How can you still be undecided?

[Angry Ayrab]

I am just curious as to why some people may still be undecided. I understand that neither of the candidates is perfect, but they do stand for obviously different things.

Here is a quick economic guide by CNN (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0806/gallery.election_issues/) for people that don't like reading much.

Personally, I am an indipendent because I am an ultra social conservative, yet a crazy ass economic liberal. Even though I am divided across the spectrum here, I find my vote for Obama an easy one to cast. Sure it does suck to have to vote for only Obama and Mccain if you don't want your vote counting for shit on election day, but that is what you get this late in the game from a two party system. Those who think that voting for the small guy this time around will do anything different then previous times are mistaken. If you want to change the current two party system, you are going to have to start working on that long before ballot day.

The other group that seems to confuse me, is the hardcore I ain't voting for anyone crew. Like that will show them... It just doesn't make sense to me.

Now just to let you guys know, I did not mean this post to be offensive, I am just very interested in your reasons for not picking a candidate yet.

[Lateralus]

I doubt I'm going to vote for either. You have to make a stand at some point.

[Angry Ayrab]

I doubt I'm going to vote for either. You have to make a stand at some point.

I still don't get it. What kind of stand are you making by not voting. Doing this will only lump you into the other half of the nation that never votes anyway. It is known that most people of voting age don't vote.

[Oberon]

I still don't get it. What kind of stand are you making by not voting.

I'll be voting, but not for either of the candidates our bifurcated single-party system has advanced.

I wouldn't cast a vote for anyone I wouldn't endorse in, say, a newspaper column.

[Jack Flak]

How can you not know why some people are undecided?!

There are a great deal of folks who don't care about any of the "major issues."

[Angry Ayrab]

I'll be voting, but not for either of the candidates our bifurcated single-party system has advanced.

I wouldn't cast a vote for anyone I wouldn't endorse in, say, a newspaper column.

See, this is where my issue stems about voting for the smaller parties. People have been voting for third parties over and over and over again and yet we still seem to be stuck with a two party system.

I don't know who said it, but it seems applicable here: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

This year, we will be stuck with either Mccain or Obama... end of story. Like I said earlier, this late in the game, voting for a third party will not help your cause at all. Your only option is to choose either of the two, unless you really think that they will do the exact same thing as each other. The question is, if you are forced to choose between two retarded captains to steer the ship, who will it be?

If the people are really tired and sick of the two party system, then they will rally up to get rid of it. The truth is that people are not sick enough to move on it. If you really want to influence them, then you will get with like minded people and work to change the system in the long run. It will take a lot of time and effort but it will be worth it if you really care. This last minute stuff really doesn't achieve anything.

I really do hope I am making sense, and I honestly don't mean to offend anyone with this.

[proteanmix]

Odd, I was going to start a thread similar thread about local politics but I suppose I'll throw it here.

I'm thinking a reason why some people are still undecided is because they're failing to see how issues will affect them. I was reading about the 2004 election and how people in Hinterlands, North Dakota (pop. 501) were more concerned about a terrorist attack on their town than people in NYC and DC.

In 2006 I proudly stuck my yo vote sticker on my hand I was talking to this random guy about voting and he was proud he didn't vote. At first I was disgusted but then I kept talking to him and he was telling me how he doesn't see how any of it affects him. I'm thinking many undecided voters or those apathetic to the democratic process feel a disconnect between how things will relate to them and politicians have done a crappy job communicating the how and why. A lot of issues that matter are (purposely?) obscured and we have so much information thrown at us people don't know how to sort through it all and throw their hands up in exasperation. It's so many factors going on... some people don't take their civic responsibility seriously or weren't taught to, some may be protesting their lack of options by note voting.

I've also had thoughts that people don't pay attention to their local news (not crime, but local issues that will most directly affect them). When I first voted in 2000 I didn't even know who the hell was running for local offices, no clue about the issues and basically left the booth feeling my vote was wasted. You also have to combat ignorance in the sense that most people simply don't know and not knowing could be preventing them from voting. I think there should be more emphasis on local politics so people will be engaged on the most basic level. Maybe apathy will decrease then.

[Lateralus]

I still don't get it. What kind of stand are you making by not voting. Doing this will only lump you into the other half of the nation that never votes anyway. It is known that most people of voting age don't vote.
I never said I wasn't going to vote.

