Every single election cycle I hear the same message from Gay Inc.: you have to go vote, and you have to vote Democrat. Anything else, apparently, would lead to utter disaster. You simply can't vote for an evil, bad Republican, and voting for a third party… I mean, who even does that? Third parties are totally for hippies, nut jobs, and tin-hat wearers, amiright?
Every. Single. Year. The same exact message.
And you know what? The message is wrong. You should vote for whomever you think will best represent you. Period.
Vote (dem) Or Die
It's funny to me that every time I mention in a group that I want to vote for a Green Party or (god forbid) Socialist candidate the whole group gasps and stares at me with bewilderment. How could I vote for someone other than a Democrat! Everyone knows that if I vote for anyone other than the Democrat, I'll be "wasting" my vote and then the evil, vile, blood-thirsty Republican will eat me in my sleep. Seriously, everyone knows that. Just ask your average LGBT person at the gay bar, they'll tell you all about it.
But here's the thing: your average Democrat doesn't represent my beliefs. Most Democrats don't support full marriage equality, the unequivocal repeal of DADT, the inclusion of LGB and T folks in the civil rights bills, completely universal health care, stronger, larger government enterprises regulating more business and industry, free higher education, publicly subsidized political campaigns, etc. They simply don't support those causes. Occasionally Democrat X or Y might support one or two of these, but never more than that. Why should I accept that my representative only represents a tiny, tiny portion of what I believe in?
It's All Fun And Games Until The Conservative Wins
So then we're told that if I do go and vote for a third party candidate, I'm wasting my vote and hurting the candidate that is at least left-leaning. I've got two questions about that: why does that barely leftist candidate deserve my vote? And, will she really represent me better than the slightly right-leaning candidate? People that make this statement also assume that I would vote for the Democrat in the first place, which at this point is no longer the case. If the Democrat does not support my views, I will find a candidate that does and vote for them. So it follows that ultimately that vote that I cast for my non-mainstream candidate does not harm the mainstream candidate's chances.
It Ain't Easy Being Green
Was I under any delusion that a Green Party candidate or other far left party candidate was going to win this last election? No. But I do believe that me voting for the candidate that I truly support will send a message that Democrats cannot count on my vote any longer until they are willing to support my views.
"But they can't do anything if they aren't in power," some say. To which I reply "Oh really? Look what the Republicans did the last two years!" Not only did they halt the government, but they went back to the drawing board and reassessed their platform. They listened to the far-right in their party and they assimilated that platform. And you know what? It worked for them! For now at least… it'll blow up in their faces in a couple years, but they won in the short term.
If the Democrats want my vote, they need to earn it. Stand up for me, fight for me, pass the legislation you said you would pass. Until then, I'm throwing my weight behind someone who will do those things.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Monday, November 8, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Voter Suppression: The Biggest BS Of All
One of the most interesting thing I noticed this election cycle was the huge, exhaustive effort the various groups employed to essentially suppress voter turn-out. Voter suppression is a tactic as old as voting itself. The idea is to get your opponents supporters to not vote by any means possible. While out-right suppressive techniques are illegal, less obvious tactics are in a bit more of a grey area on the legality scale, and with nameless corporations and "super PACs" now able to spend endless money, these murky techniques are starting to show as the new par.
No Votes En Nevada
The most obvious voter suppression effort this election cycle happened in Nevada. A group posing as concerned Latino voters spent a good amount of money on a campaign to convince other Latino voters to simply not vote. Their supposed philosophy was that since none of the candidates had done anything to actually help Hispanic voters, voters should not support the candidates with their votes. Sounds reasonable enough, right? I mean, why vote if you don't think any of the candidates will help you?
Perhaps that would make sense if the vast majority of Hispanic Nevadans were not registered Democrats on course to vote Democrat again. And maybe it would make sense if the organization behind the push wasn't run by former members of various different Republican campaigns. When put into that light, it becomes a bit more disturbing. This organization was blatantly trying to convince Latino people to give up their right to vote because with less people voting Democrat, the Republican candidate would have a much better chance to win the election.
The truly amazing thing about it? There's not a damn thing that can be done about it. Per the Supreme Court, this private organization has the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on the campaign, regardless of the former ties to any related campaign and regardless of their obvious attempts at voter suppression.
Ooops... Did I Give You The Wrong Address?
