Final Thought Before Election Day
 

This message is to anyone who is voting for one of the two major parties. I don't care who you're voting for, I just care that you're voting for one of them. I don't believe it is possible to make an informed decision about either of your choices anymore because it has become clear that neither side sticks to the truth or their own word. It's absolutely despicable to see that politics has degenerated into a cutthroat deception race. And no, it wasn't always that way. There was a good example of such on Bill Maher's show this week from Richard Belzer.

Don't even try to claim for a second that your candidate has been faithful to you. We all know they haven't. Everything has become convoluted and the message no longer counts. What counts is that you vote for them at whatever cost of truth, morality and dignity. Are you give in and be a puppet? Or are you going to excercise your right as a free-thinking individual and vote for a candidate who leaves it up to you, the intelligent, informed voter?

Make a stand at the voting booth. Do not give up your dignity and self-respect to appease the majority. Our ability to step beyond the herd is what separates humans from animals.

HERE HERE!!!

THREE CHEERS FOR HAL!!!!!!!

Hal for president!!

sorry halx, i just don't agree with you. President Bush isn't all that i want him to be. he isn't really a conservative and his party isn't the last bastion of fiscal restraint as they would have you believe. however, when you separate the political machine from the man... i firmly believe in the President's sincerity, dignity, and deep moral convictions.

i don't vote for the fundraising machine, i don't for the their side's lawyers, i don't vote for the attack ads... i vote for the candidate. you may argue that George W. Bush is misguided... but i firmly believe that he is a man of honor who believes with passion that he is doing what is right for his fellow man. i will proudly cast my vote for him tomorrow.

So, is there no difference between the two major candidates? If there is, it would make sense for anyone for whom those differences are important to try to defeat the side they disagree with. Voting for Nader or anyone else doesn't help you beat Bush or Kerry. That's reality.

It there is no difference b/t the two major parties, then there are a lot of reasonably intelligent people on this board who have no idea what is going on since they put so much effort into arguing for one side or the other.

What in the wide world of sports would make anyone think that any third party would stand for truth, morality and dignity if it had any real chance at winning?

I don't know what separates us from the animals, but I know it isn't related to how anyone reading this votes tomorrow. Polls suggest that around two-thirds of the military vote will probably go for Bush. I'm not ready to declare their loss of dignity and self-respect for that decision anymore than I would suggest the same for the one-third that will vote for Kerry. For that 1/2 of once percent that will choose someone else, good for them, but I'm sorry, that one decision doesn't not make them better, smarter, or awash in dignity and self-respect.

If I want to be excercise my right as a free-thinking individual and vote for a candidate who leaves it up to me, the intelligent, informed voter, where would I turn?

There are lots of good reasons to vote a third party--protest, really believe it is the best vote, can't decide between the major parties--but the fact that it makes you special and smart isn't one of them.

And, and I know this all sounds pretty negative, I wouldn't put much stock in having Belzer and/or Maher as professors of political history.

fair enough, platypus. i don't think george bush is that bad of a guy. the problem is you CANT separate the man from the political machine because he buys into it - fully. and when he and his party puts people into positions of power who are insincere, undignified, and morally bankrupt, halx's assertion becomes soberingly correct, and bush's sincerity, dignity, and deep moral convictions are lost.

My vote is going where it's going not because I support the candidate I'm voting for, but because I feel that the other candidate is beyond dispicable. As the saying goes: "I wouldn't piss on his head if his hair was on fire." Not that I wish his hair was on fire; I don't. I just hope he goes away and leaves us in peace or war or whatever.

And Kerry is any better? He's being run by Clinton's people, who ran one of the most corrupt presidencies in recent memory. (Never did I think I'd see a President that made NIXON look like a man of principle!!!) On top of that, he has a long history (best case scenario...worst case scenario, he's a long string of expletives self-deleted traitor) of appeasing our enemies to the detriment of our allies, and demuring to the UN, a corrupt organization through and through which most definitely does NOT have America's best interests at heart.

This is a case of the lesser of two evils.