[Oberon]

See, this is where my issue stems about voting for the smaller parties. People have been voting for third parties over and over and over again and yet we still seem to be stuck with a two party system.

I don't know who said it, but it seems applicable here: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.


That's a point... but on the other hand, if I oppose both of the mainstream candidates, to vote for one of them takes me from being merely illogical to being perverse.

I will not co-operate with a system that provides the illusion of choice. I'd rather use my vote to express my desire for what I really want and will never get, than to pretend to endorse the candidate I think will hurt the country least.

And it doesn't bother me if you don't get that. You're welcome not to get it.

[Lateralus]

See, this is where my issue stems about voting for the smaller parties. People have been voting for third parties over and over and over again and yet we still seem to be stuck with a two party system.

I don't know who said it, but it seems applicable here: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
I don't believe the Democratic and Republican parties will last forever. These two parties are as disconnected from reality as they've ever been. At some point, there will be a shift in power. So why not now?

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Personally, I am an indipendent because I am an ultra social conservative, yet a crazy ass economic liberal. Even though I am divided across the spectrum here, I find my vote for Obama an easy one to cast. Sure it does suck to have to vote for only Obama and Mccain if you don't want your vote counting for shit on election day, but that is what you get this late in the game from a two party system. Those who think that voting for the small guy this time around will do anything different then previous times are mistaken. If you want to change the current two party system, you are going to have to start working on that long before ballot day.

While I'm voting for Obama, I always encourage someone to vote third party if they are totally disgusted with the main two. There is such a thing as a protest vote, but it only gets counted if you actually vote for someone.

Also the way to think about voting depends on whether you are in a swing state or not. If you are in a swing state then your vote actually may decide the election. If you are in a red or blue state then your vote is really an indicator of which person/party you support. If your state is already decided then in one sense your vote won't decide the election even if you choose Obama or McCain. In this case when you vote for Obama, McCain or someone else you are simply showing support. If enough people start voting for third parties then future candidates will start shifting their positions in order to try to get those votes next time.


The other group that seems to confuse me, is the hardcore I ain't voting for anyone crew. Like that will show them... It just doesn't make sense to me.

This is the group that doesn't get it. When you refuse to vote, then you are telling politicians that you don't matter.

[pure_mercury]

See, this is where my issue stems about voting for the smaller parties. People have been voting for third parties over and over and over again and yet we still seem to be stuck with a two party system.

I don't know who said it, but it seems applicable here: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

This year, we will be stuck with either Mccain or Obama... end of story. Like I said earlier, this late in the game, voting for a third party will not help your cause at all. Your only option is to choose either of the two, unless you really think that they will do the exact same thing as each other. The question is, if you are forced to choose between two retarded captains to steer the ship, who will it be?

If the people are really tired and sick of the two party system, then they will rally up to get rid of it. The truth is that people are not sick enough to move on it. If you really want to influence them, then you will get with like minded people and work to change the system in the long run. It will take a lot of time and effort but it will be worth it if you really care. This last minute stuff really doesn't achieve anything.

I really do hope I am making sense, and I honestly don't mean to offend anyone with this.


You have it all wrong. When you vote for someone, you are assenting to their legislative power. It is far better to vote for a third party, or not to vote at all, than it is to vote for someone you don't like and wish weren't even nominated. Your mindset (along with criminally unfair and unconstitutional elections laws) prevents third parties from effecting much-needed change in this country. If there is a third party candidate whom you prefer, please vote for him/her.

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I'm not 100% decided, although I am definitely leaning heavily toward Obama. I think I have a fairly good reason, too. I'm a slightly leaning conservative, but over the last 25 years, the Republican party has abandoned reasonable conservatives and courted the batshit crazy vote - successfully. I'm probably going to vote for Obama, but not because I left the Republicans. They left me. Obama excites me in a way a candidate has not excited me since...*drumroll* John McCain. The 2000 version. Before the body snatchers got him.

I think not voting is a silly protest, but I think voting for a third party is a valuable protest. I'm sympathetic to claims that the two major parties represent a false choice, and to voters who feel it won't affect them too much either way...you're probably right. But I feel it's a duty...democracy is participatory. Every time you don't exercise your choice you make it easier for petty tyranny to flourish. There has just got to be one candidate that is slightly better for you. Or vote for a third party candidate. Here's the thing - nobody cares if you don't vote. It's a hollow protest. It's not a situation anyone feels compelled to remedy. Less voters to court means less resistance to whatever agenda some candidate wants to push.

