Why I’m Not Voting for Bill Brady November 2, 2010

Why I’m Not Voting for Bill Brady

By Guest Contributor
November 2, 2010

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Bill Brady for Governor of Illinois. The video captures some of the important ones… and it doesn’t even mention his belief in Creationism:

Wherever you live, please go vote for the non-crazies. There are still a few of them out there.

They’re not perfect, but they’re progressive, and the alternative at this point is much more frightening.

Previous Post
A Megachurch Pastor Has the Courage to Come Out
Next Post
What is Respect?
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • rbray18

    i live in Oklahoma,far as i’m aware,the closest progressive we have lives in far north somewhere.our Governors race was for the longest time a pissing contest to see who was the biggest conservative anti Obama candidate.
    and the guy running against colburn has had zero ads on t.v. and i’ve seen maybe 3 ads from colburn.so that’s a lost cause in a major way.

  • Carlie

    That’s one of the best I’ve seen. Entertains while it informs.

  • bernerbits

    Both the Democrat and Republican candidates for governor in Tennessee, Mike McWherter and Bill Haslam, are bigoted assholes and are both on record as having pro-Christian, anti-choice, anti-homosexual, anti-science opinions. Our progressive governor, Phil Bredesen, is term-limited.

    The incumbent congresswoman for my district (gerrymandered to nullify liberal suburban Nashville votes), Marsha Blackburn, is all but guaranteed to keep her seat. She doesn’t even show up in opinion polls because our district is considered “Strong Republican”.

    I have no idea why I’m even voting today.

  • Bob

    @Bernerbits:

    Your vote is not a guarantee that the system will be perfect or be an ideal reflection of your beliefs.

    It is, however, essential to beating back the tide of breathless stupidity being embraced by a large segment of the population.

  • They’re not perfect, but they’re progressive, and the alternative at this point is much more frightening.

    Exactly. We had a small ballot this year, just the 6th Congressional District of NJ and a couple of county officials. I happen to think Frank Pallone votes for bad economic policies, but his challenger supports fairy tale economic policies (seriously, any Republican that talks about the deficit but disavows Roadmap for America loses all economic credibility. The Roadmap isn’t perfect, but it actually shows what it would take to follow through on the “fiscally conservative” rhetoric). Throw in the fact that I agree with Pallone on most non-economic issues, and it’s a no-brainer. Flawed candidates are better than off-the-reservation candidates.

  • BeamStalk

    @rbray18 – Yes, both of our candidates for Governor are creationists. I am fairly certain that Oklahoma decided to go for dumbest state in the country and are going to succeed at it. Screw the schools, we need to worry about Shariah law being used in courts instead. Also we should pass some unconstitutional laws so we can get sued and lose a lot of tax payer money. Go Oklahoma!

  • Even if your preferred candidate is almost guaranteed to lose, it is important to vote. It sends a message that there are people out there with different opinions on the issues that care enough to vote. That message needs to get out… especially in the reactionary times we live in.

  • As an atheist and a fiscal conservative, I have been left with terrible choices for far too long.

    Too bad the Libertarians can’t put something better together.

    Others should consider Green party candidate, Rich Whitney. He can be a good vote for some.

  • ChristopherTK: I feel your pain. I’m voting for a Republican and an incumbent today for my House district, primarily because his hit-and-miss fiscal conservate voting record is more promising than even the vaguest campaign literature put out by his Democrat-playing-centrist opponent.

    I’d probably vote for a libertarian even if they were more socially conservative, and let activist arm-twisting compensate for their policies. Anyway, small government can still step on people, but it’s a smaller boot.

  • muggle

    The choices for governor in New York are so horrendous that I’m just holding my breath that racist/sexist/homophobe Paladino doesn’t win. He probably won’t. Cuomo’s pretty much a shitty shoo-in lesser of two evils though he scored a couple of points durng the debate that surprised me. He’s still for firing State workers and anti-union.

    Yes, we’ve seven candidates for governor but… Redlich is just pathetic and seemed a little spacy; not sure if he’s a little off or just stoned but even stoned to that extent during a debate is not someone who should be in office. Davis is just for the rich and cutting things like Medicaid which means my grandson’s daily asthma medicine so he can freaking breathe so, no, I don’t think so. McMillen seems certifiably insane and is definitely a one-issue guy on something the governor has no power to do (lower rents; at best, he can get rent control limiting raising rents). Barron seems just as bigoted as Paladino and definitely only cares about black and Latino citizens so while he’s for some things I am like improved public transit, he’s not for me.

    Hawkins is bland and no personality but seems fairly intelligent and sane and give me that over theatrics any time, please, plus I’ve long been a fan of the Green Party. So he’s getting my vote and even though I know he won’t win, I don’t feel it’s pointless for the reason Jeff P points out above. Plus, if people would only stop being too cowardly to vote third party, maybe we could actually get some third parties elected which might actually make the Repugs and Dems come down off their high horses and swallow a huge heaping dose of reality! (OK, I can dream, can’t I?)

    And needless to say, I’m voting for Tonko and not this guy.

