Voting for Peroutka?

loriborealis · 08-05-2004, 08:42 AM

To people voting Peroutka...

Do you really think he's got a chance? I only ask this because I'd like to vote for someone that I can feel at least SOME comfort in, but I don't know if it's worth the risk to throw away a vote when the actual outcome is so important. I mean whoever wins this election will make a huge impact on National Security and this war and I don't know if its wise of me (or of all of us) to just throw away a vote...

(This is not meant to be any kind of advertisement to vote one way or the other. It's not an attack on anyone. I'm jsut wondering what your thoughts and convictions are on voting this way. I feel dumb posting a thread on here so please don't berate me if I've done something wrong!)

*EDIT- I also wanna add that I ask this mainly because I do not know who I should vote for, and your opinions on the matter will be helpful.

Jas de F · 08-05-2004, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lori

Do you really think he's got a chance?

I think God is sovereign and can turn the hearts of the people however He chooses. if He wants Peroutka to win then it will happen. so in that sense, yes, Peroutka does have a chance.

looking at things from a purely secular perspective, no, he has absolutely no chance.

however, Deuteronomy 1:9-18 is, I believe, the Biblical precedent for representative government. Deuteronomy 1:13 says, in part, "Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes." I believe the command is *not* to choose the best man who can win...but simply to choose the best man, period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lori

I only ask this because I'd like to vote for someone that I can feel at least SOME comfort in, but I don't know if it's worth the risk to throw away a vote when the actual outcome is so important.

1. why is the outcome so important? 2. how will having Bush in office be superior to having Kerry in office?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lori

I mean whoever wins this election will make a huge impact on National Security and this war and I don't know if its wise of me (or of all of us) to just throw away a vote...

Kerry favors the missile defense system, voted to raise military pay, voted to overturn several Clinton-era line-item vetoes on military projects, favors foreign intervention just as much as Bush does on the apparently sole condition that such intervention is multilateral, supports Bush's foreign aid in Iraq (at least, in principle), promises to continue to fight the "war on terror," promises to increase the active duty military's troop strength by 40,000, promises to "lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation," supports the notion of preemptive strikes, and says he supports the decision to invade Iraq and the decision to disarm Iraq.

honestly, there's not a whole lot of difference between Bush and Kerry's foreign and military policies. some argument over whether the war should be unilateral or multilateral, yes, and more of the like, but there are no substantial differences.

**Role Modlin** · 08-05-2004, 11:18 AM

First of all, my vote for Peroutka is not a wasted vote. It is a vote based upon my personal convictions and it reflects my belief that I should vote for the most godly person running.

If you vote for Bush and he loses, did you waste your vote? Whether or not Peroutka wins or loses, I will be able to sleep at night knowing that I voted with my convictions. I can't do that with either Kerry or Bush.

And I'm still not convinced that Bush would be a better choice than Kerry anyways. I just can't play the "lesser of two evil" game anymore.

Shalom

bobthecockroach · 08-05-2004, 11:26 AM

Do you realize that your attitude there is exactly WHY Peroutka has little chance of winning? If people would get out of the two party mindset, then others would have a chance of winning the election.

I was fully intending to vote for Peroutka but have changed my mind based on reasons unrelated to his chance of winning. Had I not changed my mind I would have had no problem voting for someone that won't likely win.

In any event, I say perpetuating a flawed system (the two party system) is just as bad as "wasting a vote."

BurntHombre · 08-05-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loriborealis

To people voting Peroutka...

I'm not one, but I'll add my $0.02 anyway.

I'd consider voting for Peroutka if he had a record of serving in public office on which to run. I'd consider voting Constitution Party under similar circumstances. It's easy for a candidate or a party to make all sorts of promises, but I'd like to see evidence that the candidate, whatever his beliefs or principles, can work within the political system to bring those promises to fruition.

grand_master_d · 08-05-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Do you realize that your attitude there is exactly WHY Peroutka has little chance of winning? If people would get out of the two party mindset, then others would have a chance of winning the election.

She clearly said she was only asking a question. I don't think this is a reflection of her "attitude". Besides, I'm sure there is a lot more to it than just that. Possibly, people just don't want to vote for him, like yourself now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I was fully intending to vote for Peroutka but have changed my mind based on reasons unrelated to his chance of winning. Had I not changed my mind I would have had no problem voting for someone that won't likely win.