[proteanmix]

Hmm, I was thinking about this more. I'm reading some stuff about it not necessarily being apathetic, just frustrated with the whole democratic process

Some reasons why people aren't voting:


Politics is too nasty and brutal
Their vote doesn't really mean anything
Inundated with information
Distrust of the government (especially after disasters like the "stolen" 2000 Election, the War in Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina)
Erosion of trust between people and their political leaders (political and corporate scandals a la Enron and Monica Lewinsky)
Nearly insurmountable partisanship
Voters feel like their representatives aren't really listening to what their needs are and are interested in fulfilling promises to those who fill their coffers

[Jack Flak]

LOL stolen election

[pure_mercury]

LOL stolen election

Count me in on that LOL. That election was settled the way they are supposed to be settled.

[proteanmix]

Count me in on that LOL. That election was settled the way they are supposed to be settled.

Even if it was settled the "right" way, there's still the perception that it wasn't. That's what you're dealing with here is people's perceptions.

[Jack Flak]

Yeah. Lot of that going around.

[pure_mercury]

Even if it was settled the "right" way, there's still the perception that it wasn't. That's what you're dealing with here is people's perceptions.

Oh, I understand. Still, I will laugh at people who try to maintain that it was stolen.

[InaF3157]

I think not voting is a silly protest, but I think voting for a third party is a valuable protest. I'm sympathetic to claims that the two major parties represent a false choice, and to voters who feel it won't affect them too much either way...you're probably right. But I feel it's a duty...democracy is participatory. Every time you don't exercise your choice you make it easier for petty tyranny to flourish.
I am sympathetic to this view but what about the idea that by participating you lend legitimacy to a process that is run by and for petty tyrants?

[EffEmDoubleyou]

LOL stolen election

Count me in on that LOL. That election was settled the way they are supposed to be settled.

To be fair, proteanmix put "stolen" in quotes. I think that's an appropriate description.

[Jack Flak]

To be fair, proteanmix put "stolen" in quotes. I think that's an appropriate description.
To be even fairer, it implies quite a bit. "Election controversy" is rather neutral in comparison.

[Athenian200]

The article you gave was a bit biased, because it only covered financial issues (Notice it was at money.cnn.com, not just cnn.com). If one only reads that, McCain looks like the obvious choice, even though he's against everything I stand for on other issues.

I've looked over both candidates... and I think that McCain's policies are better for the country financially, but that Obama's social policies are more fair. To be honest, that is why it's hard to choose.

I wish we had a candidate with Obama's sense of social justice, and McCain's financial sense. :(

Basically, I feel like I'm being asked to choose between people being treated unfairly according to outmoded social ideas, and having the nation collapse from bad economic decisions.

[pure_mercury]

To be fair, proteanmix put "stolen" in quotes. I think that's an appropriate description.

I noticed that. I didn't write anything about what proteanmix actually believes (and the quotation marks imply that she doesn't think it was stolen). I simply meant what I wrote: the idea that the election was stolen is silly, and so are the people who try to argue it. Since she doesn't seem to be arguing that, I don't think there is an issue here.

[ygolo]

Interesting, I made a little table:

Gas Prices: Prefer McCain
Driving: Push
Energy Secuirity: Prefer McCain
Taxing Wealth: Prefer McCain
Fighting Foreclosure: Prefer Obama
Mortgage Giant Rescue:Push
Mortgage Fraud: Prefer Obama
Social Security: Push
Medicare: Prefer Obama
Personal Taxes: Prefer Obama
Taxing Business: Prefer Obama
Healthcare: Prefer McCain
Bankruptcy: Prefer Obama
Savings: Prefer Obama
Free Trade: Prefer McCain
Budget Deficit: Push
Jobs ans Wages: Push
Wall Street: Prefer McCain
Small Business:Push

Total McCain:6
Total Obama:7

So it is rather close for me.

Also, I have a hard time believe Obama can actually do all the things he mentioned.

[proteanmix]

I noticed that. I didn't write anything about what proteanmix actually believes (and the quotation marks imply that she doesn't think it was stolen). I simply meant what I wrote: the idea that the election was stolen is silly, and so are the people who try to argue it. Since she doesn't seem to be arguing that, I don't think there is an issue here.

