I voted for Carter in ’76, Reagan in ’80 and ’84, Dukakis in ’88 and Perot in ’92. I became so disillusioned with Perot’s bullshit in ’92 that I didn’t vote in ’96. But I feel left out of the system now so I want to vote again in November. Gore is saying a lot of the things I want to hear but I don’t know if can be presidential. Bush has done a good job as Governor of Texas (I lived there for a couple years with him as governor). I think he can do the job of president but I don’t like what he has to say.
Guess I am voting for Gore, though neither candidate really lights my fire. Now if I can just find a place to live besides a hotel so I can register to vote.
Nader is good. Beats the hell out of the other two stiffs.
I’d prefer someone more exciting, but Perot is sitting it out his year. He could have won with these losers.
At first, I was looking at Gore, but once I looked, I kinda got disgusted REALLY quick. Then I glanced at Bush, and after pouring through the heaps of bullshit his detractors throw around, I actually like the guy, and may even still wind up voting for him. But in the past week, for no reason at all, I decided to do a write-in vote for myself, and I want you all to do the same.
Al Gore all the way for me. I seriously examined Nader for a while, and while I liked a lot of his ideas I concluded Gore was the better choice. I think he’s a much more well-rounded candidate. While Nader is great for things like the environment and consumer advocacy, he simply hasn’t proven himself in other areas. The addition of Sen. Lieberman to the ticket is great- I was speaking to Sen. Herb Kohl (Dem, WI) a few days ago and he had some really good things to say about him and supported him all the way (and this was in a private talk, not a press conference).
However, I should throw a disclaimer in here: I won’t actually be voting for Gore, as I’m only 17, but I’m still doing my part by volunteering about 40 hours a week for the democratic campaign.
What is the point of voting for someone who has NO chance of winning even if his views are closest to yours? Perot taught us all too well that it doesn’t matter what you stand for if you can’t get elected.
No big surprise? No big surprise to who? I’ve never even heard of Harry Browne. I am certainly surprised to see someone saying they are voting for someone who I have never heard of. Exactly who would this not be a big surprise to, your parents?
Gore is against the Second Ammendment. Bush is against a woman’s right to an abortion. Gore is married to Tipper, who mounted a campaign in the 1980s to abridge artists’ First Ammendment rights of freedom of expression. Bush will probably support the Religious Right.
I don’t like either of them; but none of the other candidates stand a snowball’s chance in a Barstow summer of winning.
Umm, Wanderer, I am a Libertarian so a great majority of the board knows. Harry Browne is the Libertarian canidate.
If you haven’t heard of him, no problem with me
The point is, you are voting your voice and your truth. If you vote for the most popular or the lesser of two evils because your canidate wont win you may as well not vote at all.
I will probably vote for who I always vote for: Dick Gregory.
I know, he won’t win, but its who I Believe in.
WHy choose one of two you don’t even like?
I’m going with Gore. I don’t like his stance on the gun-issue, but Bush literally frightens me. I mean, I have genuine fear when I look at that man. And I just don’t like Nadar. And even if I DID like Nadar, I wouldn’t throw my vote away. I would rather do anything to keep Bush out of office. Voting for Nadar will not to do that. So, Gore all the way!
Gore, I believe, is not terribly principled (e.g., his “unwavering” stance on abortion, his daytrip to the Buddhist temple), though Bush doesn’t inspire me either.
I tend to agree with the Democrats philosophically on most things, save for a single plank in the platform that I just can’t get past (I guess I’m a pro-life liberal–I’m against capital punishment, pro-affirmative action, pro-union). I suppose I’ll vote Republican, since there is the very real possibility that four Supreme Court justices will be appointed by our next president. In this election, the single issue I’m focused on is paramount (I do NOT always vote on a single issue).
I would never vote for Gore. I don’t want someone messing with my right to own guns, and I would probably shoot the first person that tried to take my guns away from me. He’s married to Tipper, and that lady freaks me out. I may not agree with Bush on a lot of topics, but he seems to be the best choice to me that has a chance of winning.
Although you Gore freaks can breathe a sigh of relief, as I’m only 17 right now.
Exactly, the whole reason you vote is to inform the politicians about what you think. This weighs more than a dozen letters to your congressman. Even if a third party candidate doesn’t win, they may get enough of a vote for the winner to take a look at what people agree with. Also, I know it’s early in the thread, but I’d say if you were going by the votes cast so far, Nadar actually does have a chance to win, or at least put a scare into the big two.
Oh and so far I’m leaning towards Nadar. Bush is lame and I don’t think Gore actually cares about women’s issues; he just says it because it’s the party line (i.e. not the Republican standpoint.)
Maybe if you vote knowing you are throwing away your vote beforehand you can accept that trade-off, but when Perot turned out to be such a freak-show it totally disillusioned me to the political process and I didn’t even want to vote the next go around. I myself will never vote for a candidate who can’t win again.
The only time a vote is “thrown away” is when it’s not used at all. It is impossible to consider a cast vote “wasted.” ALL votes will be recorded, not just the most “popular” ones.
The fact that you voted for Perot and then regretted it does not mean your vote was wasted, it only means you regret it. The very fact that so many people DID vote for Perot at the time very definately caught the attention of the other candidates and they adjusted their platforms accordingly. (Well, before Perot went insane, anyway.)
Voting for someone because they’re going to win anyway is dumb. It’s easy to back a “winner” (look at Yankees fans – heh heh) but standing up for yourself and what you want for your country and your children may be harder, but more important.
What if you vote for the “winner” and he implements a policy that you hate, and your third party candidate also would not have implemented? Which was the wasted vote then?
The one that was a “lie” to yourself.
