Do the right thing

[John Dibble]

Tommorow is the day to vote. Those of you who have not voted early or absentee, I strongly urge you to do the right thing when you go to the polls tommorow.

The right thing is simply to vote for the candidate you would most like as president, regardless of whether that person will win or not. Whether that person is Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka, Nader, or any of the other miscellaneous candidates, I urge you to vote for that person. Our voting system is horribly broken because too many people refuse to vote for the candidate they like most and instead compromise for the one they feel will do the least damage. As I said, if Bush or Kerry is your preferred choice above all others, by all means vote for him, but only do so if that is the case. As far as I am concerned, neither of them has earned my vote, so I will be voting for the candidate whom I feel has earned it.

Tommorow I will go to bed with a clear conscience, knowing that I did not compromise on my principles. Will you be able to say the same? The choice is up to you - nobody can determine who you vote for but you.

[Nym90]

I agree with this sentiment.

By the way, I saw a Badnarik ad on CNN yesterday; first time I had ever seen one. It was pretty good; clearly a little low budget, but not bad at all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Excellent post John

[??????????]

Hear Hear! Oh, and they are running that Badnarik ad here.

[Andy25]

John, thank you for this excellent post.

But i must say i understand and tolerate those who say neither candidate is acceptable... there are many out there i suppose.

I hope the US will have a somewhat clear winner by Wednesday, whoever that will be. Another round of recounts and lawsuits would be devestating!

The winner will face a very big task in the next four years.

[minionofmidas]

Yes, I would very much like to urge half the Republicans to follow John's advice, and half of them to vote Badnarik and the balance to vote Peroutka.

[John Dibble]

Yes, I would very much like to urge half the Republicans to follow John's advice, and half of them to vote Badnarik and the balance to vote Peroutka.

My advice is to vote your organs - heart, gut, brain, whichever ones you listen to.

If you want to vote Bush or Kerry because you like them as candidates, do it. Kerry voters who don't like Kerry should vote for someone else just as Bush voters who don't like Bush should vote for someone else. I convinced my mother to vote Badnarik, she was going to vote Kerry just because he wasn't Bush.

[AuH2O]

A vote for Badnarik is fine... in a non-swing state.

In a swing state, a vote for Badnarik is a vote for a biased media, regressive domestic policy, confused foreign policy, and hack Supreme Court justices.

[John Dibble]

A vote for Badnarik is fine... in a non-swing state.

In a swing state, a vote for Badnarik is a vote for a biased media, regressive domestic policy, confused foreign policy, and hack Supreme Court justices.

A vote for Badnarik is a vote for Badnarik, not for Kerry(which I assume you mean), no matter where it is cast. If George Bush, or for that matter John Kerry, doesn't want people voting third party then they need to earn those votes - if they lose it is their own fault for not doing so.

[AuH2O]

That's fine, so long as you think Kerry is equal to Bush.

But Kerry is not going to appoint better judges. Kerry is not going to lower taxes. Kerry is not going to protect gun rights.

The US is a 2 party system and will remain that way.

[John Dibble]

That's fine, so long as you think Kerry is equal to Bush.

But Kerry is not going to appoint better judges. Kerry is not going to lower taxes. Kerry is not going to protect gun rights.

The US is a 2 party system and will remain that way.

I don't think Kerry is equal to Bush, but there's not enough difference.

I don't expect Bush to do any of those things either.

The US remains a two party system because of people like you.

[AuH2O]

Except I didn't even vote for Bush.

But if I was in Ohio I would.

With our election system, there is a STRUCTURAL barrier to third party success.

In a proportional representation system, a party can get 5% and be in the legislature. Third parties have done far better than that on numerous occasions- 1996, 1992, 1980, 1968, etc.

In our system, the people in power have DESIGNED the system so third parties can't win. They can't build a political base, financial network, etc., and without that, they cannot be a national party.

Third party candidates for President can do fairly well, insofar as they can't win but can effect the outcome, but they do not really act as a party so much as an individual.

Part of the problem also, in this election, is how bad Kerry is. I'm not going to enable someone that has a pro-communist voting record. Sorry.

[John Dibble]

With our election system, there is a STRUCTURAL barrier to third party success.

This I agree with. I hope you do demand voting reform, though it's unlikely to happen even if we demand it under the current parties. I personally favor approval voting.

Still, under the current system affecting an election outcome might be bad in the short term, but it can also be good in the long term - the losing party may adopt some of the policies of the third-party they lost votes to, making it better for the third-party voters.

[Silent Hunter]

Hear Hear!

[Gabu]

I convinced my mother to vote Badnarik, she was going to vote Kerry just because he wasn't Bush.

Boooo.

Seriously, though, I agree, much as I would personally like Kerry to win.  It's not good to vote for someone who you would hate to see in office just because you would hate to see someone else in office even more.

[Light Touch]

Well said, John.

I dream of a 4-party system...Ds, Rs, Ls, and Gs.

And coalitions.

And discourse.

[Gabu]

And discourse.

That's crazy talk.

[Serenity Now]

I agree with you John. Always vote with your heart and your conscience.

I agree with TheLightTouch on a 4 party system, it would cover a broader ideological range, making a more pluralist, democratic congress.