I don't totally agree with you on your defense of W, but your defense of your vote is refreshing. I'm happy you're proud to vote for your guy tomorrow. If your vote for Bush doesn't separate you from the animals or causes you your self-respect, that's too bad. But I say, stick with it.

I hope Kerry gets the same defense from someone in this thread.

Even if you're not voting FOR someone, but voting AGAINST, you're still not going with your convictions. If you even believe that your candidate is the strong, resolute and inpired one, you're only buying into the smoke screen of integrity that these people put up to win your vote so they may have the power to run their corporate schemes. No vote for a major party is dignified.

Well, I disagree. Elections for me are not a matter of getting the best person into office, but rather a matter of keeping the worst person out. BTW, I thought you were supporting Kerry? Did that change?

very well put....much better than I can do and I agree 100%...well except for voting tomorrow because I proudly cast my vote a week ago

What lever must I pull for dignity and self-respect? A vote W or Kerry strips them away. What do I do?

No, I stated on my site that I am voting Libertarian.

Third party or Write-in.

So really Halx, what's the alternative? I totally see where you're coming from and I agree with you but, what else can be done? Third parties don't stand a chance in hell anytime soon until the people wake up and stop allowing the two major parties to keep them out of the debates, keep them off ballots, keep them out of the general mainstream, etc.

Fact is, one of the two major parties will win either tomorrow of after all the legal dust settles. So for this election, I have to go with the dems because they're closest to my beliefs and what's important to me. I'd love to dump their ass in a second for another party, but we all saw where making a statement at the voting booth 4 years ago got us.

This is not really accurate. If your convictions are more strongly against a candidate then they are for any other candidate, then a vote against a candidate is in line with your convictions.

My convictions:
- There is not one single option that is exactly who I want as President.
- I absolutely do not want Bush to be President.

I have two options: do not vote at all or target my vote to cause the most damage to Bush. If the decision is to vote, the vote which most accurately reflects my convictions is clear.

O.K. Libertarian. I could win back my dignity and self-respect by simply voting for a candidate who cannot win and if he did would cut 100 billion annually from the military budget, eliminate all welfare programs (food stamps, child care, low income housing, after school programs, job-training programs), and drastically lower the taxes of the richest americans. No, there will be no help for the corporations in that platform.

Third Party. Any of them?

Write in? I just turned 35. Guess you could vote for me.

Is it a particular way a person has to vote, or is it just for someone that can't win?

I did that before. Then I went through the rest of the 1990's. Never again.

Come on. Someone here is for Kerry and proud of it. Let's hear it.

You can get up on me all you want about how voting for a third party wont amount to anything, but that's the price you pay for staying true to yourself... or as true to yourself as the voting structure will let you be. To me, it's as simple as sacrifice. You're sacrificing your vote. To the materialistic world, it's an act made in vain, but to those around you who understand conviction, truth and piece of mind, it is a hell of a lot more than a wasted vote.

Not to mention, the more votes a third party gets, the more funding they receive from various sources.

I don't agree at all. So any vote for Kerry or Bush is not dignified? I firmly believe in Kerry, and that is who I'm voting for. I'm not voting for not-Bush. I'm not voting for a third party candidate just because it's cool these days. I'm voting for Kerry. I'm using my right to vote and placing it on Kerry because I believe that my cadidate is the right choice for me, and I'll be staying true to myself in doing so.

It's as simple as that.

Dude, that is SO not where I'm coming from. You vote however you feel best voting, and I'll do the same. I'm just saying, I've been down that road before, and afterwards, I thought it sucked from my perspective. Would it have sucked equally if I had chosen another path? That's unanswerable.

In 12 years, you may look back on this election differently than I look back on the '92 election. I hope you do, since the '92 election and it's aftermath really sucked from my perspective.

Good luck, God Bless, and don't worry about the small stuff. ;)

Maybe if somebody worth voting for was running Lib it would make a difference to me...but there isnt...and I dont really think I appreciate being told my vote isnt dignified because I dont like the Lib candidate either.

Averett, forgive this but I firmly believe that any conviction derived from either of the two main party candidates is faulty and mislead. They are billion dollar machines with the best social engineers working to shape your opinions and impressions. I don't buy into any of it.

