On second glance, it appears I switched you two around. Still, the suggestion stands.
You never saw this site?
No, I hadn’t seen that site before. Is there another one called “George W. Bush is a Crap Sandwich But I’m Voting for Him Anyway” that I don’t know about? Does this mean people will actually know what I mean when I put up my “Douche Bag for President” sign?
Anyway, thanks for sharing the site. I definitely plan on exploring it further.
(Since no one has commented on what I assume the OP was referrencing)…
Perhaps the wise people of PETA might convince you otherwise 
RE: third party votes. They are NOT meaningless!! They tend to detract votes from one side, effectively boosting the other.
True to an extent. They definitely have the freedom (knowing they’ll never have a shot at winning) of being a bit more controversial and thus causing the major party candidates to address certain issues they might have otherwise have left alone.
But no third party is idealogically equidistant from the other two. Unfortunately the most significant third party candidate of this and the previous election is on the left, so he causes the democrats to compete with both himself and the pubs. The pubs sit back and enjoy.
fuckin’ Nader!
I’d say that a 3rd party vote in this situation is meaningless. If neither Bush nor Kerry would get the OP’s vote to begin with, then the vote is not being detracted from either side.
In my experience, many people start voting for third parties when they are so fed up with the major one they used to support. So instead of their potential vote being between a Republican and a Democrat, it’s between, say, a Democrat and a Libertarian if Joe Voter is pissed enough at the Dems. So a major party would lose a vote that way.
They don’t lose a vote if somebody votes for a third party because that’s where their loyalties lie and they’d either vote for that guy or not at all, but if somebody says, “Fuck Kerry, I’m voting for that Libertarian guy,” then yes, there’s a lost vote. (I don’t know how likely it is that Kerry votes would go to a Libertarian, but my sweetie’s a Lib, so they spring to mind when I hear “third party.”)
Whether that lost vote is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your perspective, of course.
Not sure. It’s from last nights Southpark. I think Kerry is supposed to be the douche.
Well really my goal is not to “punish” anyone. It’s to put the person in charge who is best suited to the job.
I don’t understand how that would help. There can only be one president. no matter how you slice the votes, Nader has no chance of winning (unless you make a Nader vote = 10000 votes or something).
Made me actually Laugh Out Loud (a rarity).
My conservative republican elderly Mother-In-Law voted for Bush Sr. as well and will definitely vote for Kerry just to be rid of his spawn.
We’re not talking about trends here. The assertation was that third party votes are not meaningless. In one scenario, they are.
Cup of tea, my ass. I’ll eat out that 81-year-old granny if it gets her to the polls.
Rants belong in The Pit.
Cajun Man
for the SDMB
I did NOT need that mental image.
Also in the news, I sent in my absentee ballot today. It’s the first time I’ve voted, so I didn’t know what to expect on the ballot. Lo and behold the presidential part of it is first but not even 1/8 of the entire ballot. I also voted for congressman (Tom Davis, the man I have pitted at least twice, did not get my vote…) and several funding issues. So clearly there’s more to be had on that ballot than just Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney.
Apologies for wheeling back to page 1, but:
King Of Soup: Bravo! That was the best, most even-handed yet informative post I’ve yet seen on the SDMB regarding the white-hot topic of third-party voting in the US Election. That was a real credit to this thread.
So I’m not the only undecided voter on earth who’s decided to skip the presidential race and move on from there? I have no positive reason to vote for Kerry (what will he do? He strikes me as another Clinton who will do whatever gets him votes.), severe reservations about Bush, and not much agreement with any third party platform. (Not Nader, not Cobb, not Badnarik, not Peroutka…)
So what do I do, vote for the lesser of a number of evils? I don’t see one that seems proper for the role of president. I’m still making my voice heard on other issues.
Try living here and see if you justify going to the polls. My vote is worth just about fucking nothing as far as the presidential election is concerned. God damn an electoral college. If the popular vote determined the winner it wouldn’t matter. My vote would be worth something then. As it is now, I almost feel like why bother. They don’t even campaign here.
How do sheep go? baa- baa Yeah, that’s how it is. I’m just following up the herd. 
Because we really don’t like Bush or Kerry, and some of us are sick of being told we are “Morons/Facists/Communists because we voted for whoever you hate the most”.
Uhhhhhh…how would that happen, again? Explain how someone can get 51% of the popular vote and finish behind two other candidates.
It’s possible however unlikely. We have three candidates and of course the winner won a little over half the electoral college with the runner up having won the other half. Perot could have actually won a state or two with large populations like Texas and California just for an example. If he took both of those state with practically all of the popular vote he wouldn’t have enough electoral votes to win. However, if he came in second place in every other state and got no other electoral votes. He could actually be third in the race but still have a majority of the popular vote. Granted it’d be highly unlikely but actually possible.
I believe in 1992 if everyone who wanted to vote for Perot would have done so, he would’ve been a real contender.
I’m also not voting on Tuesday. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion on the candidates. I do, and in some cases they’re pretty strong opinions. I just don’t see that my voting would make much difference. With all the votes that are going to be cast, my vote would be insignificant. For example, in 2000, Bush won the state of Virginia (my state) by a vote of 1,437,490 to 1,217,290, winning by 220,200 votes. If I had voted for Gore in 2000, Bush would have won by 220,199 votes. This does not impress me as a significant difference.
I already voted for Bush. Your abstinence makes my vote mean even more.
Thanks!