20 October, 2008

Education Reform and the Presidential Race

This article (yes, I know, another link to Boundless) is a perfect example of why the education system in the United States should be demolished. Even as someone who wasn't mass-educated with peers, the system still affects me in negative ways. I hate it.

Which is why I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin as President. The man wants to disband the Department of Education, which is one of the things that Ron Paul wanted to do. By the way, Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. While voting for Chuck isn't quite like voting for Ron Paul, I'm more confident in a vote for Chuck than I would be for any other candidate. Chuck's policies resonate with my convictions except in one area. He's said nothing about the environment and the so-called energy crisis, and I care very much about those issues.

Some would say that I'm throwing my vote away on a candidate who will never get into office. I disagree. Vehemently. Voting for one of two majority parties, neither of which I support or agree with, is throwing my vote away. Voting for the candidate who seems most likely to get into office but barely agrees with my views on anything is foolish. I don't want McCain in office! Sure, he's pro-life, but consider that he won't have power to stop abortion! I don't agree with his energy policy or his foreign policy or his VP candidate or the reasons why he chose Sarah Palin as his VP candidate. And yet, I can't vote for Barack Obama. The man has terrible views on foreign policy and would bring this country even closer to a socialist state. I can't vote for that.

I'm sick of this two-party majority.

7 comments:

Jon Daley said...

I was in Ontario, Canada last weekend, and their elections are coming up (note, that one benefit of their system is that no one knows when there is going to be an election until Parliament votes to have one, and then the election takes place in 30 days after that - so none of this silliness for *years* while the candidates run around trying to get us to vote for them (and not doing their assigned job in the meantime)).

I think people would agree there are three major parties in their election, and a handful of minor ones. (I first noticed there were minor parties when the paper ran an article about what the minor parties stood for: the only two I remember are the Christian Heritage Party, and the Marijuana Party. The paper didn't describe the marijuana party - just said, "you can guess what they want"... I liked the statement of the CH party, but I guess that could be guessed....

I asked my aunt what she thought of the three parties, and she was fairly negative towards it, and the reason is that there is a conservative party "more conservative than your republicans", a party a little left of the US democrats, and then a way-left liberal group. She almost sounded like it was a conspiracy of the conservatives to have the liberals split apart, because if those parties weren't split, the conservatives wouldn't ever be elected.

So, it was interesting to me that the third party didn't help anything.

I have liked a number of the candidates from our "third" parties in the last couple of elections, I guess particularly the Constitutional and Libertarian parties.

Jon Daley said...

And now, contemplating whether I really would vote for one of the third parties in this election - the trouble is that while I am not thrilled with McCain, Obama is much, much worse, and might actually accomplish some things that he is promising, which would be really, really scary.

SursumCorda said...

I second Jon's second post. I had considered a protest vote, since I have real problems with McCain. But I'm all but certain Obama is going to win, and I want to do my part to make sure it isn't a landslide that he takes as a mandate for his policies. And just in case it's close...I don't want my vote to be the one that gave the election to Obama.

What Jon says about Obama being able to accomplish some of the things he is promising being really, really scary -- that's the absolute truth! When the presidency and both houses of Congress line up strongly for one party (any party) bad things happen.

One thing I know -- whoever is president will need our prayers more than ever. Both politically and economically these bode to be difficult times.

Marshall - bondChristian said...

I agree with surmumcorda on the landslide issue.

But I don't agree with you on voting for a third party. If you're all about voting for the person who you agree with the most, why not vote for yourself? Then you'd never disagree. Politics is more than voting for the most 'right' person.

It's about actually making a difference for the right reasons.

Sterling said...

"I'm sick and tired of this two-party majority"

You've got my sentiments there--- who in their right mind would ever think that Americans could fit neatly into two camps! I plan on voting for Chuck Baldwin as well (it's nice to hear an echo in the crowd).

Comments similar to some of the above, however, have me wrestling all over again with this question: "Since Obama is a frightful candidate, should I vote for McCain so as to keep him out, or should I vote for Chuck Baldwin and leave the results to God?" Well, to be fair, either action would leave the results to God, but it seems like voting for McCain is sort of like an Ishmael action, like trying to help God out. (Maybe I ought to write a blogpost on that, seeing I love politics and all.)

I do think Obama is a wretched socialist, but I don't think McCain is too far behind him.

Changing this two-party stranglehold has to start somewhere, but I guess it will be tough fighting to get there.

Laedelas Greenleaf said...

I'm glad this post got people talking! Your responses got me thinking, so I wrote another blog post. Thanks!

Jon, your aunt has an interesting opinion. I wonder what power the conservatives had over the liberals to make them split into two parties. Why don't the liberals use such tactics to split up the conservatives?

SC, from what I know about the Electoral College, individual votes matter but not a whole lot. Sure, individual votes matter in most political races, but the Presidential race is a tad different. Maybe I'm deceived, but the Electoral College doesn't have to regard the popular vote. If it did, why do all 21 EC votes from PA go to one candidate, even if that candidate wins by a narrow margin? That's not a rhetorical question, so if anyone has answers, please enlighten me!

Marshall, I would never vote for myself! I know I'd make a terrible President. Sure, I agree with myself, but I don't have the skills for the job :-) That reminds me of the scene in Pirates of the Caribbean III when Elizabeth Swann is voted as Pirate King. Anyway, care to explain your last statement? It sounds grand, but is rather vague.

Sterling, you should blog about it. I'm interested in your opinion about how this two-party system should change and how. Also, I'm glad I'm not the only vote that Chuck will get :-)

Jason said...

Interesting thoughts all around. I'm not in favor of stubborn idealism, but neither am I in favor of moral compromise.

If I have more time, I'll conribute more here later, but for now, one thought:
Interesting analogy, Sterling. I hear what you're saying about being careful not to try to "help God out," but I still don't know that the situation parallels. Abraham waited for the child of the promise. We don't have a president of a promise, but ultimately await the King of kings.

Basically, I agree with Dt's thoughts (see comment on above post) on this. But how does that bear out in the particular of my vote? I still don't know (which really bothers me... being this close to the election and still undecided)





infelfu
Interesting News From ELF Usage