Ok, then vote for another third party. The Libertarian party is just one of many.

And educated, informed people can see through the BS and still act appropriately.

Just because Cheney says "Vote Bush or America will be attacked again" and Kerry says "vote Kerry and France and Germany will send troops to help us in Iraq" doesn't mean we have to believe them.

Make up your own mind. That's why it was issued to you.

Thank you, Averett. I disagree with you and hope you don't live in a swing state, but thank you. Have fun tomorrow and please don't vote a straight ticket.

He would cut 100 billion from the budget by reducing their responsibility and by pulling them out of allied areas where they aren't needed. Why do Japan and Germany need us there to protect them? Welfare programs are done better through private charities, so why waste government dollars when there's a better alternative? Habitat for Humanity, for example, does a far better job of getting low-income families into stable homes than subsidized housing. And taxes would be lowered for everyone, not just the richest Americans.

By reducing the burden of the government to just protecting our rights and our land, you remove a great weight from the people. Or do you think the government does a better job of spending your money than you do?

I'm voting Libertarian. I don't care if it's not going to produce a viable result, it shows my support for an alternative to a two-party system.

As my vote is a pure power play, based on my assessment of national and global politics and economics, I don't consider other distracting issues.

Where's the financial cutoff that seperates true conviction from shaped opinion?

Badnarik has spent atleast a couple of million on his campaign. Is that not enough money to shape an opinion?

I agree that a vote for a third party has value--including in terms of future viability. I just don't agree that any third party vote is the only way to preserve your self-respect. There are lots of third parties that are unworthy of being put on that pedestal. I wouldn't think less of anyone that choose a Republican or Democrat over a Libertarian.

Voting against something is a rational choice, and one that holds just as much conviction as a vote for something. It seems strange that you condemn negative voting, and then espouse the virtues of voting against a decadent corporate government structure.

Secondly, I'm not ignorant of the fact that corporations and interests wield a lot of power. I was quite aware of that when I voted for Kerry. It's simple reality that people with lots of money also have lots of power, and that they use that power to pursue their own interests. Electing a third party (which won't happen anytime soon) won't change that. In my mind, it's naive to think that it will.

daswig, intelligence doesn't make you smart. Even if you're on top of what the parties are all about, you've been engineered in some way to accept these things as the most important issues. You're saying, "Yes big brother, I agree completely and thus I will vote for you." I apologize for arguing on a psychological and philosophical level in the politics forum, but when the parties incorporate both into their campaigns, there has to be someone to stand up and tell people not to buy into it.

Social psychology is one of my favorite subjects. It's an amaingly powerful tool that people in power use to influence those who are not. When you wise up to these schemes, perhaps you'll stand up for your rights as a human.

That's exactly what the Green party said 4 years ago. Where are they now?

These are all valid arguments and good reasons to vote Libertarian. I agree with most of them, but they are not reasons why anyone who disagrees with you and chooses to vote Rep. or Dem. has no dignity or self-respect or has been blinded and woozyified by the big mediapolitical machine. If I actually disagree with what the Liberatarian candidate stands for, should I vote for him just so I don't vote for a major party?

Right. Vote for the party, the ideology, not the man personally. The Dems & Repubs represent the mainstream belief systems on all the major issues. The 3rd parties represent the extreme Right or Left belief systems of all the major issues. Just understand the overall picture: a vote against Kerry is a vote for Bush as far as who gets elected President; its all numbers.

I think this is likely to be the basis for everyone's vote - their opinion (a conviction or a shaped opinion) based on their assessment of national and global politics and economics.

I'm voting for kerry, even though he's a schmuck. I don't see how any third party candidate is less of a schmuck. I think what we are seeing now with our two party system is what we'd see regardless or the parties in power. If the libertarians or the greens or the constitutions got as huge as the dems or reps they'd be just as full of shit.

None of the candidates represent my viewpoint, and i think anyone who claims that a certain party's platform perfectly represents their will as a citizen is either a statistical necessity or a liar.

