“It’s too bad for the Democrats that Kerry already has the nomination sewed up. They rushed the process, and now they’ve wound up with a lemon and no return policy. I guess they can always vote for Nader. “
That is from today’s Nealz Nuze on Neal Boortz’s site.
I really don’t want to see anyone vote for Nader. Not only is he far from capable, he sees himself as a spoiler, and his followers as making a statement when they vote for him. They make a statement, all right, but it isn’t what they think. “I’m willing to throw away my voice in the electoral process.” And that is all it accomplishes. Do they really think the national parties pay attention?
It is an ego trip for Nader more so than for Perot in 1992. Perot at least had some chance of winning.
Voters (not the larger number of people eligible to vote) are pretty evenly divided from what I’ve seen reported. There is something like 40% dedicated to each party. That leaves 20% to fight over in the campaign. Of that group, the large majority would only briefly consider voting for a third-party candidate, if at all. Those that will are pretty much locked in already for Nader or someone from the Libertarians.
So, a vote for one of them does what? It doesn’t build on a previous good showing by a new party because there hasn’t yet been one. The closest was Perot’s run in 1992 which gave him something like 18% of the popular vote. That is something that could have been built on, and actually catch the attention of a major party. It did then. And Perot’s party died quickly rather than growing.
I recommend everyone eligible vote this year. Some will say they don’t like the choice between Bush and Kerry. I’ve heard that every election I can remember. Some won’t vote because of this, and some will vote for Joe Schlump in protest. Don’t. Until another candidate can come forward and build something outside the Democratic and Republican Parties, spending several years before running building support for their ideas, the vote is wasted.
Be a part of the process. Whether you prefer Bush or Kerry, vote for one or the other, and not simply against one of them. Find something about one of them that gives you hope for what they might accomplish. Disregard the negatives in favor of positives in your mind. Of course, there will be plenty of negatives flying. Filter them and read each man by how he handles himself and real ideas (not generalities) he speaks of.
Vote. Don’t let others make your decisions for you.
For what it’s worth (OK, maybe not much), I know at least two real-life acquaintainces who aren’t “political” and don’t follow news very closely, but who’ve declared that they’re going to vote for Bush because of his commitment to fighting the war on terror. I confess I may have exerted some very small influence; in one case, all it seemed to take was me (recently) showing one of them the picture of the “falling man” (WTC tower); she had *never* seen it. I think all of us have a few friends/acquaintances like this, the classic ‘uninformed’ person who actually will show up at the polls anyway. Scary? Well, as long as they’re going to vote anyway, I, for one, am not above using whatever meager debating skills I have to convince them to vote Bush. It’s that important.
Comment by topdawg — March 16, 2004 @ 6:23 am
I will continue to support Bush for the same reasons. But people who lodge a protest vote really have no impact on the thinking of the parties they’re protesting against. Dean could be a viable third-party candidate, and so could McCain. But I don’t believe anyone will pay attention to Nader’s vote total except folks handling election-night coverage.
Comment by Bunker — March 16, 2004 @ 10:53 am