What else did I see? A new way to vote was introduced this year to many Illinois voters: vote by mail! No need for absentee ballots, this was billed as another convenient way to due your patriotic duty. Here in Chicago, one particular organization was passing out information to people downtown with registration cards that you could quickly fill out and mail in to get registered. It was even postage paid, how easy is that?! Except that the address on the included envelope was not the correct address for voter registration… minor details.
Potentially thousands of Chicagoans sent off their "voter registration" so they could vote on their own time, but they never received their mail-in ballot. Many of those likely did not vote at all because they just never got their voting information. This all could have been just a mistake on the printing organization's part… but it's not likely. The organization claims they were receiving the registrations at their office so they could enter the voter information into their database and then forwarding those registrations on the the correct office. Right... I'm sure every one of those registrations made it to the correct office in time...
No Homo... Seriously
Something a bit more close to home was a campaign that "organically" popped up just a few weeks ago. Many gay blogs, and national news media outlets, were floating the idea of not voting at all as a protest to our Democratic overlords for not acting on enough of our causes. I use the "" because there's pretty much no reason for this argument to come up, particularly on the politically focused and active blogs I read. Yet there it was: Gays shouldn't vote because none of the candidates are supporting us.
It's very interesting when you see the statistics that LGBT folk, by and large, vote 75% Democrat. Yet all of the sudden, people within the movement were advocating a non-vote. Hmmmm...
Is this sounding familiar?
Stop Whining And Frackin' Vote Already
Were there Liberal groups doing this same thing to the Conservative base groups? Were churches hearing that they shouldn't vote because neither candidate was supportive of their causes? I honestly have no clue. I don't live in right-wing land, and I'm not a Conservative, so I'm not in a position to know, but I wouldn't be surprise. What is clear to me is that the large machine behind the parties were convinced that the best way to win an election was not to offer up a compelling case for your candidate, but to just stop your opponents supporters from expressing the voting rights. That is really, really sad.
If there's any take away from this it is this: If someone is telling you not to vote, you should question their motives. If someone is telling you they are considering just not voting, you should question their decision-making process. Your vote is the ONLY actuall chance you have at affecting policy. Sure, you can write angry letters to your Senator, or protest in front of your Governor's office, but NOTHING is more effective in showing support or disdain than showing up to your polling place and casting your vote. Yes, it's only one vote, but your one vote is your only real voice in this democracy. Don't let someone else suppress your voice simply because it doesn't agree with their opinion of the world.
No Votes En Nevada
The most obvious voter suppression effort this election cycle happened in Nevada. A group posing as concerned Latino voters spent a good amount of money on a campaign to convince other Latino voters to simply not vote. Their supposed philosophy was that since none of the candidates had done anything to actually help Hispanic voters, voters should not support the candidates with their votes. Sounds reasonable enough, right? I mean, why vote if you don't think any of the candidates will help you?
Perhaps that would make sense if the vast majority of Hispanic Nevadans were not registered Democrats on course to vote Democrat again. And maybe it would make sense if the organization behind the push wasn't run by former members of various different Republican campaigns. When put into that light, it becomes a bit more disturbing. This organization was blatantly trying to convince Latino people to give up their right to vote because with less people voting Democrat, the Republican candidate would have a much better chance to win the election.
The truly amazing thing about it? There's not a damn thing that can be done about it. Per the Supreme Court, this private organization has the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on the campaign, regardless of the former ties to any related campaign and regardless of their obvious attempts at voter suppression.
Ooops... Did I Give You The Wrong Address?
What else did I see? A new way to vote was introduced this year to many Illinois voters: vote by mail! No need for absentee ballots, this was billed as another convenient way to due your patriotic duty. Here in Chicago, one particular organization was passing out information to people downtown with registration cards that you could quickly fill out and mail in to get registered. It was even postage paid, how easy is that?! Except that the address on the included envelope was not the correct address for voter registration… minor details.
Potentially thousands of Chicagoans sent off their "voter registration" so they could vote on their own time, but they never received their mail-in ballot. Many of those likely did not vote at all because they just never got their voting information. This all could have been just a mistake on the printing organization's part… but it's not likely. The organization claims they were receiving the registrations at their office so they could enter the voter information into their database and then forwarding those registrations on the the correct office. Right... I'm sure every one of those registrations made it to the correct office in time...
No Homo... Seriously
Something a bit more close to home was a campaign that "organically" popped up just a few weeks ago. Many gay blogs, and national news media outlets, were floating the idea of not voting at all as a protest to our Democratic overlords for not acting on enough of our causes. I use the "" because there's pretty much no reason for this argument to come up, particularly on the politically focused and active blogs I read. Yet there it was: Gays shouldn't vote because none of the candidates are supporting us.
