Having thought about my position on the election in November

[Adam D]

If I were in a non-"safe state" I would probably vote for Kerry. Even though I think he is Bush-lite, I would begrudgingly vote for lite rather than Bush himself, because I do not think the nation would be better off with a substantial Nader vote and Bush still in office. I wouldn't ask anybody to not vote for Nader, regardless of where they live.

Vote for what you think is right.



Since we do live in a "safe state" that will go Republican, I will encourage everybody to vote for a third party/independent candidate.

[emphatic_apparatek]

im voting for myself.....

[Ryan]

I'm voting for Kerry because I'd like to see him take a chunk of Texas even though he won't win the state. Plus, if Dubya wins the election again without taking the popular vote, perhaps it will spur some serious discussion about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the electoral college.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by emphatic_apparatek
im voting for myself.....

I'm not suggesting anything less.

I've been a fairly outspoken critic of Kerry, and a pretty strong supporter of Nader. Neither of those are changing. I was merely speaking for myself. I think that although Kerry's positions (if one can determine what they are) are like Bush's in many cases the slight differences between the two are significant, even in the small margin, enough to warrant voting for Kerry to ensure a Bush loss. Unfortunately, Texas will go Republican either way, and a vote for Kerry won't make as substantial of an impact in the long term (or the short term) as a consideration of an independent or a third party candidate. I was merely suggesting people consider that.

Since Texas is a "safe state" for Republicans, we in this state have the opportunity to advance third party and independent politics without risking four more for Bush. I think we ought to capitalize on that opportunity, but I'm certainly not trying to suggest people blindly follow what I say. I certainly want everybody to vote, and vote on their own decisions.

Yesterday I saw the result of a poll that showed Bush marginally ahead of Kerry (likely a result of this weekend's bad campaigning on Kerry's part) with Nader capturing 5%. I think that warrants some significant discussion. That 5% now is with very little campaigning and very angry dissent against him by the actual liberal media (The Nation, etc.) and Democrats across the board. That's far more support than he could warrant with the Greens in 2000. That's pretty substantial for an independent this early on. I suspect if the Greens pick a candidate, it might split his support. Nonetheless, the fact that he can garner that much support in light of the dissent against him from people who would normally support him says something about what liberals and leftists alike think of Kerry winning the nomination, and the overall feeling of abandonment that the anti-war supporters of the Democratic Party are feeling (and will continue to feel once Kucinich is dismissed after the convention) with Kerry.

The news anchor said if Nader dropped out Kerry would be ahead of Bush, but that's not true, because politics is never zero-sum. People who will support Nader may be unwilling to vote for Kerry, or may be Republicans or Independents, as well as voters such as us in safe states where a Kerry vote will have no impact on Kerry's ability to win. I suspect that is why Nader is focusing on states like Texas. I think it's pretty cool that we're finally getting some campaign coverage from somebody other than Republicans.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Ryan
I'm voting for Kerry because I'd like to see him take a chunk of Texas even though he won't win the state. Plus, if Dubya wins the election again without taking the popular vote, perhaps it will spur some serious discussion about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the electoral college.

Like it did in 2000?

The electoral college is one of those problems that won't get resolved, because when people think about it (election time) it's too late to think of changing it, and after the elections everybody forgets about it because there's nothing prompting focus on it.

There couldn't have been more of a time for "serious discussion" about the electoral college than after 2000, but we all see what happened with that. Polls show without fail that people are against the electoral college, but politicians never do anything about it. Which is the case about many issues, the public is overwhelmingly unified on a position and politicians ignore it. There's too much risk to the two parties to let it go and have third parties enter a level playing field, they would rather loose to each other.

[Element4040]

I agree with you on this one Adam. You pretty much summed up my reasoning on my decision to put my vote towards Nader as well. I would rather vote for someone I agree with more than someone I hardly agree with just to get the lesser of two evils.

I'm using my vote to send a message, I am ready for change. Your vote is your voice, and that is how I choose to use mine. I won't waste my vote on either one of those Schmo's and their big politics.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by Adam D
Like it did in 2000?

The electoral college is one of those problems that won't get resolved, because when people think about it (election time) it's too late to think of changing it, and after the elections everybody forgets about it because there's nothing prompting focus on it.

There couldn't have been more of a time for "serious discussion" about the electoral college than after 2000, but we all see what happened with that. Polls show without fail that people are against the electoral college, but politicians never do anything about it. Which is the case about many issues, the public is overwhelmingly unified on a position and politicians ignore it. There's too much risk to the two parties to let it go and have third parties enter a level playing field, they would rather loose to each other.

Well, Adam,

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

[Adam D]

I think as xiannaix acurately pointed out, this election is going to amount to a referrendum on Bush's war on terror and war on Iraq. But I think more than that, it's going to be referrendum on Bush's entire Reganesque system of deficit spending, militancy, corporate cronyism, increased police power, etc.

But I also think it will be a referrendum on the entire political system itself. I think that a lot of people feel more disenfranchised than usual with Kerry winning the nomination that their anti-war and anti-Bush activism is not being represented by Kerry or the Democratic Party, and that's going to be redirected elsewhere for a lot of people. I also think that there are a lot of Republicans who feel Bush has taken the party somewhere it isn't supposed to be. Unfortunately, many of those people are still going to vote for the two parties regardless. However, I also think that there is going to be a substantial minority of people who vote for Nader and third party candidates, and if that happens it's really going to be a referrendum against the political system that doesn't listen to the people, often the people who are most vocal without dollar influence, and doesn't represent us as a whole.

Getting Bush out of office is certainly a key goal for anybody who is opposed to the Bush agenda, that's why I said I would vote for Kerry if I lived in a state that wasn't unquestionably favored for one party or the other. I think that everybody who lives in a safe state ought to consider adopting a safe state strategy and try to open the doors to third parties and independents in future elections by voting for somebody other than Kerry or Bush now.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Ryan
Well, Adam,

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

I'm not suggesting that changes shouldn't be made. I think along with abandoning the electoral college activists should push for opening more states to fusion ballots and cross-nomination procedures.

I simply think that it's not going to happen because the steam always runs out on any election reform in a few months after November.

[c double]

Originally posted by Ryan
I'm voting for Kerry because I'd like to see him take a chunk of Texas even though he won't win the state. Plus, if Dubya wins the election again without taking the popular vote, perhaps it will spur some serious discussion about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the electoral college.

I don't see any serious discussion taking place if Republicans control the white house and both houses of congress. My vote will go to Nader unless there's another third party candidate.

[Element4040]

Originally posted by c double
I don't see any serious discussion taking place if Republicans control the white house and both houses of congress. My vote will go to Nader unless there's another third party candidate.

And that is part of the problem right there. Republican President with a Republican majority in the houses.