Slashdot Mirror

Instead, vote for one of the smaller parties - if they receive 5% of the vote, then their funding is increased, and they may be able to work on something good in your area.

Or, you could vote for someone with principles, who doesn't believe you should be forced to fund him (through tax dollars) if you don't agree with him, and will refuse to accept matching funds even if he should reach the 5% qualification limit. There are two such candidates for president this year.

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

My choice for president is based primarily on the issue of abortion.

I honestly would consider John Kerry if he held a view in favor of helping mothers with unwanted pregnancies get counseling so they could make informed decisions before they became a statistic.

Human life is precious. I sincerely believe the war in Iraq is saving more lives than are being lost. But that isn't enough for me to vote for Bush.

I was conceived in 1973, the first year abortions became legal. It would be the last time my separated parents had sex before they divorced. Through a series of miracles, they didn't find out about the pregnancy until the 2nd trimester. The only state where it was legal to have an abortion at that stage was New York. Even though my parents lived in Georgia, my mom had the train ticket and hospital appointment. I thank God she stood up to my dad that day and didn't get on the train. She was the swing vote for my life that day.

Your vote makes a difference. I'm voting for Peroutka for president [Constitution Party]. I'm voting various parties for Congress and local legislature. If you're confused on who to vote for, find an issue that's a conviction and stick to it. You'll be able to sleep a whole lot better at night.

I'd prefer a President who was capable of respecting the constitution.

Have you considered voting for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party? Their basic political philosphy is strict interpretation of the Constitution and limiting the federal government to only those powers granted to it by the Constitution.

Actually, wouldn't voting for Peroutka send that message a little better? Is he on the ballot in Mass.? I just read his stance on issues, he makes Bush look like a flaming liberal.

--trb

They are certainly free to state an opinion. But we are just as free not to care.

European values are not my own. I value Liberty, strong families, life, and honor. So I'm voting for Peroutka.

From my looking outward, the EU looks like a bunch of selfish, hedonistic socialists who's general philosophy meanders somewhere between systematic whining and nihilism.

Mod me as flaimbait if you must, but keep in mind, this is no worse than what the opposition is saying about us.

Neither party

I'm sorry, you seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that there are only two parties to pick from. Allow me to share some info with you. For convenience, let's consider only the Presidential election.

There are actually 6 candidates for President who are on enough (I believe) states ballots to have a chance to win the election. Bush and Kerry, obviously, but also:

Mike Badnarik - Libertarian

David Cobb - Green

Ralph Nader - Independent

Mike Peroutka - Constitution

In addition, Roger Calero, the candiate for the Socialist Workers Party, is on the ballots in 14 states.

Finally, there are at least four other candidates who are on the ballots in at least two states:

(from ballot-access.org):

Socialist Party (Walt Brown) is on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Socialist Equality Party (Bill Van Auken) is on in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, and is in court in Ohio.

Prohibition Party (Gene Amondsen) is on in Colorado and Louisiana.

Workers World Party (John Parker) is on in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.


More details can be found at ballot-access.org

And a list of political parties in the United States is available as well.

seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.

The Libertarian Party is.

The coward is correct about Peroutka. I was going to say that I would give Bush four more terms before letting this nutjob take the helm, but then I realized that the moment he took office, everyone would stop taking the presidency seriously. Having a complete loon occupying the White House would just be harmless entertainment.

If you see any difference between the two candidates at all, and you're in a close state, you should vote for the lesser evil, not the guy-you-really-want-but-doesn't-have-a-shot-at-get ting-elected. Try hopping over to Votepair.org, and support your candidate without turning him into a dreaded spoiler.

Also in this election has been billed as of the highest importance.

This happens every time. Each election becomes "the most important/critical of our lifetime!" This way the parties whip us into an incoherent frenzy, creating a bitter partisan rivalry (between two sides that are really not all that much different) so that they can entrench their power that much more. Drive home that identity, so that it becomes more important than actually thinking about issues. "Damn the issues, my team must win no matter what it takes!"

