A non-judgemental question:
How many of you who will be voting for Ralph Nader are doing so because you think he would make the best President of the available candidates and how many of you are voting more as a protest of the process and/or the major party candidates?
I bring this up because a headline in one of the local papers ( wish I could remember) said ‘Protest vote could sway the election’ and I was just curious as to how much of it was actual protest versus true preference.
That’d be one vote for true preference here.
I’m voting Ralph because I think he is the best man for the job. He has a long ecord of “getting things done” and holds very similer views to mine. In addition, he seems to have a very good hold on what being president mean, and what a president can and cannot do, instead of running aound squacking about “issues” that presidents can fix anyway.
As an added bonus, Greens can get federal matching funds if our boy makes 5%. So while it isn’t exactly “protest”, a bit of my vote is party building. When Mr. Nader gets an unexpected amount of votes (my prediction), people nation wide will see the Green party as a viable party and perhaps start voteing greens in to more local posistions.
Oh, sure. People aren’t “stupid” enough to “throw away” their vote unless they are “protesting” something. The spin is pretty clear on this one.
I do think Bush will do a good job no matter how I vote. I don’t think the Dems will see 5% of the votes for Nader and make the least attempt to get their souls back though 
[sarcasm]I’m going to throw my vote away and singlehandedly hand Bush the election on a silver platter. [/sarcasm]
But really. I wrote Nader in in '96, and I’ll vote for him again this election because I believe in him.
Note: The above sarcasm wasn’t directed at the OP’er.
Tretiak: A little from Column A, and a little from Column B.
I think that Nader’s better than either of the two major party candidates.
I also think that that’s not saying a hell of a lot.
…And like Rasa, I’m really voting for Nader so that my single vote can push Bush over the top in Oregon, sending a crucial swing state into the GOP column and altering the outcome of the entire election. Yup.
I second (third?)sven.
Let’s put it this way, I’m denitatly voting FOR something more than AGAINST anything.
I’m voting for Nader to help get the Green party to 5% for matching funds and because a viable third party can only help the political dialogue in this country. FTR, if he weren’t in the race, I’d vote for Bush–we’re not all disgruntled Democrats that can be brought back into the fold by Democratic scare tactics.
And the great thing is, once the Greens pick Pat Buchanan as their nominee in 2004 just for the name recognition, the sky is the limit!
Lol I think greens would refuse buchanan:) besides he doesnt even have 1% of the vote.
Though im voting for Nader because voting for Nader is a vote for Bush and I want to vote for Bush.
I’m voting for Nader, against Bush.
Poor Al Gore just got in my way.
I did campaign for him locally, in support of the Green candidates, not him personally.
Now, with the race tightening, I wish I hadn’t.
I am voting for him becasue he is so much better a candidate than the two winkies.
If he had been allowed to debate with them, it would’ve shown them up for what they were (putting on a show).
Its a choice between a real apple and a plastic apple.
I will be sad on Nov. 7th, as my candidate won’t win. Ralph said its not going to be that different no matter which of the two win anyway.
Oh, well, if Ralph said it, it must be true. :rolleyes:
Criminy! Nader’s ‘Big Lie’ strikes again.
Same old argument against a vote for Perot, who I voted for back in '92, my ‘vote for Clinton’. I may vote Nader just to get some selection in the process. I am against most of what he believes in, well, I’m pretty sure I am, I’m not sure what he believes in.
Between Bush and Gore, I’d take the fuzzy English over the fuzzy Math, but what a selection huh?
Do I think that is throwing away a vote?
Absolutely not. Every vote is a statement, even not voting.
Many people, more than enough to turn the entire tide of an election, don’t bother because they are uninspired by any of the candidates or simply not inspired to do so. I think picking Nader over my write in of Martin Sheen will at least be a step towards options, getting away from a two Party system that continuously abandons it’s voters for their biggest contributors.
If I wake up on November 8th to find that the populus felt the same way and Nader was now President, I wouldn’t gasp in horror. Actually, I would, for once, look forward to seeing what he does instead of counting the days until he breaks his campaign promises.
Well, I’m voting for Ralph Nader because he’s the green party candidate, not the individual. I don’t mean by that that I have anything against Nader personally, he seems to be an honest and decent guy.
Thanks… like it’s not bad enough that we’re overrun with Californians, now you want cretins to run the state as well.
The “a vote for Bush” argument doesn’t work for me, because I’m in Maryland, which means a sex scandal involving Al Gore, Chelsea Clinton, and two of the Backstreet Boys would have to unfurl before Bush wins the state.
Anyway, I’m leaning toward voting for Ralph because his beliefs and issues are more aligned with my own than any other candidate, barring possibly David McReynolds (Socialist). Alas, McReynolds is not on the ballot in Maryland (but Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party is).
And, helping the Greens get a 5% national tally, which will hopefully create a viable left-wing third party in our country.
Hey Montfort, how did the Consitution Party come up? I’m not saying you shouldn’t have mentioned them, I’m just curious because for a second I thought you might be considering voting for them, which would be weird for a Green / Socialist supporter. I must have read you wrong though. (My interest in the matter stems from the Constitution Party being the only one of the current political parties that I really dislike. The other parties - every one of them - has something to offer.)
I mentioned the Constitutionalists solely because I got my sample ballot in the mail yesterday (I’m a registered Democrat here in MD, and will probably vote the party line in all matters non-Presidential).
On the MD ballot, the listed candidates are:
Gore/Lieberman - Democratic
Bush/Cheney - Republican
Browne/Oliver - Libertarian
Buchanan/Foster - Reform
Nader/LaDuke - Green
Phillips/Frazier - Constitution
I referred to Phillips because I was surprised that a fringe far-right wing party could get on the ballot here, but not a similar far-left party. I also note that in my district (MD-8, currently held by Republican Connie Morella), there is a Constitution party candidate on the ballot, Brian D. Saunders, in addition to the standard Republican (Morella) and Democrats (Terry Lierman).
Ancilliary question to the OP:
Does anyone think that a “liberal mandate” will rise in the 2002 election if a Bush presidency wins this year, and the elephants control Congress? Will the first two years of a Dubya administration be as ineffective legislatively as the first two years of Clinton’s, which caused the Gingrichian revolution in 1994?
And, if so, will Nader be a more viable candidate in 2004, and his supporters (and the Greens/liberals as a whole) in 2002? Will the Democrats move back to the Kennedy, rather than Clinton, side of the aisle?