Attorneys for the state Democratic Party headed to court in a dispute over whether candidates from the Green Party can be on the Texas ballot.-Texas Democrats go to court over Green Party
Why don't they let the people decide who they want to vote for? Oh, because it's not really about that, you see, but just about maintaining the illusion of choosing our leaders. No real choice is allowed.
Officially, there is a right of revolution. The People – capital P – are said to be sovereign. This is a convenient legal fiction. It keeps the citizenry satisfied and subdued. All civil governments have made armed revolution illegal. Every revolutionary movement claims the right of revolution. In all cases, when a revolutionary movement topples the previous regime, the right of revolution officially ceases within the formerly revolutionary camp.
Maybe you think this: "If the sovereignty of the citizens is a legal fiction, then why are they allowed to vote?" Answer: for the same reason they were allowed to vote in the Soviet Union. Voting provided the Communist government with a bogus sense of legitimacy. In Western political theory, the process of voting supposedly legitimizes the despotic regime. The choices on the ballot were screened by the Communist Party. So, the citizens' votes counted for only one thing: to provide a religious sanction from the official god who then submitted, namely, the People. The People was a phony collective god without meaningful sanctions. -Gary North
Progressives are told every election they must vote for the Democrat, regardless of what policies that Democrat supports. We are lectured, we are cajoled and we are scolded if we entertain the idea of voting for a third party candidate. Ralph Nadar is dubbed the ‘great spoiler’ because, so the logic goes, he single-handedly caused Gore and then Kerry to lose the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. The Green Party that has consistently promoted sustainable technologies and the preservation of our environment, two cornerstones of progressive thinking, is also considered a spoiler.
However, there is another truism that trumps the fallacious spoiler theory. It goes, “the definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result.” If progressives want fundamental change, they must consider making fundamental changes themselves. And the ‘spoiler theory’ is the first myth that must be changed.-“SPOILER THEORY” SPOILS DEMOCRACY
I disagree with the whole idea of voting myself (though I still look forward to any "throw the bums out" trend we may see this fall) and think we should just stop giving legitimacy to the ruling regime by doing this:
I don't think the stats were in the last time I checked for 2008, but there were more US adults capable of voting who chose not to vote than there were people who voted for the winner in every election since I was born. I think that means we voted for anarchy, or at least to not have a president. If you need any more proof we're ready for new parties, you must already be voting...ReplyDelete
I find it funny that yet again you are focusing on the Democrats. I never voted for a Democrat myself, but that's only because I understand that you have to vote for someone, not against someone. If I had to choose, I would take the Democrat over a Republican in every circumstance I have ever seen presented. But I digress... the point of this paragraph was really to point out that Republicans have been equally (if not more) hostile towards the Tea Party and other conservatives who play outside the Republican party... yet you focused on bashing liberals again for some reason.
Be honest... did Al Gore make advances on you as a child?