How to convince a Christian to vote 3rd party?

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Then I'll tell you straight out. My conscience will be quite clear having voted for Michael Peroutka.

Wow ... inconceivable. Can you imagine the faces of all those babies who will die so you and other can make their "conscience vote"? I realize that is straightforward and to the point, but we need to start thinking here folks. We have gone down this road long enough. It is time to wake up and realize what Kerry will do to this country. I can't believe this is even a topic of conversation among people who claim to love life. Even assuming that Bush and Kerry are identical on social and fiscal policy (a laughable assertion to be sure), the issue of abortion is a clear demarcation between the two.

Did you notice how the strip joints are banding together to oppose Bush? Why? Because they understand his moral authority and moral will. Why aren't the people of light smarter than the people darkness? </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry, one could just as well ask the same thing of those that vote for Bush.
God doesn't tell us to do wrong to avoid more wrong. Voting for a candidate out of fear of someone worse is not an attempt to get a ruler who leads in the fear of God.
Abortion is legal. It's legal under Bush, and it will be legal under Kerry should he win. What's so bad about Kerry on this issue? What more can he do that isn't happening under Bush now? There most likely will be absolutely no change in the number of legal abortions performed.
Others or my choosing of a leader who best fits the description of ruling in fear of God does not make me responsible for others not doing so. It does not make others or me responsible for what those who don't fear God will do.
Gina

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by NetPublicist:
a) Third party candidate wins. Although it is highly unlikely, circumstances could evolve resulting in the third party candidate actually winning. Again, highly unlikely, but still possible under the right conditions.

b) Third party candidate loses, but garners a significant percentage of the votes. The objective here is to show that there are votes available that the Republican Party will not get until they change their ways. The objective is not based on finding and supporting a third party candidate who can win an election. For the foreseeable future, the chances of that happening are remote. Instead, the objective is to demonstrate to the Republican Party that voters will leave the party if they are not represented by that party. The working assumption by the Republican Party has always been that conservatives have no where else to turn, and that they are pragmatic enough to not "waste their vote" by voting for a third party. Our objective is to show that assumption to be false.

SOURCE

Of course, the problem as I see it is that the majority of America is not as conservative as most CPer's are. I would dare say that your party is a vast minority of actual voters in America just as Nader supporters are. Combined, they are enough to hurt someone in the middle but not really enough to effect any real positive change for their cause. Just enough to exact revenge on the candidate that doesn't meet up to their standards. So, you abandon the guy that is closest to your view, and then he abandons you for the majority of the country, which is moderate to liberal. Where does that leave you and your cause for the unborn? I'll tell you where. Nowhere. If you want to truly effect long term change, you don't start at the top at the national level. You start by electing people at the grassroots state level and by building support within the states. If the Constitution Party would do that, I would support them and do everything I could to help them become a viable national third party. It might take patience and a little bit of frustration and time, but in the long run, it would be worth it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
If the Constitution Party would do that, I would support them and do everything I could to help them become a viable national third party.

Joseph,

That is precisely the plan that Mark Moore, chairman of the Constitution Party of Arkansas, is seeking to implement here in Arkansas.

Wanna help?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Really.

Tell me moore...

Does he have some local candidates who will be on the ballot?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
So, you abandon the guy that is closest to your view, and then he abandons you for the majority of the country, which is moderate to liberal.

Yeah, this country is so moderate to liberal that a true conservative like, say Ronald Reagan, could never be elected president.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Does he have some local candidates who will be on the ballot?

That is why the party is trying to collect 14,000 signatures on petitions.

From a newspaper article:

Mark Moore, state chairman of the party, said he wanted to motivate members to run for office next year as state representatives and justices of the peace.

But even if he inspires a slate of candidates, he may have trouble getting the secretary of state’s office to put them on the ballot.

"We want our own brand name, and they’re not letting us have it," Moore said.

The rest of the article is at LINK.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Reagan had experience as Governor, name recognition, and the backing of a viable national party. He also had a message that resonated with the voters and a very weak opponet in Carter and Mondale. All of these things put together made him electable. I would venture a guess that not even Reagan, as much respect as I have for him, was as conservative on some issues as Peroutka. He was a great communicator and focused on about 3 major issues and stuck to them untill he accomplished them.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Really.