The quotation marks were a premeditated concession to those who don't believe it was stolen. ;)

[OneWithSoul]

Let's put it this way..If, in fact, I was eligible to vote, I would be undecided..I find pro's and con's with both McCain and Obama, therefore..it's hard to decide..plus, I know this is a bad thing to say..well..a really bad thing, and I mean no offense, but I have sort of given up on politics, it seems as though too many people get wrapped up in them, and that politics are causing so many problems..well maybe just the people in charge.

[pure_mercury]

The quotation marks were a premeditated concession to those who don't believe it was stolen. ;)

What do you believe?

[Angry Ayrab]

Even though it is off topic, I deserve it because I did bring it in. I still stand that for this year, voting for a third party is pointless other than to be spiteful. I personally live in a swing state, and I am making sure my vote counts. As was said earlier, if your vote really doesn't count (as in you live in an obviously red/blue state) then by all means vote for anyone you want. going back to people whose votes will count, you are kinda morally obliged to pick the lesser of two evils because the fate of the country does kinda sit in your hands.

I have already stated my reason why I think it is pointless to vote for a third party and I stick with it. Expecting different results for the same action is ludacris. People have been voting for third parties ever since they were stuck with the two party system but to no avail. For those who want change, a new course of action must be taken but much earlier on in the game, like maybe starting from right now for the 2016 election.

I understand the concept of not voting for a candidate you don't support but I see it as only spitefull in the case that your vote may decide the election. Anyway, to each there own.

[Cimarron]

...ludacris... You mean "ludicrous". As many people have said, the reason I am still undecided is because all the "choices" stink. I don't think it's hard to grasp how that would lead me, and others thinking the same thing, to be undecided.

[Angry Ayrab]

You mean "ludicrous".

Thanks...

:hug: :wubbie:

I can't wait till the interwebs/MSoffice destroy every last piece of English grammar/spelling. Personally, I am well on that track.

[Cimarron]

True enough. :D

"Strategic voting" sounded kind of dumb to me when I first heard of it, but I have been considering it lately. And I might get away with it, since I live in what some say will be a "swing state".

[pure_mercury]

Even though it is off topic, I deserve it because I did bring it in. I still stand that for this year, voting for a third party is pointless other than to be spiteful. I personally live in a swing state, and I am making sure my vote counts. As was said earlier, if your vote really doesn't count (as in you live in an obviously red/blue state) then by all means vote for anyone you want. going back to people whose votes will count, you are kinda morally obliged to pick the lesser of two evils because the fate of the country does kinda sit in your hands.

I have already stated my reason why I think it is pointless to vote for a third party and I stick with it. Expecting different results for the same action is ludacris. People have been voting for third parties ever since they were stuck with the two party system but to no avail. For those who want change, a new course of action must be taken but much earlier on in the game, like maybe starting from right now for the 2016 election.

I understand the concept of not voting for a candidate you don't support but I see it as only spitefull in the case that your vote may decide the election. Anyway, to each there own.


You really have to reassess this, because you couldn't be more wrong. It is not "spitefull" (sic) to vote for someone you believe in. We absolutely, positively DO NOT have to vote the lesser of two evils. Not at all. Stop telling us that we must, because you have no business telling us to do that. I find that highly offensive. "morally obliged," my ass.

[Antisocial one]

I don't see the problem.

Also some people simply don't want things to be settled.

[Angry Ayrab]

Stop telling us that we must, because you have no business telling us to do that. I find that highly offensive. "morally obliged," my ass.

lol,

then to your ass it shall go...

I am sorry, you are right, it is a free country and you aren't morally obliged to do anything, feel free to do what ever your heart desires.

*steps off the soap box and hands it over to pure mercury so his feewings won't be too huyt*

:hug:

[pure_mercury]

lol,

then to your ass it shall go...

I am sorry, you are right, it is a free country and you aren't morally obliged to do anything, feel free to do what ever your heart desires.

*steps off the soap box and hands it over to pure mercury so his feewings won't be too huyt*

:hug:


I was less personally offended than offended at the prevalence of people who think about this the way you do. You simply expressed those thoughts explicitly, which most people do not.

[Oberon]

I was less personally offended than offended at the prevalence of people who think about this the way you do. You simply expressed those thoughts explicitly, which most people do not.

I have had a number of people explain to me that if I didn't vote for one or the other of the big parties, there was something morally deficient about me. That logic escapes me.

[Lateralus]

Could we somehow combine the two into some sort of megapresident?

[pure_mercury]

I have had a number of people explain to me that if I didn't vote for one or the other of the big parties, there was something morally deficient about me. That logic escapes me.

