Stand up and be counted

Tess said:

Probably right about the same time others quit deciding for whom we should vote, and practically calling us enemies if we don't vote for the candidate who agrees with us on one issue and has abhorrent stances on some others. I was hoping to come back here and not face that attitude, at least so soon after the primaries, but it was a vain hope.

Click to expand...

I have put a considerable amount of time into thinking about this issue and I have to agree with you. I am not obliged to vote for anyone else's candidate just because my choice may or may not win the election. The candidate that gets my vote is the one with which I am most aligned. Tough cookies if others don't like it. I will not compromise my values so another's candidate 'may' win. The pressure from those on this forum to conform to their thinking (voting for their choice of candidate) is a bit alarming to me.

It's great to have principles and to be able to apply them effectively to the political process would be utopia. However, politics is the art of compromise, and to achieve any political success requires compromise. Voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning does allow one to express one's views, but at the expense of compromising other useful, important political objectives. The founders were big on compromise.

All of us here certainly support gun rights, but that isn't the only issue at stake in the upcoming elections. The best we can do is to elect a strong candidate who has broad support within the electorate and who will support our cause. To do so isn't a betrayal of our cause, but a strategy to further it. Or at least protect it from further damage by voting to ensure the General Assembly is weighted in our favor.

I would rather have you vote, than not.

Be an active citizen and be involved. Vote for the right guy, vote for the wrong guy, vote for the guy with no chance in hell, but vote. Do not sit on the couch. Let your voice be heard. Now, if you want to have any say in the future of our Commonwealth, vote for your issues which I believe are OUR issues. Political statements like civil disobedience, do have a cost. When our Rights are infringed, remember your conscience is clear, yet, you did nothing to stop it. I am in it for the fight. Join in. It is muddy down here but this is where the political wheel is pushed.

Grapeshot said:

Unfortunately, then you will become part of the problem.

If you want to see a strong independant candidate, things must be put in motion now for the future.

Dave Brat is a shining example of a staunch conservative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Brat

Click to expand...

Dave Brat is authentic, grass roots and somebody I trust. Ed G is the polar opposite of Dave Bratt.

Ed G is a weasel, and a political machine candidate who cannot be trusted for any government position, even dog catcher. My sense of right and wrong would prevent me from ever voting for Ed G.

Have to give VCDL credit, they endorsed a much better candidate than Ed G. in the Republican Primary, Corey Stewart. I was not a fan of Corey's fear mongering commercials, but his overall message was genuine and his overall positions were constitutionally sound.

JamesCanby said:

Tess, my friend, we've had this conversation before and I understand your position. Please vote for whoever you feel most comfortable with, but if that person has virtually no chance of being elected please understand that it dilutes the ability to elect someone who could actually be elected and who could prevent another McAulliffe-type regime. What must by uppermost in our minds is preventing Northam from becoming Governor.

Click to expand...

In this particular election, I will probably vote for the Republican candidate. He's not *anti* gun, and the very things that make him abhorrent to some "conservatives" make him palatable to me.

My point was simply that comments that tell others who to vote for, and calling them part of the problem if they don't vote your way, fosters divisiveness.

I would hope we would talk issues. We should discuss and debate issues. We should not, IMNSHO, excoriate those who disagree with us, which is how this thread began.

Tess said:

Probably right about the same time others quit deciding for whom we should vote, and practically calling us enemies if we don't vote for the candidate who agrees with us on one issue and has abhorrent stances on some others. I was hoping to come back here and not face that attitude, at least so soon after the primaries, but it was a vain hope.

Click to expand...

Definitely not telling you for whom you should vote; however, I am freely giving my opinion on what I think needs to be done. Keep things in perspective.

Vote as you wish, but please vote.

Tess said:

In this particular election, I will probably vote for the Republican candidate. He's not *anti* gun, and the very things that make him abhorrent to some "conservatives" make him palatable to me.

My point was simply that comments that tell others who to vote for, and calling them part of the problem if they don't vote your way, fosters divisiveness.

I would hope we would talk issues. We should discuss and debate issues. We should not, IMNSHO, excoriate those who disagree with us, which is how this thread began.

Click to expand...

I can just tell you guys, that is a clue.

When soft-spoken, respectful Tess says something like that, its time to duck.

I've seen the arguments of better men than me slain. Some were almost painful to watch.

Me? I'm looking for the nearest big rock to hide under.

JamesCanby said:

Here we go again ... promoting candidates that have NO chance at winning election. When will we ever learn?

