Okay. I think that neither Bush nor Gore is a wonderful candidate. I know that Nader will not be elected, but a vote for him could act like a “protest” vote against the exclusionary, corporation-controlled two-party system. There is the chance that if enough people did this, Gore would lose so many votes that Bush would beat him. (Of course, if enough-enough people did this, Nader would win.)
I would prefer to see Nader elected, but I know that, pragmatically, I should vote for Gore. Is it better to vote in a pragmatic manner or an idealistic manner?
(I typed this hastily; I hope that I conveyed my ideas clearly enough.)
The election is very close. One candidate somewhat promotes my agenda; the other generally opposes it. Should I give my support to someone who needs all the support he can get because he could win, or should I support someone who I think should win, regardless of whether he can (but thereby risk losing the chance of having anyone I partially support in the WH)?
Definitely vote Nader. The Democrats have been racing toward the center so fast that they don’t realize they’ve overshot it.
Sure, we run the risk of another Bush presidency (though I still think Gore will pull a victory out of thin air). But how different are the two candidates, really? Both are entirely owned by corporate interests, and both will owe their presidencies solely to the companies that bought it for them. Both selected running mates who are further to the right than they are. John Wilkes Booth shot Bush in a theater and hid in a warehouse; Lee Harvey Oswald shot Gore from a warehouse and hid in a theater.
Wait. Sorry, wrong men.
Anyway.
Point is, even though the idea of Bush as our president makes me squirm, I simply can’t vote for Gore while he continues his rightward march. If Gore wins this election, great. If he loses, maybe the Dems will learn not to take the left for granted.
Use the “Ivins rule” to determine if your state is so solidly behind either Bush or Gore that your vote won’t make a difference, and vote for Gore or Nader depending on whether it will or it won’t. See this explanation at the Tom Paine website.
The way I see it, voting for a third-party candidate is a vote for the future–a message to the Ds and Rs that they are missing the boat and losing voters because of it. You have to decide if this message for the future–which, if enough people do it, will have an effect–is more important than voting for who you see as the major-party lesser evil, which is a vote for the present.
I completely agree with MysterEcks. The two candidates are both such similar corporate lapdogs that to vote the lesser of two evils just perpetuates the crappy candidate selection. Besides, it feels good to actually agree with the candidate you vote for. Leaves a much nicer taste in your mouth.
(Although I have to admit I’ll be much sadder if Bush wins, than if Gore does. Bush is just so dumb!)
The Ivins rule although it sounds nifty is largely meaningless. Even the closest state election will probably be decided by several thousand votes. Your single vote cannot alter that outcome. Of course it is possible for it to be a one vote outcome for your state, but I would harbor to guess you are more likely to get hit by lightning. It is far better to vote your conscience then under any pretense of influencing the outcome of the election.