Why should I vote? In America, we have been taught that it is your duty to vote, that it is right, and that if you do not then you are doing not only yourself, but also your country injustice. But are we really? Where has the injustice occurred, do you even have a choice when you vote? According to the two party system you do, and it's Democrat or Republican. This nicely translates to a choice of Liberal, and Liberal. It denies the possibility that, Fascists, Classical Conservatives, Socialists, and Communists do exist, and therefore limits not only their choice, but prevents them from being able to act on their beliefs.

We have been taught to believe that in not voting, you are giving up your right to do something, to create change, that to not vote is an abdication of your power. We are taught from a young age, that if you want to change the influence government has in your life then you must vote. However is the action of voting itself not an action imposed by the government; the end goal being to make you vote as they desire?

To quote author David Schuman, "Americans have a voting fetish." We feel that we cannot have government without voting, and thereby in voting you show your belief that government is in fact necessary.

By voting what are you doing? I feel that you are not showing your beliefs in what you believe public policy ought to be, but rather that you are fine with the policy in place. That your vote shows belief in a system that gives you no choice, but makes you "empowered." Why could not voting, not be seen as an act of expression, showing not only your discontent with the system but the fact that you've had enough of the politicians telling you what to do?

Voting itself shows your belief in the system, but how are we to know any better. Until this past summer I too believed that not voting was bad. That in not voting, I was accepting my fate, and that in voting I could find my voice. Interesting that we associate vote and voice together. By not voting are you really abdicating your voice? Are you really voicing your thoughts in a private secluded booth, where the only change you’ll make is a ballot that may or may not be counted?

I feel that you aren't, that by not voting on a conscious level you see the system as fundamentally flawed, that voting is in fact taking away your political voice. That it is stifling your thoughts and expression and forcing you to believe that you have a limited voice. Speak up! Not in a voting booth, but in public, make your voice be heard, not whether you’re a Democrat or Republican.

Hey, how do you like your eggs in the morning? Scrambled or fertilized?

Take the best of both worlds, it's known as Libertarian Socialism.

two words, white phosphorous.

Yes, Republicans and Democrats are the same thing, they are both liberals. Now I do not mean liberals in the sense that one has what we now consider more left wing views than the other, but rather that they both fall into the category that Liberalism is the primary Ideology behind both parties. Both republicans and democrats, desire limited government, capitalism, no single religion, and protection of individual rights. You may argue that in some cases they do not believe in such ways, however all in all the majority of the policies come back to these four values. To say that they are not Liberals is rather absurd, as liberalism is really what took the place of what we call classical conservatism, where the nobles were obliged to rule, as they had the necessary means to do so.(so it was believed)

Here in America we've narrowed the political spectrum to be democrat or republican. However you'll find that the true spectrum is as follows from left to right; communism, socialism, liberalism, classical conservatism, fascism. James Madison wanted power to be split up when he designed what we have come to know as American politics, he was afraid of tyranny. The two house system although not his original idea, preserves Madison's idea that none of the power will be concentrated, especially since your state only gets two senators. Now theoretically you could still have many parties with this system except it's a winner take all system as well. This allows for no coalitions, but rather a black and white win or lose. If in another country and a coalition needed to be formed you would most likely find groups like democrats and republicans coming together to oust the socialist and communist coalition.

When looking at what actually divides the parties, it is not their ideologies, but the system itself. Madison successfully made a system where the same ideology, can be torn apart and prevent a tyrant, and in doing so we've been taught to believe that democrats and republicans are the same, when in reality they share the same beliefs.

And as for the Republicans being the party of Lincoln, and the democrats white slave owners, we find that Lincoln wasn't breaking from his beliefs, that he was a capitalist, and believed that a "free market" would in fact be better than a slave driven market. one way or the other his goal was to unify the country.

Also the democrats are capitalists, and really had to shift their party views with FDR, after reconstruction.

Parties change. Once more I reiterate that both parties are LIBERALS, and because of this we are really losing out on seeing whats beyond liberalism.

Barrack Obama is a candidate for change. Perhaps this is why I have a problem with Barrack Obama. Not only has he become the candidate for "change" but in the past he's chosen to shy away from change. Looking at his voting record, small as it is, you will find that he often voted "present" essentially abstaining from the vote on controversial issues. This record of voting "present" is even more apparent when he was doing his glorious work for the state of Illinois in the state congress.

The word change... What do we associate with change? Generally I feel many people view change as a negative thing. However when presented in the right light, (which Obama's done very well) it can be become positive. This was also done, by a man many "liberals" hate. That man was Ronald Reagan. We can view Reagan and Obama's campaign tactics as nearly the same as they both are positive go gettem attitudes. However Reagan was more specific for the change he desired. The interest rate was at 21% when he took office and the feeling was that America's days of empire were over. Reagan said they were not.

How is Obama's quest for change any different I ask of you? How many times in the DNC have you heard of America's world image, NEEDING TO BE RESTORED? Apparently it does, because all of a sudden we care what other countries think of us. We didn't ten years ago.Obama's promise of change is really a promise to continue on the path to an ever greater imperial America.

As for Biden, I ask of you to view his voting record on appropriations especially. You will notice that here he is not so "liberal," that he has continually voted with the bush administration on the Iraq war, and furthermore is for ANWAR Drilling. His record further shows that for someone who is a "Humanitarian" he has repeatedly supported military action over aid. He in fact called Saddam Hussein a threat even before the Bush Administration. As head of the foreign relations committee thats just what I want, a war monger.

If all the above doesn't convince you that Obama, Biden, (hey alliteration!) are not the perfect candidates, than I would like to throw out there also that Biden is a known Plagiarist, and has even been caught lying on his resume. People wonder why this matters. I say it does, because if a man is cutthroat in his personal relations, than what is to keep his love of winning inside the country once in power. These very qualities, are also backed up in Biden's war voting record, where he's consistently voted for the war, and he's always voted for U.S "intervention" in foreign affairs. Just what we need, another Real Politik politician coming to claim, or at least be next in line for the presidency.

Realists of the world rejoice! Idealists, sadly now is the time to worry most. Will we ever resort to soft power in foreign affairs in lieu of military action? Obama and Biden seem to think not. In fact none of the candidates do. Note that I am not a Mc. Cain supporter. However I refuse to believe that Obama is all he's cracked up to be.

Both Mc. Cain and Obama have some decent Ideas, however neither truly defines change in the sense they wish to convey it. To me it seems, that were just doing more of the same old stuff, in a new way. In one way or another, we will either continue Reaganist internal policy, or go back to a quasi version of Johnson's great society. The question is not whether we want change or not, but rather what would you like to go back to, to many people I fear its Reagan.