Meanwhile, third parties like Libertarians, Greens, and Constitutionalists peacefully and thoughtfully debate real issues with very little rancor between them. Where else do you see a candidate defer to another who is probably the most ideologically removed from him to explain a point?

Independently thinking Americans are anathema to the Duopoly - a threat to their power. Why do you think they try to marginalize third parties through ballot access restrictions, debate exclusions, not addressing the voting system shortcomings? The Duopoly likes voters who blindly believe whatever they're told. Do yourself, and America, a favor on Nov 2 - vote third party.

Hi. I was one of a handful of people that voted for Howard Phillips in 2000. Up until the debates I was planning to vote for Michael Peroutka, although I am to this days registered as a Republican.

In a great many respects, I feel about the Republicans the way Ronald Reagan felt about the Democrats-- I didn't leave them, they left me! Although I was thrilled with the reforms that were made under the Contract With America, the past few years have been disappointing from a domestic agenda viewpoint. When I discovered the Constitution Party in 2000, I found its back-to-basics view of Federal government to be refreshing and exciting.

Anyway, here come the Democrats, 2004. They say Bush "lied" about Iraq, ignoring coroborating evidence from the United Kingdom, Russia and Israel. They say Bush is planning a "January Surprise" draft, which is utter nonsense. They clamor that more people will die because the ill-concieved "assualt weapons ban" expired. They have such venom for Bush personally that I am shocked.

I just do not undersand the bile and vented spleen at this man. Do I think all his policies are great? No. I'm not a fan of the PATRIOT Act. I'm not a big fan of the Department of Homeland Security (isn't that the job of the DoD?). I'm not a big fan of extra layers of govenment in general. But-- and here's the difference-- I do not think that Bush is the Devil himself [although, these Democrats might actually want an authentic Hellspawn for Commander In Chief]. I think Bush is a man of conviction and moral courage, upright, and respectable qualities. He does not sway back and forth with the whim of public opinion. He's overcome personal weakness and adversity to rise to Governor and then President.

Mike-- I hope you understand that although I am a fan of the Constitution Party and agree with most of the goals it strives for, I cannot stand idly by and let a man like George Bush be unjustly villified. I must, for conscious' sake, cast my ballot in favor of George Bush. I may not agree with all of his policies, but I must stand with the honest and upright.

Say tomorrow the constitution will say:

To promote domestic stability, wealth and expertise, by securing for domestic workers the limited preference of employment over foreign labor

Why would this article be any better or worse than the one about patents, other than you happen to be a patent agent rather than an IT admin?

Uh, because it doesn't exist in the Constitution and has not the slightest chance of being enshrined there by amendment, which requires passage of both houses of congress by a 2/3 margin and 3/4 of either the state legislatures. See the Wikipedia page I just spent some of my lunch hour updating, in the spirit of voluntarily donated intellectual property.

The Constitution is the foundation of our nation. It is what presidents swear to protect and defend when they're inaugurated. It cannot be changed if even a small minority of the country's citizens object to that change, not even for "homeland security" or anything else that strikes the majority's fancy at the time. You can't just trivialize it by saying, "well, what if it said this or that?" And, by the way, here's the presidential candidate who has my vote (and a contribution), the one true conservative on the ballot who is raising concerns about preserving the integrity of that inspired document: Michael Peroutka

That may have been due to the nature of the debates (primary vs general) themselves. It's a single party, all the candidates are going to have very similar views - that's why they chose to belong to the same party after all. Primary debates are more about finding who can deliver the message in the best (most lucid, most eloquent, most charismatic) way. But the fact that there were 6 candidates wasn't a problem hindering the process there, and I don't think it would be in the general election campaign either. The recent 4-way debate at Cornell lasted only an hour, yet everyone got to air their views on important and relevant subjects, and it was much more lively than the Duopoly's joint press conference was.

Slashdot had an article about the third-party debate at Cornell University. unfortunately, it was not broadcast.

I am not a big fan of their platform, but the Constitution Party has posted a page with a link to a download of the debate. (warning: the movie is a 67.4MB download).

