"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

[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.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

So you're going to vote for a guy who has virtually identical views on Gay rights as Bush? Personally, I would find it difficult to support a candidate that I morally opposed, but (obviously) your mileage may differ! I'm still skeptical that he'll risk ex-communication over pro-choice issues.

My problem is with the party system: in recent years we seem doomed to nominate candidates that best represent the extreme views of that party. I'm a rabid moderate...and it's been a long time since a moderate has been elected (Nixon, surprisingly).

Frick vs Frack

[chuck-melville.livejournal.com]

So you're going to vote for a guy who has virtually identical views on Gay rights as Bush? Personally, I would find it difficult to support a candidate that I morally opposed, but (obviously) your mileage may differ! I'm still skeptical that he'll risk ex-communication over pro-choice issues.

Even so, Kerry is still preferred over W. As bad as Kerry might be, he'll seem like a freaking picnic compared to another four years of W. It really does comes down to a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, like it or not, and if that's the sort of choice we have, then something was dreadfully wrong with the primary system, that such unsavory choices were ever made to begin with. (Me, I was pushing for Clark; Kerry is even more wooden and uninspiring than Gore.) After what happened in Florida during the 2000 elections, I sure as hell will make sure I put my vote where it will do the most good in unseating W, even if it puts in a candidate who is only better in comparison to the incumbent; and I don't want to risk allowing W to win because I abstained and withheld my vote altogether.

My problem is with the party system: in recent years we seem doomed to nominate candidates that best represent the extreme views of that party. I'm a rabid moderate...and it's been a long time since a moderate has been elected (Nixon, surprisingly).

Even then, Kerry isn't really that extreme a view, unless you're a conservative Republican. He's just not near enough Liberal to be enticing, and certainly not enough to be a proper 'mirror' image to W's conservatism. Like Clinton, he sees a better chance of getting elected by appealing to the center and conservative Dems, and frankly, I don't think there's enough there to give him the election; I think he'd stand a far better chance, to gauge the response of audience reaction to "Farenheit 9/11", by appealing to the Liberals and damn the conservative rhetoric.

To be honest, I'd favor a Nader presidency -- I respect his integrity and views, and think it would make for an interesting four years. But I won't vote for him so long as he's a third party candidate. Not so much because of any distaste or disagreement with the Greens as for the fact that -- IF he gets elected -- he'd have no support mechanism. There is no way in hell any significant number of Green candidates would ever get elected to have any weighty presence in either House or Senate to support any bills he might want pushed through. He would be an impotent president, there, but unable to do anything but fight with the Congress. Hence, I'm not about to piss away my vote on him. Not unless the Green stage some sort of miraculous revolution of voter interest between now and Election Day.