Typically in the past, I've opted to vote for whoever wasn't one of "the two". However, this is lining up to be an incredibly close election where conceivably every vote could impact who wins.
I don't think you can provide a reasonable argument that Nader stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election. I'd be amazed if he could pull in a single state. Two party system aside, he just doesn't appeal to a large percentage of the population. Therefore, I think we can safely say that you aren't voting so Nader will win, but to make a point.
When Perot ran, I voted for him. Yes, he was a nut, but I too was expressing my unhappiness with the two party system. I realized that my voting for him had the potential to impact who would get elected, but I didn't really care.
With the exception of Nader himself, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement with the argument that Nader's presence in 2000 contributed to Bush winning. Hell, in some states right now die-hard Republicans are working to get Nader on the their ballots. You think it's so they can fight the two-party system? Hardly... They know his presence will only help keep Bush in office.
If you don't mind Bush being president for 4 more years, then I wholeheartedly salute you voting for a philosophy instead of a president.
Frankly, in North Carolina it probably won't make a difference since the state is practically a given for Bush. However, I personally would rather see John Edwards, John Kerry, or even Martha Stewart as president before giving Bush that much power again. To me, it's not about a poor choice but a terrifying, destructive choice.
Yes, I plan to vote for Kerry this election. I am planning to set aside my philisophical views for a moment to try and find a short-term practical way to improve a terrible situation.
Will I go back to supporting a better election system with more than two parties? Yes. But if I were willing to subject the country, and the world to 4 more years of Bush to make a philisophical point about the current voting system, I would be naive at best, if not horribly irresponsible.
Again though, I say that about myself because I believe that 4 more years of Bush is one of the worst things that could happen to this country. Much worse than continuing a 2 party system for a few more years. Much worse than the possibility that Edwards could maybe become president if Kerry dies.
If you don't mind Bush being re-elected, then by all means you should vote for Nader. But claiming a vote for Nader isn't going to directly aid in putting Bush back in office is a naive claim at best.
One final point, and then I'll shut up and climb back in my hole. Voting is a binary yes/no choice. It is a popularity contest. Your vote is only one of hundreds of millions. People are voting for who they like best. It is a vote for a person, not an ideal. My ballot is going to say "George W. Bush", not "Trickle down economics, war and leadership through fear".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Reality
Date: 2004-07-06 04:15 pm (UTC)I don't think you can provide a reasonable argument that Nader stands a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election. I'd be amazed if he could pull in a single state. Two party system aside, he just doesn't appeal to a large percentage of the population. Therefore, I think we can safely say that you aren't voting so Nader will win, but to make a point.
When Perot ran, I voted for him. Yes, he was a nut, but I too was expressing my unhappiness with the two party system. I realized that my voting for him had the potential to impact who would get elected, but I didn't really care.
With the exception of Nader himself, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement with the argument that Nader's presence in 2000 contributed to Bush winning. Hell, in some states right now die-hard Republicans are working to get Nader on the their ballots. You think it's so they can fight the two-party system? Hardly... They know his presence will only help keep Bush in office.
If you don't mind Bush being president for 4 more years, then I wholeheartedly salute you voting for a philosophy instead of a president.
Frankly, in North Carolina it probably won't make a difference since the state is practically a given for Bush. However, I personally would rather see John Edwards, John Kerry, or even Martha Stewart as president before giving Bush that much power again. To me, it's not about a poor choice but a terrifying, destructive choice.
Yes, I plan to vote for Kerry this election. I am planning to set aside my philisophical views for a moment to try and find a short-term practical way to improve a terrible situation.
Will I go back to supporting a better election system with more than two parties? Yes. But if I were willing to subject the country, and the world to 4 more years of Bush to make a philisophical point about the current voting system, I would be naive at best, if not horribly irresponsible.
Again though, I say that about myself because I believe that 4 more years of Bush is one of the worst things that could happen to this country. Much worse than continuing a 2 party system for a few more years. Much worse than the possibility that Edwards could maybe become president if Kerry dies.
If you don't mind Bush being re-elected, then by all means you should vote for Nader. But claiming a vote for Nader isn't going to directly aid in putting Bush back in office is a naive claim at best.
One final point, and then I'll shut up and climb back in my hole. Voting is a binary yes/no choice. It is a popularity contest. Your vote is only one of hundreds of millions. People are voting for who they like best. It is a vote for a person, not an ideal. My ballot is going to say "George W. Bush", not "Trickle down economics, war and leadership through fear".