?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Texas--*Sigh* about Kinky--

I'd love to vote for Kinky. I would. But what I really want, more than anything, is change.

Perry grandstanding in a church, signing that Defense of Marriage amendment--when he didn't need to sign it at all, when there was nothing to sign--I don't want to see that again.

So, how do I vote for change?

It isn't Kinky. Frustrating, but true. Kinky's not going to win. He's got 16% of the vote, if that.

The problem is, there's not going to be a run-off election. Texas doesn't require one. So, if 2/3 of the state votes against Perry, he still wins, because the remainder were split between Strayhorn, Bell and Friedman, and Perry has the biggest minority.

If you're passionate about Friedman's values, vote for Friedman. I just want change, so I voted for Bell, because that's the best bet for change for my money.

If it's "Anybody but the Republican" for you, please consider voting for the Democrat instead of the independent. Remember, it doesn't take a majority to win this one :( Stupid state.

/politics

Comments

( 20 comments — Leave a comment )
borgslayer
Oct. 25th, 2006 04:58 pm (UTC)
Yeah, there may be a chance for change with one represenative but if that rep has no chance at actually getting elected the lesser of two evils is usually a good bet.

Also, still love that icon hehe.

~ Tekie
spottylogic
Oct. 25th, 2006 05:05 pm (UTC)
It is a bummer. 3rd-party candidates would do a lot better if they wouldn't actually screw things up. On the other hand, one of the indys is a moderate republican, I think she's probably drawing votes off the republican incumbent. So, small blessings.
jenna_thorn
Oct. 25th, 2006 05:08 pm (UTC)
I'm hoping that enough people are offended by Perry and can find Strayhorne more palatable, as well. I'd be quite pleased to see the independents break the stranglehold that bipartisan politics have on the overall system. And I'm with you, as amusing as Kinky is, supporting him is pretty much supporting Perry and that I will not do.
drleo
Oct. 25th, 2006 05:22 pm (UTC)
That's what I dislike about this election. I mean, I can just see Strayhorn and Friedman taking enough votes away from Bell to hand the election to Perry. Just watch: I bet Strayhorn + Friedman + Bell > Perry, but each of S, F, and B will be less than Perry's total, and thus.. he wins.
fizzitt
Oct. 25th, 2006 05:41 pm (UTC)
I'm pretty much where you are - I'd like to support Kinky somehow, but ended up voting for Bell.

Stupid winner-take-all voting system. *grumble*
kt_kat
Oct. 25th, 2006 11:51 pm (UTC)
Eh, I'm in the anyone-but-Straywhore camp.

That woman is batshit insane!!!

Bell seems a little flaky to me but hey, he's the only logical choice. This election is a real circus.
spotweld
Oct. 26th, 2006 01:12 am (UTC)
And I thought things were awkward in Connecticut
thoink_dragon
Oct. 26th, 2006 01:58 am (UTC)
I'm personally still on the fence, which is sad. I usually have very decisive opinions in politics.

I don't like Bell because, let's face it, he doesn't have the charisma required to win in Texas.

Kinky might have the charisma, but the people in the midrange aren't going to take him seriously.

Strayhorn is better than Perry, and probably takes the second spot in who is most likely to win, but ugh... I dislike her less than Perry, but that doesn't mean I like her.

Personally, I'm calling the election for Perry due to the incumbency advantage, republican support, and simple name recognition.

This topic is too serious, so it gets the kittens icon.
spottylogic
Oct. 26th, 2006 02:31 am (UTC)
Yeah, I understand--I know NOTHING about Bell, except that he asked for the gay-lez political caucus's endorsement, and that he's Not Perry. I'm very single-issue :)
thoink_dragon
Oct. 26th, 2006 02:33 am (UTC)
Honestly, I normally am too, but I just can't really get behind any of the candidates on this one.
guardian_lm
Oct. 26th, 2006 06:24 pm (UTC)
Just want to say, I vote for the kittens in your icon.
thoink_dragon
Oct. 27th, 2006 12:59 am (UTC)
Well, in that one, my hands are tied. Those kittens sure are cute, but I would have to vote for my own 'lil Sarah.

Heaven help me if I vote for anyone else. She's little, but can still be quite... persuasive.
malamute
Oct. 26th, 2006 05:27 am (UTC)
So, how do I vote for change?

By not voting. The leadership is a reflection of the voters around you. It seems to make sense to me that if they're going to keep electing douchebags to the leadership, why try to fight it? You can't lose if you refuse to play their stupid game.
spottylogic
Oct. 26th, 2006 03:33 pm (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's a terrible idea. We recently got the local Republican stoolie--in Austin, mind--deposed in January, and replaced him with not only a Democrat, but a pagan-friendly, gay-friendly Unitarian. So, not voting=self-destructive, even in Texas. Silent non-voters are just as much losers as people who tried and lost, they're stuck with the same system.

Being a politically active liberal in Texas means you have a 95% chance of failure at everything you do. It's made worse by knowing there are liberals that choose not to participate at all.

I'm reminded of a cartoon showing a vast sea of people, each one thinking, to themselves, "what can one person do?"

Apathy's a killer for liberals.
malamute
Oct. 28th, 2006 05:27 am (UTC)
not voting=self-destructive

I would argue that voting can be just as distructive. Loud voters can be just as much losers as silent non-voters. Take, for example, the loud voters that elected Bush.

Just because a group of people chose to continue living their everyday lives while paying little attention to the bullshit constantly happening at the capitol doesn't make them losers; it makes them less responsible for peoples' rights being stripped away by government force.
spottylogic
Oct. 26th, 2006 03:43 pm (UTC)
Incidentally, if you want to find the response guaranteed to send a political activist through the roof, it's "I don't think we'll win, so why bother?"
malamute
Oct. 28th, 2006 05:28 am (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that using government to force one's vision on everyone else is, in my opinion, not the best way to cause change.
jerseytude
Oct. 27th, 2006 01:19 am (UTC)
Early voting's up?
spottylogic
Oct. 27th, 2006 06:04 pm (UTC)
Yeah, running through the 3rd. Did you register?
jerseytude
Oct. 28th, 2006 12:06 am (UTC)
I just voted.

As always, I went through the dance about "Can I have a paper ballot?"

"Why?"

"I don't trust electronic voting to record my vote properly."

"But these machines are secure."

"No they aren't."

"Yes they are."

"What you can do is talk to this man here."

"Hi. I've been an election official for years, and these machines are better than what you had with a paper ballot."

"I'm concerned that I have no way of telling whether the choices I just entered into the machine are the same as the ones that will show up when you come to collect the votes."

"How is that different than a paper ballot?"

"A paper ballot stuffing campaign either requires a great number of people 'in-on-it' and thus increases the risk. A conspiracy to overturn an electronic election might be as few as a handful of people, and they can do this en-masse."

"Are you going to vote or not?"

"Hell, I'm in District 25, doesn't matter how I vote anyway"
( 20 comments — Leave a comment )