If you're in the US, it's Election Day, so go vote. I'd like to say something here about how I don't care who you actually vote for, but of course that's not true-- I would strongly prefer it if you were to vote for Barack Obama and other Democrats, and against Mitt Romney and a Republican party that sees sneering contempt for modern science as a path to electoral victory.
But more than that, I prefer to live in the sort of country where people actually exercise their hard-won rights to help determine the future course of the nation. So, go vote. Even if it's for the wrong guy.
And if your fingers are twitching to type out a long screed about how there's no difference between the major parties and voting is completely insignificant and the results of all elections are controlled by Large Corporations/ the Bavarian Illuminati/ Alien Lizards from Zeta Reticuli, save yourself a little carpal tunnel stress, and don't bother. I'm not interested.
Actual substantive blogging will hopefully resume sometime, but between a series of work catastrophes and a vicious cold, I haven't had time. If nothing else, my class will be over at the end of next week, which should free up a little time.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Even if you are one of those people who does not see a significant difference between Obama and Romney (I disagree with you here; while Obama is hardly perfect he is a much better choice than Romney), there are still some downballot races you should be paying attention to. You have a Congressional race. Many of you have a contest for Senate (I don't) or Governor (I do). Most of you will have county and/or municipal elections (my municipal elections are in March, but the county people are up today)--these people often have a bigger effect on your day-to-day life than the federal government. Some states have the peculiar custom of electing judges, or other miscellaneous offices (we have an Executive Council). And many of you (like me) will have constitutional amendments to consider. Even if you don't see anybody you want to vote for, there might be somebody you want to vote against.
(For anyone who's curious: I'm in New Hampshire. Obama for President, Hassan for Governor, Shea-Porter for Congress. On the three constitutional questions: Hell no, HELL NO!!, and No, respectively.)
There may be only small differences between the parties, but they make a BIG difference in the lives of ordinary people (like you and me). Even more so with the GOP having gone batshit crazy. Eisenhower Republicans (currently largely housed in the Democratic Party) are still far better.
RE:
"And if your fingers are twitching to type out ... don’t bother. I’m not interested."
You presume to recommend how readers ought to vote and at the same time you then notify potential dissenters who (would, if you allowed them to) argue their views on the futility of this locked up system's phoney electoral process that you "aren't interested"? And of course consider yourself a respectable scientifically-minded thinker.
Fine. I"m Done with you and your pseudo-scientific blog, pal.
Neo-cons won the election when they ensured that both major parties fielded a neo-con candidate; one named Obama, one named Romney. Either way, you deserve the consequences, Chad.
proximity1 - I was going to make a snarky comment about the Zeta Reticulian's progressive tax restructuring plan, but I'll respond to you instead.
I don't think that Chad is a priori against people who express dissatisfaction with the two main political parties. Rather, I'm guessing he's expressing annoyance at the *tone* that these comments of dissatisfaction typically take on the internet. More often than not, people on the internet who post "Democrats and Republicans are the same party" don't do so with much rationality. Usually they're poorly written screeds filled with unsupported assertions, conspiratorial accusations, and faulty logic.
I can't say for certain, but I'd guess Chad would be happy to entertain a calm and objective assessment of the merits of third party candidates vis-a-vis the two established parties. He just doesn't want to see another dogmatic polemic filled with name calling and unsubstantiated soundbites. (e.g. if you're tempted to use the term "sheeple" in a post, you're probably in the wrong place).
Heck, I doubt Chad wants to see name calling and unsubstantiated soundbites in support of the two main candidates either - the only reason the "Republicrats" contingent gets a special call out is because they're particularly vocal on the internet and tend to be overeager to interject their viewpoint at any opportunity.
Our ballot in Colorado lists 17 candidates for president, including candidates from four different parties that have "Socialist" in their names, a Libertairan AND an Objectivist party, and a passel of others. By a quirk of state law, the American Constitution Party candidate was listed first, right above Obama and Romney. A visitor from the Zeta Recituli system might be excused for thinking we have a vigorous multi-party democracy.