I really think that they haven't thought the issue through. Many times, they are people who complain about politicians a lot. They use the line of thinking that "if you don't vote, you have no right to complain." That is also nonsense, although I personally make it a point to vote in every presidential election.

[Angry Ayrab]

I am now convinced that most of you have not done anything other than skim over what I have written instead of actually analyzing it.

I have stated over and over again that as of this year, you are going to get either a McCshit or an Otrasha in office for this election, if anyone else wins I will lop off my left nut and donate it to science. Unless you truly think that both of them will fuck up the country equally, It should be a concerned citizens duty to pick the candidate which would help the country (or in your belief case... Fuck it up less) most. This is others have already stated should only be applicable if your vote actually counts for shit. In my state the vote was decided by a very small number of people so my vote really does matter. I personally believe that Obama (out of the two) will do a much better job for the future of the country. I am human and I could be wrong.

My next point that I have mentioned already, is the idea that a concerned citizen that has trouble with the two party system that has been forced on us, should start working to change that from now for the upcoming elections, as it really is too late for this one. Now as I said earlier also, this is a free country, so feel free to do whatever you want, and don't worry about anyone else’s opinion of your actions (don't get your panties all tangled in a bunch over what I said). This is just my opinion and you can take it with a grain of salt.

Just to let you guys know, my original intention for the topic was how can you be undecided between Obama and Mccain when they obviously represent two really different sides (if you want to argue this point feel free, but they are different). The person who wins this thread was Proteanmix with the awesome analysis about voter apathy.

Thank you all for voicing your opinions and remember to not give a shit what anyone thinks of you and to try and keep your panties strait and loose while you are getting all heated up and sweaty. Take care and I do really love you guys.

[pure_mercury]

I am now convinced that most of you have not done anything other than skim over what I have written instead of actually analyzing it.

I have stated over and over again that as of this year, you are going to get either a McCshit or an Otrasha in office for this election, if anyone else wins I will lop off my left nut and donate it to science. Unless you truly think that both of them will fuck up the country equally, It should be a concerned citizens duty to pick the candidate which would help the country (or in your belief case... Fuck it up less) most. This is others have already stated should only be applicable if your vote actually counts for shit. In my state the vote was decided by a very small number of people so my vote really does matter. I personally believe that Obama (out of the two) will do a much better job for the future of the country. I am human and I could be wrong.

My next point that I have mentioned already, is the idea that a concerned citizen that has trouble with the two party system that has been forced on us, should start working to change that from now for the upcoming elections, as it really is too late for this one. Now as I said earlier also, this is a free country, so feel free to do whatever you want, and don't worry about anyone else’s opinion of your actions (don't get your panties all tangled in a bunch over what I said). This is just my opinion and you can take it with a grain of salt.

Just to let you guys know, my original intention for the topic was how can you be undecided between Obama and Mccain when they obviously represent two really different sides (if you want to argue this point feel free, but they are different). The person who wins this thread was Proteanmix with the awesome analysis about voter apathy.

Thank you all for voicing your opinions and remember to not give a shit what anyone thinks of you and to try and keep your panties strait and loose while you are getting all heated up and sweaty. Take care and I do really love you guys.


If you keep voting for people you know aren't the best for the country, you do more harm than you would by staying home. And Obama and McCain aren't all that different.

[Angry Ayrab]

Lol, I honestly believe Obama to be the best out of anybody for the country, but if you insist that they will both damage the country, then I understand where you are coming from. Just to let you know, damage control is an actually valid military strategy that is implimented in desperate times.

[pure_mercury]

Lol, I honestly believe Obama to be the best out of anybody for the country, but if you insist that they will both damage the country, then I understand where you are coming from. Just to let you know, damage control is an actually valid military strategy that is implimented in desperate times.

Most politicians do more harm than good. U.S. Presidents more than most. "Damage control" isn't an apt analogy for voting "the lesser of two evils." There are more options available. What you're describing is more like picking sides halfway through a war that should never have been fought in the first place.

[lowtech redneck]

You really have to reassess this, because you couldn't be more wrong. It is not "spitefull" (sic) to vote for someone you believe in. We absolutely, positively DO NOT have to vote the lesser of two evils. Not at all. Stop telling us that we must, because you have no business telling us to do that. I find that highly offensive. "morally obliged," my ass.

