On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:41:27 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On 06 Jan 2005 22:14:13 GMT, Steveo
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Coming from someone who voted for Bush, that doesn't mean much.

You voted for him too, Frank.


No I didn't. Not in 2000 and not in 2004. I did support him after the
first election mainly because I was supporting his office. I still
support the office, just not the man.


Any vote for Nader, was one less vote
for the waffle king.


That's a propaganda tactic first used by both sides when Perot was an
unknown variable.

Actually there was a lot of truth in it. Perot syphoned quite a few
votes away from Bush 1. Heck I almost voted for him. His straight up
non-nonsense business approach to the economy was refreshing and
resonated with fiscal conservatives.

The reverse can be applied to Nader. He appeals to the hard core left,
who, for whatever reason don't think the democratic party has gotten
liberal enough (Chilling thought). It's a fairly safe bet that if
Nader had not been on the ticket that MOST of his votes would have
probably gone to Kerry.

Since Nader did not make as big of a splash as Perot did, his total
effect on the eventual election outcome is speculative. But to deny
that there was any effect is myopic.


Let me make this perfectly clear: A vote for anybody
that isn't an ass or an elephant is a vote against both those parties.

One party more than the other depending on which political ideology of
the third party who manages to rise up out of the noise floor of write
in status.


And to lay blame on people who voted third-party is a pretentious
crock of ****.

To deny the influence of those third party vote syphoners is equally
ludicrous.


Don't believe me? Just wait until the next election for
WA governor, when the Republicans are going to use the same bull****
excuse claiming it was the third-party candidates that stole their
victory.

No, it was clever democratic operatives who (after a few recounts)
managed to manufacture enough extra votes to swing the election their
way.

Where's your cry of voter fraud there Frank?


The best part is, you knew Ralphie had a snow
balls chance in hell of being elected. Was Nader even on the ballot,
or did you have to write him in?


He was most certainly on the ballot, as were the candidates for the
Green and Libertarian parties, and a few others.

Nader was denied a place on the ballot in Pa. He didn't have enough
legitimate petitioners. Although the Libertarian candidate, Badnarick,
managed to make it....


This country shouldn't be limited to two political parties, so I don't
vote for either of them -regardless- of who I think is going to win.

So you are the "anti-voter"?


As the saying goes, "It's better to light a single candle than to sit
and curse the darkness".


There's also a saying about standing in the middle of a crowded
highway......


Don't get me wrong, the whole principle of a democratic government
should embrace as many political candidates as they can. Third (and
4th) parties are a good thing. But in all practicality, they are alone
in a sea of red and blue. Even if a third party candidate were to win
the office of president, they'd be opposed by both sides of congress.

And that's really the catch 22. Many people contemplate their votes.
They may like what a 3rd party candidates says, but realizes that they
stand little chance of winning. So the question becomes, should they
vote for someone who they ideologically agree with the most, or the
candidate who somewhat agrees with you, but who has a better chance of
actually winning?

Is it better to completely lose your chance to influence the direction
of this country or is it better to at least get SOME of your political
views represented?

That is the voter conundrum.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj