Between Nader and Badnarik. I don’t live in a swing state, so i can have my cake and eat it too (not hurting Bush’s chance of getting removed from office). Anyone else ever torn between third party candidates?
Don’t vote for Nader. You don’t want to encourage him.
I’d still vote for Kerry even if I did live in a solidly red (or blue) state; you never know what crazy stuff could happen. But if I was voting third party I’d be voting for Cobb, of the Green Party.
I agree. Vote for someone who really stands for something. I presume some of the other third-party candidates must.
I’ve just decided to shift from Badnarik to Kerry. (I do live in a swing state.) Please, don’t encourage Nader. As far as I can make out, he’s only running for the sake of his own ego. Please cast the vote for Badnarik I would have and remind the major parties that, while we may be fed up with them, we won’t stop voting.
Four years ago, I switched my vote from the Libertarian party to Ralph Nader, thinking Nader had a chance. I’m afraid I regret that decision.
CJ
From a libertarian: thank you. The cause of civil liberty is far better supported this year by ensuring that Bush is removed from office than by a third-party vote that (currently) amounts to a symbolic gesture. Often, it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other between the Democrat and Republican candidates, and I can summarily reject both with a clear conscience. This year, that simply isn’t the case.
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again in the slim chance that anybody’s listening who’ll hear me: libertarians, Green Party members, and all others who would bill themselves as in any way “liberal” – please vote Kerry this morning. The nation will be better off for it.
Vote for Kerry. The larger his popular vote victory, the greater his mandate.
Vote for who you want to be President.
But Clinton isn’t allowed to run again…
These are my feelings exactly. I’m in a guaranteed Kerry State and I still made a very rare vote for a major party candidate.
Haj
Given those choices I’d go with Badnarik.
Nader is basically just being an attention-whore at this point. I think he likes the role.
Badnarik, at least, is trying to be a real candidate.
And Woodrow Wilson is dead.
As did I. Today, I made up for my error (Nader, it turns out, was responsible for driving someone I hadn’t yet met in 2000, but who has since assumed a position of indirect but welcome significance in my life, out of a fledgling business about 15 years ago) by casting two votes for Badnarik. One for Michael, and one for mom Elaine, the Libertarian candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Indiana. Besides Bush and Kerry, Michael Badnarik was the only presidential candidate to make the ballot in my precinct.
Kat: Woodrow Wilson’s main obstacle is actually the fact he served two terms, now the maximum. When I was in high school in the 1970’s, my history teacher delighted in telling the class of a group called something like the Society for the Preservation of the Obscurity of Franklin Pierce, which quadrennially nominated the 14th President of the United States for a second term even though his first (and so far lone) four years at the helm had ended in 1857, and he had died twelve years later. The Constitution doesn’t specifically say that a candidate for the presidency must be living, although the clause referring to “Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office” would presumably cause President-re-elect Pierce’s executive privilege to devolve to his running mate.