I agree, but I think it also behooves third-party supporters to remember that people are not morally defective for supporting the lessor of two evils. To a large extent, it depends upon how much difference you believe there is between the two "evils", or whether or not the "system" is so broken that participating in it is not worth the loss of moral integrity. For example, I often wonder if people are aware that there is usually an inverse relationship between the number of (effective) parties and the independence of politicians from the dictates of party bosses? Any ruling coalition is just that; a coalition comprised of the minimal number of disparate interests and passions necessary to achieve majority rule (for the sake of arguement, lets assume enough classical liberal safeguards are in place to ensure basic minority rights). Two-party presidential systems (the combination of a presidency with single-member districts ecourages a two-party system) simply make that process more transparant than is the case with multi-party Parliamentary systems.

Basically, I think there is enough difference between the two parties to "make a difference" (especially on the Supreme Court), and that relative similarities between the two parties (compared to other countries) is mostly a reflection of the fact that both operate within a state-nation that is ostensibly based on classically liberal norms and principles, limiting the extent to which each party can (overtly) deviate from the same.

[kuranes]

I mostly agree with Angry Ayrab, although I can understand the other side's POV. ( At other times I feel like it is as though someone were reminding me with a smirk that there is no Santa Claus nor was Christ born on Dec. 25 etc. when they see me buying Xmas presents. I'm like "yeah, yeah, whatever." Technically they're right, but so what ? )

I even voted a third party protest a couple times. I felt very dissatisfied afterward when I noticed how few votes the third party candidate(s) got.

Short of actually going out and joining or starting a grass roots cause that would make politics my life, I am voting for the lesser of two evils.

Knowing that a protest vote would maybe stack up to something someday ( be meaningful in retrospect as "one of the pioneers who died on the way towards the promised land we have today" etc. ) it may not affect much in my lifetime. And I am interested in changing conditions ( ( in some cases half is better than none ) during my lifetime. But then I'm older and don't have that many years left. A protest vote seems to make more sense if you're young. I don't think I'd go so far to say that it's "morally wrong", though.

All of the above statements of mine don't necessarily have to affect waiting for the last moment to decide which of the two majors to vote for, even if I know I am already leaning heavily towards one, though.

[pure_mercury]

I agree, but I think it also behooves third-party supporters to remember that people are not morally defective for supporting the lessor of two evils. To a large extent, it depends upon how much difference you believe there is between the two "evils", or whether or not the "system" is so broken that participating in it is not worth the loss of moral integrity. For example, I often wonder if people are aware that there is usually an inverse relationship between the number of (effective) parties and the independence of politicians from the dictates of party bosses? Any ruling coalition is just that; a coalition comprised of the minimal number of disparate interests and passions necessary to achieve majority rule (for the sake of arguement, lets assume enough classical liberal safeguards are in place to ensure basic minority rights). Two-party presidential systems (the combination of a presidency with single-member districts ecourages a two-party system) simply make that process more transparant than is the case with multi-party Parliamentary systems.

Basically, I think there is enough difference between the two parties to "make a difference" (especially on the Supreme Court), and that relative similarities between the two parties (compared to other countries) is mostly a reflection of the fact that both operate within a state-nation that is ostensibly based on classically liberal norms and principles, limiting the extent to which each party can (overtly) deviate from the same.

The United State is operating under "classically liberal norms and principles?" The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in Washington certainly are not.

[ajblaise]

I can see honest undecidedness if the person cares enough to vote, but not to do any research on the candidates at all. So basically all they hear are the most popular sound bites and talking points from each side.

[lowtech redneck]

The United State is operating under "classically liberal norms and principles?" The vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in Washington certainly are not.

Everything is relative, and I'm referring more to the justifications (which I genuinely believe to matter in the long-run) provided for enacted policies than the immediate policies chosen. More broadly, the more I learn about the political system/conditions of other countries, the more appreciative I am for my own country's sorry institutions. I can honestly say that no other country in the world reflects my personal principles better than the United States, and like anybody who considers Edmund Burke (along with Madison, Mill, and Hayek) to be one of their personal heroes, I am extremely leery of attempts to make the perfect the enemy of the good, or attempts toward radical "reform" over piecemeal reforms. I'm not asking that you (as a third-party supporter) share my priorities or perspective, merely that you understand the reasons for them and refrain from suggesting that people are morally or intellectually inferior for choosing between "a douchebag or a turd-sandwich" (incidentally, I loved that episode of South Park).