I just got done watching it. It is a good debate, and a good chance to learn about some of the third-parties.

• And while we are on the subject of abortion, President G.W. Bush signed legislation in 2002 that increased funding for International Family Planning to the tune of $480.5 million making this Republican-led administration the biggest supporter of international baby butchery in U.S. history. That is not to mention the millions of dollars that Bush has approved for America's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
• 
  
  Recently, many "pro-lifers" heaped voluminous praise upon Mr. Bush when he decided to withhold a miniscule (by comparison) $34 million in federal funds from UNFPA (a UN abortion agency in China). What these ignorant (or deluded) "pro-lifers" failed to notice was that Bush redirected that $34 million to USAID Child Survival Health Program Fund. This fund includes money for "forecasting, purchasing, and supplying contraceptive commodities and other materials necessary for reproductive health programs."

What makes me think this here are a few links to his sight

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=388
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=377
One question to him on this one, where the heck in the Bible does God say you have gun rights. I am not against guns, it is just not in the Bible! And with Roy Moore he disobayed the law he should be removed (but that is another argument
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=260

These links were found here http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=categorylist&category=God

there is probably more but I don't want to speed all night on this

What makes me think this here are a few links to his sight

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=388
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=377
One question to him on this one, where the heck in the Bible does God say you have gun rights. I am not against guns, it is just not in the Bible! And with Roy Moore he disobayed the law he should be removed (but that is another argument
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=260

These links were found here http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=categorylist&category=God

there is probably more but I don't want to speed all night on this

What makes me think this here are a few links to his sight

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=388
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=377
One question to him on this one, where the heck in the Bible does God say you have gun rights. I am not against guns, it is just not in the Bible! And with Roy Moore he disobayed the law he should be removed (but that is another argument
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=260

These links were found here http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=categorylist&category=God

there is probably more but I don't want to speed all night on this

What makes me think this here are a few links to his sight

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=388
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=377
One question to him on this one, where the heck in the Bible does God say you have gun rights. I am not against guns, it is just not in the Bible! And with Roy Moore he disobayed the law he should be removed (but that is another argument
http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=itemview&event_id=260

These links were found here http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?act ion=categorylist&category=God

there is probably more but I don't want to speed all night on this

I would say who cares, I am a Republican and support Bush, but if some one wants to vote for Michael Dadnarik then let them vote for him they have all the right to, he has just as much right to run, just as Nadar does. Even if he "costs"* Bush the election, there are things higher in principle then victory at all cost.

I for one don't care who runs, and how many people, I have looked at some of the other candidate, I even looked at http://www.peroutka2004.com/ I like his pro-life stance, but he fails to do separation of church and state, and as a devout Lutheran that scares me, so I can not vote for him, and leaves be back at the only other pro-life candidate Bush, unless any one can give me another one to look at.

* I put costs in quoats, because in a republic like we have a politician does not own another persons vote, the person gives a vote as a gift to a candidate. I will be giving mine to Bush, but Bush does not own it.

He doesn't think the gay marriage amendment is necessary, because he thinks the states will all ban gay marriage. He does think it's wrong (based on his religion) and would deny people (of any religion) the right to marry the same sex.
From his front page: we are committed to a civil government in these United States that acknowledges God.
Most of his positions are based on scripture. So as President, he would make Christian issues into government policy.
He supports the idea of putting the ten commandments in court houses: the ones that are applicible (such as "Thou shalt not kill") are already represented in our legal code.

Perhaps I misrepresented his position by saying "theocracy". He does not want to merge Christianity and the US government, but he does want to base the US government, and its laws and policies, on Christian principles. His basic position is that the US (and man) were created by the Christian God, and that the US government should follow His teachings and laws, which is not appropriate for a nation so diverse.
You're right that the Constitution Party has similar views to the Libertarians. But the Constitution Party would say their main distinction is their belief that religion has a place in government.
Here's his page where he talks about how the government should "Honor God".