You can only think politics is about idealism if you haven't been paying attention to what it is really about, power.

i think having a third party would have some positive effects on our electoral system... but as i've heard people from other countries who have 3 or more major parties say, one more party doesn't end the social engineering or cut down on corruption.

the problem isn't with the republicans or the democrats, the answer isn't in the greens or the libertarians. the problem is the people who desire power at any cost. the most effective fight against this damaging force to our republic is for every voter to reward integrity when it is demonstrated by an elected official and punish those who play dirty pool.

when enough of us are informed on the political climate to recognize fraud and when we have the solidarity to vote accordingly... that is when we'll see some genuine positive change.

Well then, before I leave to get stuff done today, I'll just say one more thing.

When I don't agree with something, I am not going to give it my endorsement. Not for any amount of money.

When I do agree with something, I criticize it just as much as I do it's counter-statement.

When I finally decide, I feel like I made a more spiritual choice than the most pious god-fearing christian.

Is any third party or write in candidate o.k. to prove that I am not engineered by the man or to weak to proudly stand up as a human?

Socialist?
Green?
Reform?
Constitution?
Personal Choice?
America First?
American Nazi?
Christian Falangist Party of America?
Light Party?

What happens when any of these get big enough to wield influence through corporations and the media?

Sorry to get practical.

Please give me a LITTLE bit of credit. I know what's important to me. I know the positions both sides take. And I am not generally swayed by what either side says are the "big issues". I am NOT saying "Yes Big Brother, I agree completely and thus I will vote for you" any more than by your voting Libertarian you are saying "Yes Little Brother,I agree completely and thus I will vote for you." I'm voting for the party I'm voting for because the other party is far too dangerous to the things that I actually hold dear.


And as for the "tool that people in power use", you have NO clue who I am and what I do, what positions I hold, what my entire educational background is, and what I've done on the course of my life. I've lived an officially "frowned upon" existence (YOU try selling machineguns to the population at large, and watch how fast your ass lands in jail. I did it PUBLICLY for SIX YEARS under Janet Reno's DoJ, moved over ten MILLION dollars worth of total inventory, and was never indicted, much less convicted.) The Government doesn't like what I've done, but they have never been able to get charges to stick, because I KNOW the law, and how to use those levers of power.

Ahh, now its a spiritual thing. And we don't like christians, do we. Or is it the pious? or God fearing? Anyone else you are more spiritual than? The jews, muslims?

Let's hear the criticisms of the Liberatarian Party.

I am living in a swing state. Wisconsin is pretty much 50/50, depending on who I listen to. The man that is currently President scares me, and has in the past made me seriously consider leaving the country. There is no way in hell I would vote for somebody I know won't win this state.

I will be voting for Kerry, and hoping to all hell that others who would normally vote for a third party candidate will also.

well....while the present system might be little more than voting for which faction within the oligarchy will hold power for 4 years, this time the usual argument simply does not hold--there are significant distinctions between the factions. getting bush out of power would also push the conservative media apparatus (which is an empirical formation, the outlines of which are obvious, and which has nothing symmetrical to it on the "left") back into opposition--if you want to seriously work for third party options, you absolutely need to work to get these people out of power--if only because it would be simpler to mobilize third party spaces if the dominant discourse was at least rational, at least referred to the empirical world and did not retreat into a self-reinforcing rhetoric of the Will within which the vacant become resolute, the incompetent become heroic---a very christian, very moral context in which it is ok to lie about war, in which one can talk about the sanctity of life while supporting the wasting of life, military and civilian, in a pointless misguided adventure in iraq...

and these are only the tip of a very long list.

i support the creation of more political options, more political parties.
i have heard arguments like hal's over and over from nader folk.
i understand them and to an extent agree with them

but in this election, i find that it is not only possible but necessary to suck it up and vote tactically.

I apologize if I implied that I feel that disagreeing with me indicates you've been brainwashed. I wanted to counter some of the arguments that had been presented against the Libertarian party, and put the party into a more positive light. Who you vote for is your choice, and so long as you've made an attempt to stay informed I respect whatever decision you make.