Tell me moore...

Does he have some local candidates who will be on the ballot?

Joseph Botwinick

There are many CP candidates around the country at all levels, in some states they are listed as either AIP or Independents because of the ballot access laws for third parties, but they are there. Then you have the cases like in Alabama when a conservative candidate wants to get on the ballot, but the Republican party does everything they can to block her because she has spoken in support of the Constitution Party. They Republican party would rather have a Democrat when the election there than to have a real conservative on the ballot.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Reagan had experience as Governor, name recognition, and the backing of a viable national party. He also had a message that resonated with the voters and a very weak opponet in Carter and Mondale. All of these things put together made him electable. I would venture a guess that not even Reagan, as much respect as I have for him, was as conservative on some issues as Peroutka. He was a great communicator and focused on about 3 major issues and stuck to them untill he accomplished them.

Joseph Botwinick

And then Bush came in 2000 and stripped all of those Reagan issues out of the GOP platform.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Does he have some local candidates who will be on the ballot?

That is why the party is trying to collect 14,000 signatures on petitions.

From a newspaper article:

Mark Moore, state chairman of the party, said he wanted to motivate members to run for office next year as state representatives and justices of the peace.

But even if he inspires a slate of candidates, he may have trouble getting the secretary of state’s office to put them on the ballot.

"We want our own brand name, and they’re not letting us have it," Moore said.

The rest of the article is at LINK. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank You for the information. Do you have to live in a certain part of the state to sign the petition, or is it statewide? I will be forwarding this link to some local conservative talk shows and asking them to discuss it on their radio shows in hopes of supporting this effort. Also, Jim Holt is running against Blank Stare Lincoln, isn't he? Now there is a guy we really need to get behind and elect.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[JGrubbs]

In North Carolina they wanted over 50,000 signatures just to get a candidate on the ballot. The two major parties have done a good job of trying to keep any other parties off the ballots. I was shocked when I started researching the ballot access laws from state to state.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Perhaps if you will take the issue straight to the conservative voters, they will have to back off. In my state, most of us listen to talk radio because they actually have some conservative voices on there. Put some pressure on them to allow the people the freedom to decide.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Hyperspace]

Originally posted by NetPublicist:
In North Carolina they wanted over 50,000 signatures just to get a candidate on the ballot. The two major parties have done a good job of trying to keep any other parties off the ballots. I was shocked when I started researching the ballot access laws from state to state.

Indiana is about 30,000.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I will be forwarding this link to some local conservative talk shows and asking them to discuss it on their radio shows in hopes of supporting this effort. Also, Jim Holt is running against Blank Stare Lincoln, isn't he? Now there is a guy we really need to get behind and elect.

Thanks, Joseph. The ballot effort is Statewide.

I expect the Constitution Party of Arkansas will endorse Jim Holt. We do not run a candidate in a race where another party has a limited, constitutional government candidate already on the ballot.

 

[JGrubbs]

In Maryland they weren't counting signatures for ballot access because people signed and put the month and day, but not the year.

You can find out more and follow the ballot access battle online at http://www.ballot-access.org/

 

[Daniel David]

Ken, I don't get you. First it was Peroutka, then Bush because of the war effort, now Peroutka, tomorrow ...

Wait, wait, you will vote for Bush, after you have voted against him. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ken, where would I go to sign the petition?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pastor Larry]

What's so bad about Kerry on this issue? What more can he do that isn't happening under Bush now?

He has pledged to appoint justices who will uphold abortion rights. Bush has pledged to appoint strict constructionists, which the other side understands rightly as "pro life." With Bush, the unborn have a chance. With Kerry, they have none. With Peroutka, they have none.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I suspect ballot access laws are designed to reserve the process to serious electable candidates. Does anyone remember the California recall election with all the people on the ballot? And that was only one state.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Ken, I don't get you.

Daniel,
I gave my explanation in a thread in the "Current Events/News" forum.

Now, have a good evening and a great day in the Lord tomorrow.

[ May 23, 2004, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]