He doesn't think the gay marriage amendment is necessary, because he thinks the states will all ban gay marriage. He does think it's wrong (based on his religion) and would deny people (of any religion) the right to marry the same sex.
From his front page: we are committed to a civil government in these United States that acknowledges God.
Most of his positions are based on scripture. So as President, he would make Christian issues into government policy.
He supports the idea of putting the ten commandments in court houses: the ones that are applicible (such as "Thou shalt not kill") are already represented in our legal code.

Perhaps I misrepresented his position by saying "theocracy". He does not want to merge Christianity and the US government, but he does want to base the US government, and its laws and policies, on Christian principles. His basic position is that the US (and man) were created by the Christian God, and that the US government should follow His teachings and laws, which is not appropriate for a nation so diverse.
You're right that the Constitution Party has similar views to the Libertarians. But the Constitution Party would say their main distinction is their belief that religion has a place in government.
Here's his page where he talks about how the government should "Honor God".

Peroutka wants to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy.

People say the same thing about Bush. Hint: it isn't true, for either one.

Where do people get this stuff from? Just because someone has strong religious convictions, everyone assumes he'll force it down everyone else's throat? We have the First Amendment in large part because of strongly religious people that didn't want government enforcing any particular religion. Look at Peroutka's platform and take it at face value.

• You have the right to defend yourself, and use a gun to do so.
• Unborn babies are human beings with a right to life.
• Reduce gov't spending and balance the budget.
• Parents should oversee the education their children receive, not some gov't bureaucracy.
• Gov't should not be giving money to any faith-based group. [emphasis mine]
• The marriage amendment is not necessary. [emphasis mine]
• Trade agreements should benefit, not hurt, America.
• Secure and defend our borders, deport those who are here illegally.
• Government doesn't give us our (inherent inalienable) rights, government's job is to protect them.
• Smaller gov't.
• Medicare is a wasteful boondoggle, let people retain their own money and care for their own needs. (Likewise for other entitlements.)
• Eliminate income, inheritance, and property taxes. Legitimate gov't functions can be financed by excises and duties.
• Etc...

Now, you may disagree with these positions, but nowhere does he say, "I want to be a Christian dictator and force you all to go to church." He's a Christian, yes, and derives his political policies from his beliefs, yes. But doesn't everyone derive their policies from their beliefs? Are you deciding a priori that some policies are "bad" only because they come from religious beliefs? (Sounds intolerant.) Others could have the exact same policies derived from other sources - indeed, the Libertarian positions on most issues are very similar. Both call for limited government and personal responsibility; i.e. govern and conduct yourself well and you don't need much externally-imposed governance.

Badnarik and not Peroutka?

/me is mildly surprised.

However, there will be at least one additional third-party debates, and Peroutka is planning to be in it -- Oct. 6 at Cornell (Word .doc)

...at least according to a press release dated tomorrow :-). The Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips got 98,000 votes in 2000, behind the Green (Nader), Reform (Buchanan), and Libertarian (Browne) parties, but ahead of the Natural Law Party (Hagelin).

Hey Taco--
Can we get Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party as the next candidate? He is on the ballot in most states.

Hey Taco--
Can we get Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party as the next candidate? He is on the ballot in most states.

Why just the Libertarian party? Why not other third parties too. Personally I couldn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans in good conscience. But I couldn't vote for the Libertarians either. Check out all the parties that you can. Don't just latch onto the first one that's "Not Republicrat". That would be as bad as being in the "Not Bush" party.

There's David Cobb the Green Party candidate, Michael Peroutka the Constitution Party candidate, Ralph Nader the Reform Party candidate (no, I'm not kidding), and as mentioned, Michael Badnarik the Libertarian Party candidate.

Those are just the four parties I've heard the most mention of. If you don't like any of them, keep looking. If you're really interested in them, there are even Socialist and Nazi parties.

If you want a quick intro to the Green and Libertarian parties, search the videos on C-Span for the Cobb/Badnarik debate. It's very informative and gives you in a nutshell what the policies of the two parties are, and helps to highlight the problems of having just two major parties.