This is going to be my first Presidential election ever. I've voted in local elections, but I just missed the 2000 elections by four days. I don't want my first presidential vote to be for the lesser of two evils; I want it to be for the party that I agree with the most. And that vote is for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party.

A good friend said this to me yesterday:

" I wont vote the lesser of two evils....unless one happens to be Satan"

clinched it for me

I'll be voting for the candidate who best represents me on the most issues and the most important issues to me. Even so, I only agree with him on about 65% of the issues. It's far better than the 30% and 25% on which the two main candidates agree with me. I agree with the party lines on the majority of the issues, so a vote for my candidate is really a vote for what I believe in.

The only way to get a better representation of what I believe on the ballot is to run for office. I'll be doing that next year. I hope that enough people in my district agree with me that they choose me to represent them. If not, I hope they choose someone who does.

Achieving a candidate who doesn't lie and cheat is the job of the primarys and caucuses. Most of the time, however, that doesn't work.

I'm voting for Kerry because I don't like how many deceptions the Bush administration has tried to get away with. I'm also afraid of moral legislation, such as the banning of gay marriage, and the banning of abortion. This is an election for the Supreme Court. As a future educator, I detest the small minded No Child Left Behind Act.

Kerry is a douchebag, but I'm voting for him, because I fear Bush's domestic policy.

I live in California, but I have considered voting for kerry since the debates. I'm not a supporter of his, nor am I a democrat, but too many people I respect hold similar opinions as the one above for me to discount.

So, what you're saying is that you're sacrificing your own opinions to fit in? Thass no gooood... God (the Great Pumpkin, evolution, or whatever you think created you) gave you a brain. You should use it to make up your own mind, not just to copy others.

I think Bush is an imbecile, but I live in a Republican state. Voting "against Bush" would be useless, so third party it is.

That's not what I'm saying.

So what exactly are you saying? I'm trying to figure out how the second statement could be read as anything other than "people I respect have this opinion, so I'm going to follow their lead."

As a student of political science and history, and as a generally aware human being, I can vote Democrat or Republican and have a fairly clear idea of what I'm going to get without shedding a tear when Bush hugs a girl who lost her father in front of the camera or when Kerry stands up as the would-be savior of countless lives with his medicine-beefing and war-reducing master plans.

I would rather get 4 more years of Bush than see Kerry take even one term. This is because of what they've both done rather than what either has said. I've thoroughly reviewed the third parties that represent some of my views, and would not hesitate to vote for a Libertarian or Constitution candidate that I felt would most accurately represent my views. As neither ideological extremists do so in the way that the professional centrist Bush does, Bush gets my vote.

This idea of "...the corporations! the corporations!" and the almost teenage need to declare rebellion with a third party vote is ridiculous. If you are fortunate enough to fall within the tight ideological constraints of the relatively major American third parties, then you have your decision cut out for you. The rest of us need to do our best to pick one of the two moderates that best reflect our views.

We are stuck with a two party system, for better or worse, Halx, and for that reason your Libertarian vote is meaningless. Republicans and Democrats disagree on lots of things, but they share a desire to keep third parties out of the game, much less fourth or fifth parties, and they have the money and political power to have their way. At most, a third party candidate can be a spoiler in a close race, eg, 2000.

I would be the first to concede that our political system is flawed, but until a better system can be proposed and peacefully implemented to fairly govern and preserve the freedoms of our 280 million plus population , I'll go cast my vote and accept the result, whether or not we end up with the guy I voted for.

One may easily guess by my avatar that I generally agree with Halx. One thing I think needs to be understood is this argument that one is voting for a candidate who can't win and/or that the small amount of support one's vote gives that party does not amount to much.

I'll put it this way: I don't believe voting for a third party candidate is something that simply takes place on Nov. 2. Third party supporters have a bit more work than that. What I mean to say is that I don't believe one can reasonably vote for a third party candidate tomorrow and not also push for voting reform.

