I Got Into an Argument With My Sister Today

[POC]

While busy at work today, I got a phone call from my sister. It was the kind of call that you could hear the bit chin before the receiver got 10 inches close to your ear. After yelling at her to shut the he** up, and listen, I had to explain that no, I wasn't voting for Ralph Nader.

Now, most of you don't know this, but I grew up in a politically active family. My dad was a party executive committee chairman in the county I grew up in. No, it wasn't some high fluting position. But, it was enough to keep every dinner conversation charged up if we weren't talking about baseball. That's just the way it was.

My sister has done well for herself, and is quick to let others know about it. Not saying she is a bad person, but that's the way she is too. Some things you just seem to learn by the time you are five or so. As the eldest of 6 kids, she takes liberties about pseudo-matriarchical duties. Some times I just let her feel important about herself, and go on about what ever it is that she feels is so important. Personally, I'd rather use the time to chat with you all about matters that I know are important.

Well, finally, I had to clue her in on whom I was voting for. His name is Michael Bidnarik - if only my father could hear me now (I really miss him:(  My sister went ballistic, "Michael WHO, I've never even heard of him. HOW IN THE HELL COULD YOU WASTE YOUR VOTE ON HIM?" I told my sister, "well, it's like this, there's only one candidate who believes that in the absence of wrong-doing, both parents should be meaningful parts of their kids' lives." That person's name is Michael Bidnarik.

With much more whining and moaning, I had to listen to how I was throwing my vote away to the other major party candidate. Calmly, I replied, "no, he doesn't believe in both parents being a meaningful part of their kids' lives either." I graduated with a Political Science degree, and I have thought about this a long time. I completely understand the dynamics of the two-party system we live in. That is the way the system is, and the way it was designed to be. I even thought what if my one vote in FL was to be the difference this election?

I know Michael Bidnarik will not be elected president. But, I could not imagine my vote meaning more than by saying the father of the first family in our country should openly express that both parents ought to be meaningful parts of their kids' lives. If something terrible were to happen to you before you got to vote in the next presidential election, wouldn't you want your kid(s) to know that both mothers and fathers are important?

For those of you wondering, no, I didn't let my sister win the argument today.

[joni]

I had the same argument with my FIL two weekends ago about Badnarik.  He's a registered Republican that votes Democrat because he doesn't want the government knowing what he's doing and he wants to screw up their statistics.  Whatever....

[cathy]

I mean, it is one thing to discuss/debate etc - but it sounds like she just lambasted you!  Excuse me, but last I checked, you do have the right to vote for the candidate of your choice!  Wow - I think I would have been very tempted to simply hang up.

Now that said - - here is something that always kind of nags at me about the "lesser known" candidates.  (I am not politically inclined, so help me out here - I'm just asking)

As a general rule, it seems that these "lesser known" candidates tend to be more liberally minded.  And it seems that we pretty much all agree that these "lesser known" candidates aren't going to be elected.  So, it seems that voting for the "lesser known" candidate typically results in the more conservation "major party" candidate winning.

I personally feel like I would be "wasting my vote" by voting for one of the "lesser known" candidates - and would in effect, be helping elect the "major" candidate that LEAST aligns with my beliefs.

So help me understand please!  I'm sure there is much more that I am missing.  Enlighten me!

[POC]

Lambasted, no, she just did a lot of frenetic shouting. Lambasted gives the connotation that she at least had made a point in some way. To the contrary, how could any parent support a candidate who does not even believe that both parents should be meaningful parts of their kids' lives? And, yes, she is a parent.

Truthfully, the issue has largely gone ignored in my family, even though they feel I am personally in the right. It is ironic that they take it much more personally now that I have forced them to consider larger implications. This issue concerns some 25 million parents and some 40 million children. They say how I can base my vote on one issue. Well, first of all it is hardly one issue. This issue directly affects crime, education, the deficit, teen suicide, welfare, child abuse and neglect, psychiatric care, and other issues indirectly. How many other issues have such a profound effect on 65 million Americans?

3rd party candidates aren't necessarily more liberal or conservative. They could very well be either. Ralph Nader is more liberal. Pat Buchanon and Ross Perot were more conservative. Michael Bidnarik has positions that are more liberal on some issues and more conservative on others.

As long as we have majority rule, we will always have a two-party system. 3rd parties serve a purpose of forcing one of the major parties to cannibalize the 3rd party when an issue(s) become popular in the 3rd party. If a major party is too reluctant to cannibalize sets of issues it will get over taken. That is what happened with the Whig Party. 3rd parties are also useful by forcing the two major parties to gravitate away from the middle. If left unmolested, the two major parties would just take the middle of the road on every issue, whereby voters would have no real difference in choices.

What drives this political mechanism are opportunistic voters. Nothing pisses off the machine operator more than for its parts not to work as intended. The operator is most effective when he/she doesn't have to concern themselves with looking over all the parts. They would prefer to look for loose parts that they can add to the machine, not tighten bolts down to keep it together.

That is all well and good if you are happy with the direction the machine is going. If not, it is the voter's duty unto him/herself to hop off the machine, if they know the machine is going down the wrong road. There will always be two major machines. But, each election, only one machine will get to cross the election road. The other machine has to figure out how to put enough parts together to cross the road next time.

Every voter should ask themselves; do they want to be a part of a machine that does not believe in the absence of wrong-doing that both parents should have the ability to be a meaningful part of their kids' lives?

[cathy]

this issue?  Or is it more that they have just ignored it?  Like I said, I don't really follow politics!

Thanks for your insights.  I do agree with a lot you say, and disagree with some -  like the implication of "lambast"  :-)   But I do appreciate the information and the glimpse into differing views!

And yes - I reallllly try hard to forget that the likes of Pat Buchanon exist! ;-)

[MYSONSDAD]

This is the first time I have ever been so politically involved. Usually don't give a sh!t. I think Michael is getting more support then we know. I keep passing the word.

And it is not a wasted vote. It is for the 'TEARS OF THE CHILDREN'.

Time for change. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils. Even when someone agrees he is the better choice, they will not vote for him because he is not a top runner.

If people want real change, they have to cast a real vote.

My first priority is the children...

[POC]

Bush and Kerry refuse to address the issue. However, Iowa Governor Vilsack signed into law this year presumptive equal parenting time law. Governor Vilsack was one the the 3 finalist to be JK's running mate. That may have played into not choosing him; I don't know. But, by not choosing him it was easier to avoid the issue.

This issue isn't going to go away. There are going to be a lot of politicians scrambling for any previous words of theirs that said, "of course, I believe both parents to be meaningful parts of their kids' lives should be protected." Problem is that cupbard is pretty bare right now. A lot of thes politicians are going to look pretty silly. I don't really care what they have to say. I just intend to force them to reply to my question.

If I get to pick the question, it doesn't really matter what their answer is.

[SLYarnell]

If all of us stood true to our issue he WOULD have a chance!