It's very interesting when you see the statistics that LGBT folk, by and large, vote 75% Democrat. Yet all of the sudden, people within the movement were advocating a non-vote. Hmmmm...
Is this sounding familiar?
Stop Whining And Frackin' Vote Already
Were there Liberal groups doing this same thing to the Conservative base groups? Were churches hearing that they shouldn't vote because neither candidate was supportive of their causes? I honestly have no clue. I don't live in right-wing land, and I'm not a Conservative, so I'm not in a position to know, but I wouldn't be surprise. What is clear to me is that the large machine behind the parties were convinced that the best way to win an election was not to offer up a compelling case for your candidate, but to just stop your opponents supporters from expressing the voting rights. That is really, really sad.
If there's any take away from this it is this: If someone is telling you not to vote, you should question their motives. If someone is telling you they are considering just not voting, you should question their decision-making process. Your vote is the ONLY actuall chance you have at affecting policy. Sure, you can write angry letters to your Senator, or protest in front of your Governor's office, but NOTHING is more effective in showing support or disdain than showing up to your polling place and casting your vote. Yes, it's only one vote, but your one vote is your only real voice in this democracy. Don't let someone else suppress your voice simply because it doesn't agree with their opinion of the world.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
I Like To Make Up Awards Too
So… the elections happened. Frankly, I'm finding it hard to be too upset about anything or too thrilled about anything unless it happens in my voting district, so I don't particularly care much for the wins and losses around the country. If people want crazy-ass freaks as their elected officials, so be it! They'll change their minds again in a couple years anyway.
Here in Illinois we elected Mark Kirk as our senator. And I'm supremely confused by that. I mean, this is a closeted gay guy that can't find it in himself to support marriage equality. He supports civil unions though. Which is great, if you enjoy being treated like the family pet getting fed table scraps. Aside from that, this is also the guy that can't remember which military medals and awards he's earned, so he just makes them up. Sounds like a super fella.
But whatever, as a friend pointed out he's not the worstest Republican out there. He does at least pretend to not completely hate the gays. Here's to 6 years of frustrating hypocrisy and angry letters from me!
Here in Illinois we elected Mark Kirk as our senator. And I'm supremely confused by that. I mean, this is a closeted gay guy that can't find it in himself to support marriage equality. He supports civil unions though. Which is great, if you enjoy being treated like the family pet getting fed table scraps. Aside from that, this is also the guy that can't remember which military medals and awards he's earned, so he just makes them up. Sounds like a super fella.
But whatever, as a friend pointed out he's not the worstest Republican out there. He does at least pretend to not completely hate the gays. Here's to 6 years of frustrating hypocrisy and angry letters from me!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Time To Move To Canada...
Fuck you, all you stupid fucking ass wipe twits that thought it'd be fun times and happiness to repress gay people in Maine, and subsequently all of the US. Why don't you pieces of shit just go ahead and put together the lynching mobs already?
Oh, to clarify, Maine voters decided that marriage equality wasn't a good thing. In fact, they decided that LGBT are simply dogs in the streets not worthy of any basic human rights at all...
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Canada's Crazy Christian Candidate
Congratulations Canada, the world is now aware that your country is not sull of roses, sunshine, and smiling, happy people. You have nutjobs just like everyone else.
Apparently, this David Popuescu fella from our Northerly neighbor has decided that it would be cute to tell a bunch of high school students that if he were elected to an office (any office, I presume), that he would kill gay people. Not persecute, torture, tickle, or "reform." Kill…. Yep.
Why would someone say these things? Because, he says, the Bible is clear as day on the issue, and he's a strict Biblist. Except when it's not convienient to be a literalist. But in this case, he's absolutely a strict interpreter of the Bible, because, well… gays are gay… and stuff...
Canada has some pretty stringent laws in place againt hate speech, so this duesche has been arrested and an investigation is under way into this vile man's words. Putting aside the "should someone be arrested simply for saying what they feel" debate, what is it about some forms of religion that push people to these extremes?! This guy probably has no intention of stoning his daughters on the court house steps, or waching the feet of any of his supporters, but when it comes to the 'mos, it's time to go all Biblical? While we are worried about radical Islamic terrorists in this country, shouldn't someone start being worried about the threats some of our extremist Christian churches are brewing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)