I believe votes should be cast based on one's conscience, not on the lesser of two evils. Now, of those people who recognize that their conscience is most in line with a third party candidate, I believe that being guided by one's conscience in this regard requires further action. People are right to say that it is essentially impossible for a third party candidate to win this election. That doesn't mean I shouldn't vote for him though. It means I should vote for him and CONTINUE to push for voting reform so that, one day, we have a voting system that does not adhere to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_Law">Duverger's Law</a> and, furthermore, that eliminates most possibilities of tactical voting.

Listen, if you've looked at ALL the significant party candidates and their views objectively (I define "significant party" to be any party on enough ballots to win the election) and you find that one of the major party candidates best represents your views, then ote for that person. I think what Halx is getting at though is that there is an underlying reason why you end up supporting one of the major parties more often than not. One is because of the manipulation by them on the general public through numerous means. The other is due to various sources of socialization. However, I think that to any person who seriously looks at the stances available, the Green party is the natural progression of the ideals of the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party is the natural progression of the ideals of the original Republican Party (more than 50-100 years ago, especially before the Christian Fundamentalists took it over).

aliali It's about not voting for 1) someone who is simply "not someone else" and 2) someone who is simply duping you in the hopes of gaining more power. If you honestly don't agree with any of the third parties more than the democrats or republicans, then don't vote for them. From my perspective though, I can't support candidates who are so blatently dishonest, not to mention that I really don't think the republican or democratic parties take their philosophies to their logical conclusions.

what enables you to think that there is a distinction in this situation between voting one's "conscience" and voting tactically?
do you somehow imagine that the decision to vote tactically is easy?
on what basis?

i do not see where any of the pseudo-psychological statements about voting tactically come from...it seems naieve in the extreme to imagine that you can abstract your vote from tactical considerations.
maybe the problem works like this: for people inclined to vote nader, the prospect of another bush term is obviously, a priori, something to be rejected out of hand--which opens the way to tactical consideration.

i am not sure about libertarian politics--supporters of that position do not have a real problem with another bush term insofar as it is more likely to advance some of thier overall goals--say the dismantling of a coherent relation between the state and the economy--but they do not like bushrhetoric and other elements of his policies--but they do not feel as though they really loose either way.

maybe that explains the sanctimoniousness that sometimes appears here.

it is a function of their assessment of the tactical situation.

I think you may have hit on something there. Some of us think that the biggest problem in America today is the tremendous growth of the federal government into all walks of our lives. Heck, some of us even think that if it continues it will lead to revolution. The Democrats/Republicans are both falling all over themselves to grow the government larger. The difference between the two are minor compared to this.

I believe it can be about voting for the best person, or voting against the best person, or sending a protest vote, or finding that third party that fits your way of thinking. I hope the Libertarian party gets a lot of votes today and some press, too, but we all know that isn't likely. I agree that working for a third party is more than just hoping and voting. It's more than one day every four years. I'm all for the major party vote and the third party vote.

I don't agree that every third party should be elevated above the major parties just because they are smaller.

I also do not agree that people who vote rep. or dem. either for their guy or against the other guy have thrown away their self-respect or lack any dignity. I'm sorry, that is just insulting to millions of people. It's small-minded, self-important garbage.

A person is smart. People are dumb.

Electioneering is social engineering on a group of people. It's easier to sway many at one time than it is one by one. People who vote for the 'popular' choices are simply being sheep.

The fact that some simply state that voting for a "third party" is a throwaway, or "won't make a difference" is a large part of the reason why the country- both politically and otherwise- is in the sad state it is today. There are more than two parties for a reason. You are not a sheep. If everyone voted their own voice, and not relied on the two-party bullshit, then maybe we'd see some change. As it stands, the dem's and rep's don't even see them as competition, and do no work to be better for it.

That is sad.

Maybe it needs pointing out--most of the people voting for one or the other major party aren't necessarily sheep.

It's more than possible that those people don't want change in the way some here envision it.

kerry will do LESS damage to this country. yes, kerry is a bit better. my post was in response to platypus's, where the topic was gwb's "sincerity, dignity, and deep moral convictions...i'm just trying to offset that here-nor-there statement..

Voting independent out of protest against the other two candidates is not going to have an impact on the election. The way I see it, voting independent is more pertinent as a political statement than as an earnest vote for President.

