw your pious whining.  If you chose not to vote, shut the hell up and enjoy the outcome you contributed to.  

Brad

My reality, in 2012, was that I'm not voting for Mr. RomneyCare. Period.

Now if you feel that the RINO du election year is going to steer the bus away from the cliff, I don't blame you for voting for him. I didn't feel that was the case, so I didn't.

We've been heading for this cliff for as long as I can remember. It's time to quit using the stupid analogy. At least one of the parties wants the bus of America to be driving further and further off the path of reason, etc. The other party is, at best, not sure where to drive the bus. But if there's a cliff somewhere in the picture, we jumped off of it some time ago.

Instead of sitting in the bus and yielding to the two mental midgets that sit closest to the front (because it's always the retards that sit behind the bus driver anyways), how about I just open the emergency exit and jump out?

I reject your authority to compel me to sit in the bus.

(Damned anarchists.)

Oh, please. No one's keeping you in the bus. You know where the borders are. No one's keeping you from leaving the nation.

[Perd Hapley]

And another thing:

The bus crash analogy is flawed for, among other reasons, encouraging us to think that this nation's woes are something to be fixed in a presidential term, and by a president. They are not. They are problems we've been creating for generations, and that will take generations to correct, if we ever choose to correct them. They are problems that must be fixed in our own heads, not by a head of state.

[Brad Johnson]

And another thing:

The bus crash analogy is flawed for, among other reasons, encouraging us to think that this nation's woes are something to be fixed in a presidential term, and by a president. They are not. They are problems we've been creating for generations, and that will take generations to correct, if we ever choose to correct them. They are problems that must be fixed in our own heads, not by a head of state.

Nitpicky attempts at discretization through over-specificity and contextual compartmentalization notwithstanding, it accurately illustrates the futility of "voting your conscience" in a situation where your preferred agent of change has no realistic chance of being in a position to make the change you desire. 

Brad