Click to expand...

Yes I know, right. As a candidate, Ed G is a proven political loser. He lost the Virginia Senate race in 2014 when the anti-Obama sentiment was very high and there was no Trump blowback from the liberals.

He cannot win and yet some on this forum still support him. What a waste.

The problem is that those in the Republican machine do learn. They learn that they can take most gun owners for granted because no matter how bad the Republican candidate is, gun owners have a two candidate, lesser of two evils mentality.

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

History

Most people thought Johnson had no chance of winning in the last election. They were right. A whole lot of people felt the same way about Trump. They were wrong. "Ya takes ya chances." To give either major party an unbeatable or unwinnable status is to give up. I will fight. The tool I have is not what I would prefer but, Ed is the tool I have to work with. If I lose, I was at least in the fight. Losing this round is a sure and certain loss of our rights. I will fight as best as I am able. 4 years of Terry the Tyrant has motivated me. I do not choose that path for my Commonwealth. "Could-a", "Would-a", "Should-a" and "if only" taste pretty damn bitter. I have had enough servings of both. Join the fight or lose your rights, bad a choice as it is, it is a clear one.

No sane gun owner should vote for Northam. People need to see that and what it WILL cost them. Your vote is yours, the movement needs your energy.

Hyra Ballot Petition Sucessful

Great news!

Virginia has very exclusionary ballot laws that usually prevent all but Ds and Rs from appearing on statewide ballots. Hyra has however, passed that hurdle and will indeed appear on the November ballot as the Libertarian candidate.

I know it's off topic for the forum, and I'll remove it (or accept its removal) if mods so decide. But I encourage you who are arguing over two bad choices to look a little farther, and consider something like Instant Runoff Voting. With the current system, it is BAD for a candidate to have a position too close to another's. With IRL, the situation is greatly improved. (Another name is Ranked-Choice voting).

http://ballot-access.org/2017/01/13...-runoff-voting-for-congress-and-state-office/

http://www.pressherald.com/2017/06/...repeal-voter-passed-ranked-choice-voting-law/

"A voter-approved law making Maine the first state in the nation to used ranked-choice voting for statewide elections will stay in effect until at least next year after two legislative efforts to repeal it were unsuccessful Wednesday."

I cannot understand the constitutionality challenge: a majority is always a plurality, no?

Regards Magritte: Ceci n'est pas un nom du guerre.

Policy position web pages for the 3 candidates.

Libertarian Positions: http://cliffhyra.com/index.php/issues/

Republican Positions: https://edforvirginia.com/issues/

Democrat Positions: http://ralphnortham.com/issues/

ManoftheSea said:

I know it's off topic for the forum, and I'll remove it (or accept its removal) if mods so decide. But I encourage you who are arguing over two bad choices to look a little farther, and consider something like Instant Runoff Voting. With the current system, it is BAD for a candidate to have a position too close to another's. With IRL, the situation is greatly improved. (Another name is Ranked-Choice voting).

Click to expand...

I don't wish to drag things off topic and so will respond unusually briefly for me.

The Utah GOP used IRV in our conventions for a bit. I was initially a supporter as I was sold on the idea that it worked just like separate ballots, only faster. The results were not as promised by those who advocated for IRV. I, and most others in the party are now very much opposed to the use of IRV. Within county and State GOP conventions we have moved to using wireless, remote voting devices so delegates don't even have to leave their seats to vote. I personally have some security concerns. But those concerns are less than the downsides of what I observed actually happening when we used IRV.

All ranked choice voting methods have problems. Failure to meet the Monotonicity Criterion is chief among most of the popular methods. Condorcet Voting is the "best" ranked choice voting method for satisfying various mathematical criteria for "fairness", but the tabulation is so complex that you are effectively required to trust the results of the computer to tell you who won.

Perhaps most importantly, as we look around the world at nations with robust multi-party systems, we don't see that necessarily leading to better legislative outcomes. It is natural for great contests to resolve down to two sides. In our system, we the voters make that determination before and at the election. In Parliamentary nations, the powers-that-be decide what alliances will be after they are safely elected. I'm not at all convinced the latter is better than the former.

Nor do I claim to have great solutions for when the GOP candidate is only slightly less bad than the overly gun-grabbing, freedom hating Democrat. What I do believe is that for every complex problem, there is a simple solution that is probably wrong. I think ranked choice voting is one of those simple, but wrong solutions. I much prefer physical run-off elections in the rare cases where nobody gets a majority.