Question for third party voters

[nclib]

Please only answer if you plan on voting for a third party candidate.

[Inverted Things]

I'm going for Cobb. If I was forced to hold my nose, I'd go Kerry.

[MODU]

Other-Bush

[John Dibble]

Badnarik-Bush

Better the devil I know than the devil I don't. While both would probably increase government size, Bush would do it to a lesser extent I'd hope.

[Beet]

Badnarik.

[cwelsch]

I put Badnarik-Kerry only because I want to force Bush to lose for foisting deficits and the Patriot Act on the country.  But generally the Republicans are better for pro-liberty voters, and I'm closer to Bush's rhetoric than Kerry's.

Truth be told, I'd probably abstain or do a write-in.  Or vote for Charles Jay.  Or hell, even Peroutka.  Well, hmm, okay, maybe not Peroutkla.  But you get my drift.

[The Vorlon]

I vote in California, so it really makes no difference...

Hypothetically, if I was in a battleground state, I think I would switch from Badnarik to Kerry.

I am really not impressed with Kerry, but I do tend to like divided government, and it seems highly likely the gOP will hold the House and probably the Senate.

To the degree my vote matters, I vote for the correlation of political forces likely to inflict the least damage, which is typically divided government.

1994-2000 was excellent government in relative if not absolute  terms.  

The blood fued between the GOP and Clinton resulted in gridlock and stalemate.  Other than Welfare reform, very little of consequence happened in Washington and hence the natural self healing capacity of the economy was able to exceed the pace at which our elected officials were able to inflict damage.  There was still vast amounts of fiscal and spending sillyness, but at least the rate of expansion of the madness somewhat slowed.

If I though the Dems were going to take back Congress, I'd likely vote for Bush.