Could I ask what made you change your mind? Maybe PM me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

In any event, I say perpetuating a flawed system (the two party system) is just as bad as "wasting a vote."

The two party system is not so evil. I personally would hate seeing the leader of our country the same person who received, say, 25% of the popular vote. Our country is already divided enough with the vote split literally right down the middle.

**+Donny** · 08-05-2004, 05:44 PM

http://www.razormouth.com/-/000061.html

In regards to the question of whether Kerry would be just as good as Bush, I would say no. Even assuming their military/foreign policy is similar and assuming their fiscal policy is similar, their social policy is not. Bush had a hand in banning partial-birth abortions, and he is obviously not a big fan of homosexual marriages. Kerry, on the other hand, is liberal socially, so we can hardly say that they would produce the same thing given their widely divergent ethical outlooks.

zoe r · 08-05-2004, 08:05 PM

I really don’t think Peroutka is going to win the election, but I am voting for him based on personal convictions, like Lee. I can’t justify voting for Bush because of his foreign/military policies, and I can’t justify voting for Kerry because of his stance on abortion. There are a few issues I have with the Constitution party, such as firearm & environmental policies, but those don’t really conflict with Scripture as far as I can tell, like a lot of Bush’s & Kerry’s platform do.

perhaps · 08-05-2004, 08:19 PM

Vote for who you want to win, not for your second choice. That is the point of voting. No vote is a wasted vote. I don't believe there could be such thing.

the flamingo · 08-05-2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perhaps

Vote for who you want to win, not for your second choice. That is the point of voting. No vote is a wasted vote. I don't believe there could be such thing.

preach it sissssta!!!

Mike Graham · 08-05-2004, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loriborealis

To people voting Peroutka...

Do you really think he's got a chance? I only ask this because I'd like to vote for someone that I can feel at least SOME comfort in, but I don't know if it's worth the risk to throw away a vote when the actual outcome is so important.

No, of course he does not have a chance. Of course, here in Texas, neither does Kerry... nor that much there in Arkansas. If I lived in a state where it was closer or where Kerry was apt to win, I would vote for Bush, in all honesty.

I must ask myself what my reasons for casting my vote are. In a state where the winner was up in the air, say New Mexico, I would be apt to vote for Bush. I would hate to be part of a group responsible for Kerry winning the election, when I believe that Bush will do the better job.

If I was in a state where Kerry is apt to win by a landslide, say New York, I would also be apt to cast a vote for Bush, in order to show a support for conservatism, in hopes of promoting a shift in that state. This is closer to a short term solution, and I would hope it would be a step in the right direction, to a Biblically grounded nation, which is so different than the current state of the nation, it is not even comparable. However, I might still decide to use the situation as an opportunity to support the Constitution Party, for reasons similar to the ones of my actual current voting decision; however, I have not had to deal with that yet.

In a state like Texas, where Bush is apt to take it by a landslide, I have decided to vote for Peroutka. Still a compromise, I would love to see someone like this in office. However, this is not going to just happen one year (a couple people to a win.) The current goal, I would think, is a 5% vote, at which point a lot of funding is available. I would love to see this happen. The idea is that it could snowball from there, and eventually be a serious contender with a chance.

smhatahy · 08-05-2004, 10:56 PM

Quote:

In any event, I say perpetuating a flawed system (the two party system) is just as bad as "wasting a vote."

can u imagine it if 10 people had an equal chance of winning? the winner only would need around 10% of the vote.. or two parties would join to beat another party (in a 3 party system).. bad stuff like that would happen..

Mike Graham · 08-06-2004, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akshay626

can u imagine it if 10 people had an equal chance of winning? the winner only would need around 10% of the vote.. or two parties would join to beat another party (in a 3 party system).. bad stuff like that would happen..

Actually, in the US System, the person with the most electorial votes does not win unless they have a majority.

**slap_j** · 08-06-2004, 09:44 AM

I wouldn't vote at all if there wasn't someone like Peroutka running. The reason:

As a postmillennialist I believe that eventually the US will eventually be Christianized and a vote for either Bush or Kerry will not accomplish that. Voting for Peroutka will help build momentum and, as, Mike said, eventually snowball. I could be wrong. This party could die out and another likeminded party might reappear in the next few decades, but I really don't know.