  • bernerbits

    Plus, if people would only stop being too cowardly to vote third party, maybe we could actually get some third parties elected which might actually make the Repugs and Dems come down off their high horses and swallow a huge heaping dose of reality!

    This problem is more than psychological; it’s actually inherent to the voting process as it currently exists. Simple majority voting naturally creates a two-party system, because the only way to vote against a candidate is to vote for his or her most likely competitor. Any other vote says “I don’t care who gets elected if my choice loses,” a statement that prohibitively few would actually agree with (and fewer still actually have the balls to stand behind).

    Instant runoff voting has been proposed as a solution to this. Briefly, voters rank candidates in order of preference, and candidates are scored by the first choice. Then, the minority candidate is successively eliminated while his or her votes are transferred (“run off”) to the next choices on the ballots, until only one candidate remains. This effectively allows you to have successive “fall back” votes, eliminating the perceived necessity of casting your vote for one of the most likely candidates.

    Granted, it would require a constitutional amendment, and it’s a HUUUGE longshot getting a 2-party congress to ratify something like this. However, it seems the only way to fix the inherent problems in a 2-party system is to fix the inherent problems in the voting system that gives rise to it.

  • BlueRidgeLady

    I know this was a minor part of the video, but gas chamber seems really messed up for killing shelter animals. It can’t be more humane than the blue juice injection. Can someone clarify this?

  • Andrew Morgan

    @ChristopherTK, Mad Hominem:

    I hear ya. I vote Republican and then hope for the best.

  • captsam

    when small government becomes corporate government that boot gets bigger not smaller.

  • O.K. For governor, I voted Libertarian, for the party, not the man & my wife voted Green party, the man, not the party.

    Rich Whitney, would have been my second choice. Quinn & Brady both tie ahead on S.L.C.

    I let my son (8) cast my vote because he was disappointed to have a 2 party vote at school and he was not allowed to write in another candidate. Imagine having to vote for Quinn or Brady. WTF!

  • muggle

    I hear you, bernerbits, but I adamantly disagree. I vote third party because I care and, because I’d rather vote for someone than against someone. And the situation you describe would change if any of those third parties started getting enough votes to actually win, it would change the situation you describe, no run-off nonsense or constitutional amendment needed.

    I really, really, really hate the assumption that voting third party is throwing your vote away.

    Do I expect Howie Hawkins who I just voted for to win? No, I don’t. But that is in part because people won’t even consider voting for third party. McMillen, sadly, will probably get more votes than he will — from morons who actually think the governor can lower their rents. We’ll also see how Davis does because the anti-prohibition crowd do have quite a bit of following in New York — thanks to the Rockefeller laws.

    But Cuomo will win. I’m pretty sure of that. Think that’ll keep the Republicans home though there’s next to no chance that Paladino will actually win? By the don’t vote third party logic, they would.

  • sarah

    i am in illinois and i most definitely did not vote for Bill Brady! he is so anti woman/gay/middle class/etc. he thinks it is ok for pharmacists to deny women their birth control OR post partum depression pills on “religious and moral ground” as well as drugs for HIV. i cannot believe the polls are as close as they are. i am hoping for a victory for Quinn.

  • bernerbits

    Muggle,

    I’m not discouraging anyone from voting third party. I’m saying a simple majority vote inherently pressures the people into favoring two candidates, because it actively encourages people to voting negatively (i.e. against their least favorite candidate).

    Yes, if any third-party candidate got a mere 34% of the votes and the two leading candidates got 33% each, then they would win. But an approximate 33/33/33 split just can’t be sustained indefinitely when people can only vote for one candidate. It has happened in the past, but it inevitably degenerates back into an approximate 50/50 split with one of the three parties fading into obscurity, because given enough time, the general population will inevitably lapse back into negative voting.

    Runoff voting, far from a nonsense proposition, actively encourages third-party votes, because you can vote for your favored candidate knowing that if they lose, you can still cast your vote for the “favored” candidate, essentially eliminating the perception that one must vote “safely.”

    Just my two cents, of course. I understand the ideal of a multi-party system, but I don’t believe a simple majority is expressive enough to handle more than 2 major candidates and I believe runoff voting would encourage third-party voting far better than trying to get people to overcome their fears.

    And again, I concede that it’s a longshot, but probably no worse than the kind of massive reeducation campaign that would be required to get enough people out of the negative voting mindset long enough to give a third party a fighting chance.

  • bernerbits, I’ve also been a proponent of IRV for some time now, but I do think the obstacle to it isn’t as great as you fear, because state constitutions can often be amended on up-or-down votes. If the issue can begin to be gotten on the ballot in some states, and people see success with it, then it could snowball and more states could get it. For federal elections, it would be much harder to put into place, but the amendment process has bypassed Congress before.

  • bernerbits

    I’ll admit, Kevin, I’m a bit of a pessimist when it comes to sweeping political change, whether that’s a permanent power shift to a new political party, or a complete overhaul of our voting system. In my (almost) 30 years I’ve never seen revolutionary political change in this country.

    To my mind, I feel like IRV’s unprecedented support of third party candidates is a threat to both majority parties, which is why it’s not likely to see wide adoption.

error: Content is protected !!