"I'm voting for Nader!"

[furtech]

This is bound to ruffle the feathers of many people. Everyone's all about, "Vote for Kerry because he isn't Bush." I have yet to see any good reasons that Kerry would make a good president.

I won't vote for someone just to vote against someone else: to do so is a perversion of what I see as the spirit of what a democracy is. I need to have a reason to vote *for* someone; not having a good chance to win is poor reason to -not- vote for someone. I could just as easily vote for the Libertarian or Green candidate-- is that just as bad? Our political system is built around *choice*. You can choose to vote for whomever for whatever reason-- but don't denigrate me for exercising my right to choose.

Two further things: the election is almost half a year away and a lot can happen between now and then. Second, I never reveal whom I voted for. I've voted in every single election since I could vote and I vote for the people I believe in. That's more than a lot of people can say.

Comments

[shadowolf.livejournal.com]

I didn't come up with the argument, kaysho said it himself a few weeks ago (though I can't find the specific post right now...)

Essentially let's say you have 3 candidates, A, B, and C (or N, K, and B :) Some folks like A's policies best, and are good with B's, but A is the better fit for them. They do not want C because they don't like the idea of him as a leader.

Ditto for the people who like B. They admire A's stand, but B is more in line with their ideals. Again, C is not an option for them.

The C folks, they don't like B at all, and don't want A either.

Now you can do the math in however you like, but let's say that 40% of the people like C, 35% like B, and 25% like A best of all. C wins the election, even though C is the 3rd choice of the majority of people who voted in the election. You could even make that narrower by saying 49% like C, 48% like B, and only 3% like A. Exact same outcome.

Now if you don't like B or C, and really like A, then by all means, vote for A and be happy with the outcome. Maybe A will get that 5% and be on the ballot next election, too.

However, if the thought of B as your president doesn't turn your stomach, then voting for A, especially if you know A has no true chance of winning, is only going to help C win.


On a different tangent, I am curious about this whole silent-vote process people have. My mom did the same thing, she would never tell someone who she voted for. I don't quite understand it myself, could you elaborate on why?

[chrissawyer.livejournal.com]

As much as I think Kerry is a dork, I think it is important to remove dubya asap.

Can you imagine if he's reelected? I'm sure he's been restraining himself somewhat due to reelection aspirations. :o

It irks me that Kerry is the best that the Dems can come up with.

[was1.livejournal.com]

As people have mentioned before, this is the problem with a two-party system. Voting for an independant is essentially throwing your vote away, but we'll never change the system if people don't vote more for the independants.

It's a catch-22 and individuals need to decide what's more important, keeping Bush out of the white house for another term, or sending a message to try and change the system down the road. Personally, I think keeping Bush out is a much more pressing concern.

[dustmeat.livejournal.com]

THere is a term in Texas called "Yellow Dog Democrat"
It means someone who will vote Democrat in an election even if a yellow dog is running for office