<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: False choices in selecting the American President</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrishardie.com/blog/2008/08/false-choices-in-selecting-the-american-president.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrishardie.com/blog/2008/08/false-choices-in-selecting-the-american-president.html</link>
	<description>Personal Blog for James Christopher Hardie</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:52:38 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Travis</title>
		<link>http://www.chrishardie.com/blog/2008/08/false-choices-in-selecting-the-american-president.html/comment-page-1#comment-86050</link>
		<dc:creator>Travis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/?p=296#comment-86050</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a skeptic. I have never had an opportunity to vote for anyone who reflects my values. And I never will. That is a false choice. I accept that fact, and also the fact that if I ever did have an opportunity to vote for a candidate who agreed with me, it would either be me, or it would be someone so obscure that no voter would even care, never mind the media-election machine. In today&#039;s America, anyone can vote for anyone. Choices abound. I don&#039;t know the numbers, but how many times have you heard of voters writing in Mickey Mouse? I know that I can choose between Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Socialist, pothead or slacker. No one is looking over my shoulder, tellin me, at gun point, how I must vote. It is incorrect to say that we have the choice between 2 parties &amp; 2 parties only. I can vote for anyone, but I choose to vote for someone other than Micky Mouse. Most voters realize this too. We all see more than 2 parties on the ballot. We&#039;re not dumb. But we have to choose, and, yes, we have to compromise. Even if someone is so sick of the 2 party system that they cast their vote for a 3rd party candidate, they never vote for someone who reflects exactly what they believe. If anyone agrees 100% with any candidate, they&#039;re lying to themselves. Every voter makes their choice based on politics &amp; posturing. A vote for a 3rd party candidate could be because they agree for a large part with that person, but it&#039;s mainly a big &quot;up yours&quot; to the status quo. And while that may be cathartic, and even politically viable, at the end of every day I ask myself who must be in the white house for the good of the world, and who must not be. And from these questions, I decide who I will vote for. And I&#039;m also aware that I am voting for a party--a community--of those whose beliefs, more than the other &quot;side&quot; (another false choice/dichotomy) jive with mine. A third-party candidate would have no such community, no party backing, and therefore no power to get anything done. Sure, they may have great ideas,and I might think they stole their ideas straight from my blog, but DC is run by political parties (and, of course, special interests, but primarily it&#039;s parties). If you&#039;re not in a party, your power is taken away. It&#039;s that simple. So, do I want a president who won&#039;t do everything that I would do if I were president, but might maybe a quarter or an eighth of the time--compared to a president who would do everything I would not do  98 percent of the time? Or do I want a president who would do what I would do 99 percent of the time, but would have no way of actually accomplishing a single thing because they have no power, thanks to the 2 party system that has shut them out? This is the real choice I make when I go to the polls.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'm a skeptic. I have never had an opportunity to vote for anyone who reflects my values. And I never will. That is a false choice. I accept that fact, and also the fact that if I ever did have an opportunity to vote for a candidate who agreed with me, it would either be me, or it would be someone so obscure that no voter would even care, never mind the media-election machine. In today's America, anyone can vote for anyone. Choices abound. I don't know the numbers, but how many times have you heard of voters writing in Mickey Mouse? I know that I can choose between Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Socialist, pothead or slacker. No one is looking over my shoulder, tellin me, at gun point, how I must vote. It is incorrect to say that we have the choice between 2 parties &amp; 2 parties only. I can vote for anyone, but I choose to vote for someone other than Micky Mouse. Most voters realize this too. We all see more than 2 parties on the ballot. We're not dumb. But we have to choose, and, yes, we have to compromise. Even if someone is so sick of the 2 party system that they cast their vote for a 3rd party candidate, they never vote for someone who reflects exactly what they believe. If anyone agrees 100% with any candidate, they're lying to themselves. Every voter makes their choice based on politics &amp; posturing. A vote for a 3rd party candidate could be because they agree for a large part with that person, but it's mainly a big "up yours" to the status quo. And while that may be cathartic, and even politically viable, at the end of every day I ask myself who must be in the white house for the good of the world, and who must not be. And from these questions, I decide who I will vote for. And I'm also aware that I am voting for a party--a community--of those whose beliefs, more than the other "side" (another false choice/dichotomy) jive with mine. A third-party candidate would have no such community, no party backing, and therefore no power to get anything done. Sure, they may have great ideas,and I might think they stole their ideas straight from my blog, but DC is run by political parties (and, of course, special interests, but primarily it's parties). If you're not in a party, your power is taken away. It's that simple. So, do I want a president who won't do everything that I would do if I were president, but might maybe a quarter or an eighth of the time--compared to a president who would do everything I would not do  98 percent of the time? Or do I want a president who would do what I would do 99 percent of the time, but would have no way of actually accomplishing a single thing because they have no power, thanks to the 2 party system that has shut them out? This is the real choice I make when I go to the polls.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anna lisa gross</title>
		<link>http://www.chrishardie.com/blog/2008/08/false-choices-in-selecting-the-american-president.html/comment-page-1#comment-86048</link>
		<dc:creator>anna lisa gross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:56:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrishardie.com/weblog/?p=296#comment-86048</guid>
		<description>this is excellent! thanks for pointing these things out. naming the subtle haze we live in is incredibly difficult, but such a gift for others.
i&#039;m shocked by how much time radio and other media (radio is where i get most of my news) spend reinforcing these notions with absolutely no awareness.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this is excellent! thanks for pointing these things out. naming the subtle haze we live in is incredibly difficult, but such a gift for others.<br />
i'm shocked by how much time radio and other media (radio is where i get most of my news) spend reinforcing these notions with absolutely no awareness.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
