Randall Forsberg

[tahnan]

I don't think I've seen this in other local livejournals, so I'll put it here: Randall Forsberg is running as an official registered write-in candidate for US Senate in Massachusetts (so that writing in Forsberg, unlike writing in, say, Jimmy Carter, isn't just a vote that falls under "other").

I mention the website because when I heard the name Randall Forsberg, I thought, "Well, um, OK, I could vote for this guy, but is he some crackpot?" Well, no. Forsberg (a) is female, and (b) has a PhD from MIT (and a MacArthur Grant), which lends her at least a little credibility.

Admittedly, I gather she's a one-issue candidate, that issue being either "nuclear disarmament" or "Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution." And as a voter I'm not quite sure I'm willing to say "I think that Randall Forsberg would represent my overall interests better in the Senate than John Kerry can." But I know I'm more willing to say that about Forsberg than I am about pretty much any Libertarian candidate. So I'll have to give her some thought.

In the meantime I figured I'd spread the word, in case other locals reading this were interested and didn't already know.

Comments

Another reason to vote for Forsberg

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

I tend to be centrist in my politics, which means that I tend to disagree with most of the candidates running in any given election (I'd be a very happy Whig, I believe, but there are very few of them ever running). But I'm strongly considering voting for Forsberg as a protest vote - John Kerry is one of the least responsive of the local politicians (he tends to ignore his constituents, even when they come to his office; he's more likely to send a flunky than actually meet himself with constituents). I know she has very little chance, but if enough Massachusetts voters go anti-Kerry, it might send him a message regarding his viability as a presidential candidate.

--Nom

[jadelennox]

yah. the point of a protest vote is to register the protest. eg. Voting for nader was a protest that at least 2% of the electorate finds that the dnc has swung so center that sacrificing the presidency was worth making tihe statement. it's intended as a bitch slap to the candidate: "you! stop being an idiot if you want to be president!" Ditto voting for Pat Buchanan, from the right. The fact that Forsberg's platform is that explicit makes the protest that much more explicit.

I'm willing to make that protest.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure I believe in protests votes. That is, I feel as if, when I vote for X, I am saying "I believe that X is the person who will best represent me in the position zie is running for, out of all those people running for the position."

Well, OK, I don't quite believe that. I admit that in a tight race between a Democrat who comes close and a Republican I loathe, with a third party candidate who I feel would represent me best, I'd probably vote for the Democrat. Which is perhaps why we need preferential voting in this country.

In the case of Nader, I didn't vote for him in part because I didn't feel that he represented my views better than Gore did, and in part because I wasn't so dissatisfied with the DNC that I was willing to take away the presidency from them--certainly not enough that I was willing to give it to George. In this case I don't think voting for Forsberg is going to give this race to the Libertarian, so I feel, well, all right, safer protesting.

Is that wimpy? I think it's just politics.