Bio not provided
I'm also disenchanted with the establishment candidates and the media's insistance that we vote for someone that can win as opposed to the best candidate. I hate that they continue to marginalize Ron Paul who is the only candidate who is offering real change.
If anyone other than Paul wins the nomination then I may not vote. My only hesitation being the importance of not getting Obamacare entrenched which will happen if Obama wins re-election.
By continuing to vote for candidates that we don't believe in, we own the results which obviously have not been good and leave people with the feeling that it doesn't matter which party you vote for because the results are pretty much the same.
The arguments given for not voting in the article assume that there is no redeeming value or difference between the two candidates which is not likely to be the case. I for example am pro-life and so even if the fiscal policies of Bush and Obama were the same, the fact that Bush limited the funding of abortions is a distinction that is worth voting for and in most cases there is something that's worth voting for. The problem for me is determining at what point is it worth throwing the baby out with the bath water.
3 years ago on Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils