I have to write an article...

[Aldanga]

I'd appreciate some help on this.

I'm writing an article for my University Newspaper. It's the third part in a three-part series on the election. I'm the 'third-party supporter' in the mix. I have a few ideas in my head, but I haven't yet sorted them out.

Here are the requirements for my article:


In the column, please talk about why you want to vote third party, who you want to vote for, and why you want to vote for that person. The column should be between 600-700 words.

FYI, I'm voting for Baldwin. I've thought about writing about Barr instead of Baldwin, but I can't bring myself to try to convince people to vote for someone whom I cannot in good conscience support. (I don't intend to make this a Baldwin vs. Barr thread. If you're voting for Barr, more power to you.)

My University is a small, private, Christian University. Most of the folks I know are voting for McCain, however reluctant they may be. (The most surprising thing to me is that almost every black guy I've seen has said he's voting for Obama, even if they disagree. Racism goes both ways, I guess.) Beyond McCain and Obama, most people think Nader is the only other person running. Even people in the PoliSci/History department think that!

So, where do you guys think I should go with this? My deadline is Friday. I can whip up an "A" paper within an hour or two, so I'm not horribly worried about the little time I have with this.

Any pointers you could give would be greatly appreciated.

[Slist]

Just as a personal opinion.. I would not write about any third party candidate but would try to convince people that Obama and McCain are not the only choices. That the conscientious voter has plenty of choice, that no one should vote for the lesser of two evils... that change might lie in other names... that there is more... some provocation maybe... condemning those that don't know about the programs of the third party candidates as sheep voters just trying to figure out the winner (ok no, that might be harsh).

Well.. I would write about why to choose a third party candidate, not someone in particular. By doing this you underline that there are many. If you would choose one, you would play the same game of "ignoring other candidates". And that would be undemocratic, no? :)

[jcarcinogen]

Same. I would point out how alike the Senators are. The Patriot Act, the FISA bill that granted telcoms immunity, and the Wall Street Bailout all voted 'Yea'.

Obama - $25 billion, McCain - $22 billion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-1Jj6YPYkQ

Omit the Paul donations, but Obama's and Mcains's are the same time period: http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/383/contributionhighlightsbm0.jpg
from www.opensecrets.org

A charade to give an illusion of choice while the policy never changes.

[Aldanga]

Just as a personal opinion.. I would not write about any third party candidate but would try to convince people that Obama and McCain are not the only choices. That the conscientious voter has plenty of choice, that no one should vote for the lesser of two evils... that change might lie in other names... that there is more... some provocation maybe... condemning those that don't know about the programs of the third party candidates as sheep voters just trying to figure out the winner (ok no, that might be harsh).

Well.. I would write about why to choose a third party candidate, not someone in particular. By doing this you underline that there are many. If you would choose one, you would play the same game of "ignoring other candidates". And that would be undemocratic, no? :)
Firstly, we don't live in a democracy and democracy should die. :eek:

I was thinking of doing something along those lines. I've just been trying to figure out how to fit it into the paper's model for my article. Part of me wonders if the guidelines were just to give me some purpose in my paper. I must think about that.

I will probably start later tonight after I finish some homework I need to do. Any further opinions will be greatly appreciated.

[Aldanga]

Here's my very rough draft.


How many kinds of Americans would you say there are? If you were to take into account every variation, there would be around 300 million unique definitions of what it means to be an American. So why are we told we must pick between only two candidates for President every four years? How is that American?

I’ve heard from my peers over and over again how they have a hard time distinguishing Sens. McCain and Obama from each other. Their stances on issues and voting records align so closely it’s downright scary. They both voted for the PATRIOT Act, the FISA bill, granting telecom immunity, as well as the recent Wall Street “bailout” bill, stealing $850 Billion from you and me to pay off Wall Street’s debts. In fact, according to OpenSecrets.org, if you look at the companies with the largest contributions to these candidates within the last five years, in both candidates’ top twenty are Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley. These three banks all profited from the bailout bills. Am I the only one bothered by this?

Some people might call me an idealist, and they would be correct. I am a man of high ideals and I hold to those. So when someone tells me I have to vote for someone with whom I disagree on most every issue, I take offense. There has to be another choice. There has to be a third-way.

There is a third way. In fact, there are four “third-ways.” If Sens. McCain and Obama do not represent your interests, there are four other candidates you should take a look at. Two former Reps. from Georgia are in this group: Bob Barr, who is running on the Libertarian ticket, and Cynthia McKinney, who is running on the Green Party ticket. Included also are Rev. Chuck Baldwin, who is representing the Constitution Party this election, and consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who is running as an independent.

These four candidates may have different views on how to fix the problems in our country—and they should if they are to represent the different ideals of the American people—but they all believe our two-party system does not fairly represent the needs of the American people. They are running because the system we have in place is not adequate and the “Republicrats” cannot and should not continue to hold a monopolistic sway over the political arena.

America was founded with the idea that personal differences do not and should not be shunned, but should be embraced as it shows the unique imagination of our Creator God. I may disagree with you on what movie is good, or what clothes are the coolest, or what music is the best, but I’m free to express this. You are free to express what you believe to be the best. In the same way, the American people shouldn’t be kept in a box. Our greatness as Americans lies not in the fact that we have money, or fame, or power. Our greatness lies in the fact that, as different as we are, we can all come together and express our own ideas without fear, and this is all for the betterment of ourselves and our nation. This is what unites us. This is what is truly American.

So I urge you: take an hour and research the six candidates’ positions, then find out who best represents you and what you think is best for our country, then vote for that person. A wasted vote is a vote for someone who will not lead the country in the way you think it should go. As Ralph Nader recently said on a CNN interview, “The lesser of two bads is not good enough for the American people.”



Any input? I'd really like some feedback on this. :o

[mediahasyou]

This is about Nader but it's relevant to the third party argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw1Aji8FzJc