This is the first Presidential election since the creation of America's Debate. I have been intrigued by the critical thinking on many issues discussed over the years. There is a libertarian bias in general to the mass of collective opinions. But, critical thinking and principles seems pretty well buried once we hit the campaigning season. This is my observation.

I can not figure out why there is such support for Kerry or Bush from people who participate in debates here. I do not seem them coming any where close to the principles held by a majority of the debaters. It is a symptom I see very often outside AD where there is a disconnect between strong opinions on an issue and who gets that same person's vote. School teacher union complain about the lack of funding from the state level and then endorse the incumbent. People complain about taxes and vote for the incumbent.

That same pattern is here on AD. I am not talking about the entrenched Democrats and Republicans who are here, those who are for their team first, issues interpreted to fit their man. I am speaking from the basis of sound principles and thinking. Why is it cast aside during a Presidential election?

I was expecting more from ADers. I was expecting support of candidates on specific issues and principles. I was expecting a broad examination of all candidates, not just the media darlings. I was expecting people to connect what they think is right with who they support for office.

My questions:

Has anyone else been as disillusioned as I?

Why is this so and what can be done to change it in the future?

Disillusioned? I was never illusioned to begin with. I fully understand that so long as we're working with a two party system, that necessarily means I'm hardly ever going to see a major party candidate I agree with on most issues, and if I'm to vote for either one, it'll be against my principles. I don't like it at all, but that's the system we're currently stuck with.

What can be done to change it? Let's treat third parties more fairly. Give them reaonable ballot access requirements. That's currently the case in some states, but in others, it's almost prohibitively difficult. Currently the LP has to spend the majority of it's resources just getting on the ballot, leaving them little to campaign with afterwards. And let's get the signficant third party candidates into the debates. For that purpose I'll define significant as being on the ballot in states with 270 electoral votes, so that it's mathematically possilbie for them to win.

Those are minimal steps to make the system more third-party friendly. Ulitimately it might take more fundamental reforms, but I'm not sire which to go with at this point. Maybe some sort of voting system involving a ranking of preferences?

Given the available choices, if I lived in a swing state, I'd have to go with Bush on the basis of considering Kerry not qualified by reason of a consistently peacenik record, both in the Senate and after returning from Vietnam, not at all IMHO what we need in time of war. But I live in a state that's locked up for Kerry, and I won't be able to change that with my vote, so I'm likely to vote for the guy I actually agree with on most issues, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party.

Not I, GS. Hey, you're free to open whatever debate you feel is important at any time. So what if you end up with a bunch of partisan yammering? There are many on this board willing to address any issue from a stance of principle.



Regarding partisanship in elections, dare I say Libertarians are as guilty as anybody for this? During the 2000 campign, I experimented and donated to the Libertarian party. Went to some of their meetings. Eh, politics as usual, just with added snootiness around here. Ended up voting Gore rather than Browne for Prez, and my tactic is still to give Libs a chance locally. This has been a definate act on principles. However, after reading Browne's book, I'd never let a Lib have the Presidency. I'm even reluctant for Congress.

I think if you stand back and look at any political debate, you will find a mixture of real stuff and concocted pseudo-logic to uphold a party line. I think AD stands apart in that members point out each other's concoctions.

So what can be done about it?

Start a debate. Defend a position. Attack concoctions -- just like what goes on here.

As far as always supporting a candidate who has exactly my positions . . . well, there are not enough candidates in the world to do that, as my positions are mine. Actually, I'd have to be the candidate, and so there you go. Compromise is not lacking in principles; it is a fact of life, more so in politics than personal.

And there's such a thing as being too principled to the point of obstinance. But I won't go into that here.

Heh, blessed be the peaceniks, eh Izdaari?

GS:

No candidate is ideal. In every election, decisions must be made on which candidate is better overall, rather than on every specific issue.

Bush has been wrong on protectionism, on border security, and on other issues.

Kerry has been right on something, I'm sure...

But debate is often about what is realistic, rather than what is ideal. Obviously, only I am the ideal candidate for President. Sadly, I was not on the ballot The same can be said of every participant here.

Has anyone else been as disillusioned as I?

There are some moments when I feel the debates have no meaning. That talking points take precedent over substance. It isn't always that way, nor does it have to be. Everyone here has the ability to forward the debate constructively. I encourage everyone to do so.

Why is this so and what can be done to change it in the future?

As with all such questions, the answer is : get involved. Only you can prevent forest fires (oops, wrong soap box...). Only you can focus the debate on what you feel is important.