Unfortunately you are absolutely right. And things will probably never change (at least peacefully) until we vote the way we truly believe. Of course it's always possible that one of the majors could morph into something (I find acceptable) but I doubt it as long as we keep voting for them.

Now I get it. You can only be smart and special if your choice is unpopular.

Once people (who are dumb) make a choice, you, a person (and therefore smart) now are forced to choose a less popular option even if you disagree with it. So a smart person is a single sheep forced to choose an unpopular choice by the dumb herd. I wonder if all the dumb, popular-thinking sheep know how they manipulate the smart individual sheep into throwing away their votes on someone who cannot win.

I feel sorry for all those smart third party voters who may get cursed with popularity some day if significant numbers of people (now dumb) start to join them. I'll bet they all felt like idiots when Lincoln won as a third party in 1860. Or when the third party got almost 20% in '92.

I proudly joined the sheep about an hour ago for several races and voted Libertarian in several others.

I have never had a problem voting Lib if I believed in the person running....I've never been "strictly" republican.....I still stand by my earlier statement ... if the Libs had a candidate I wanted to vote for for pres I would have...but Im not voting for the Lib party just "to vote for a Lib"

I'm just saying.. when everybody thinks alike, nobody thinks.

I've come to the logical conclusion that the unprecedented propaganda and deception going on between the two main parties is enough to disqualify them from the list of practical choices. Unfortunately humans in a giant mass are quite impractical and irrational.

I don't think voting third party could be considered practical in any sense either. What are you practically accomplishing? The bold statement that you send in voting third party will fall on deaf ears. The fact is that the two major parties would have to fuck things up really badly for a third party to ever be relevant in a national election. The self destruction of one of the parties seems like only a matter of time, but until it actually happens, voting third party is purely a masturbatory exercise.

I don't think I'd vote lesser of two evils. For me, it came down to Badnarik, Petrouka, or Bush. And out of those three, I preferred Bush.

It was most certainly a dignified choice, even if it incidentally conforms to half of the voting populace.

First, let me just say that regardless of who you vote for, be sure to vote. I am a believer in the two party system, (I have written about this before and don't have the time to rehash it now) but I would never fault someone for voting with their conscience. I do have to say that Hal's comments are more that a little condescending. Stating that those who do not agree with your general outlook are "unthinking" or simply being herded by some form of socio-political brainwashing movements is truly painting with a big brush. I am guessing that you have recently studied the concepts of "Group Think" and are simply caught up in a whirl of social engineering yourself. That being said, I am glad you have made your comments since they (as they usually do) have sparked some interesting debate.

I, as many of you can guess, proudly voted for John Kerry. I have been a staunch Kerry supporter from just about the time he announced. I have worked with his campiagn and have had the opportunity to meet the Senator twice. I am enthusiastic in my support of the Senator and truly believe he will make an exemplary President.

He is a deep thinker and strategist. He has a commanding grasp of international and domestic issues. He brings to the table a desire to promote the environment and science and has advanced an intriguing (though not perfect) idea for a way to help increase health care coverage in America. He has a history of working well with foreign leaders and is known in Washington as one of the Senators who can work with either party to get things done. I hear all the time that President Bush is a good and sincere man. I actually agree with that assessment, and believe that John Kerry possesses those same qualities. He is not as "open" or "folksy" as President Bush, but he cares about America, its citizens and our future. John Kerry regardless of how the Bush Campaign and the GOP want to paint him, is not weak on the military. He actually has a strong record of voting to promote sensible (ie not-wasteful) military spending. His record is not nearly as "liberal" as it is being portrayed. I firmly believe that he will govern from the middle, with an even hand, keen insight and with a belief that we can make this country even stronger and certainly more respected.

I also voted for John McCain for Senate, so don't think I am just a Dem party hack. :)

From elsewhere. I didn't bother to preserve links and such.

Indeed, Perot DID have an effect and significantly shaped the Clinton presidency by bringing so much attention to deficit spending, etc.

Voting third party would be practical if not for the impractical actions of many others. However, just because most everyone is doing it doesn't make it right.