Who ya voting for?

How about "pointlessly voting for Kerry"? (though it will be interesting to see how much of Texas goes for Kerry/third-party, though the Green party is not on the ballot here)

 

None of the above. I voted, perhaps "pointlessly," for a different third party.

 

You missed one candidate Evan - Badnarick for the Libertarian party, and subsequently the one that got my vote this year.

 

Count me amoung the "pointlessly voting for Kerry" group. Even if a bunch of Bush voters turned out and few Kerry voters did, thus shifting VT to a Bush state, the 3 electoral votes wouldn't change anything.

Still, if Bush gets the office again (popular vote not withstanding) I want the numbers to show that once again, half of the voters don't want him there. Half the voters do not approve of the job he has done the first go around, nor the 'plans' he is campaigning on this time. Of course, he will still think he has a mandate because his is sitting on the throne.

 

I'm voting for Kerry because he meets my primary requirement for this election; he is not George W Bush.

 

i agree. wouldn't it be neat just once to have a choice between two or three eminently qualified individuals with clear ideological differences so that we could make a good choice among good candidates, not a 'lesser of evils' choice.

 

Would be nice if there was ...None of the above...

 

As much as I admire independence of thought, given the closeness of this election it is important to be pragmatic about one's choice this time. Four years ago for example, those who voted for Nader gave the Presidency to Bush. He has been perfectly willing to ignore the wishes of all the voters who voted for Gore, so how much do you think it matters to vote for a 3rd party candidate now?

I think it's much worse than a pointless vote. Voting for a 3rd party is essentially voting for Bush.

 

Since I live in California, am I pointlessly voting for Kerry? No matter, although Kerry has the state sewn up according to the pundits, I still think it is important to vote, and no vote is really pointless.

I must admit that I am pleased to have another chance to vote Bush out of office, even unscientifically or nonrandomly. :lol:

To Vermont voters; it is possible that even Vermont's three votes will be important. No matter the outcome, make your voice heard.

 

I live in Texas. In 2000 I voted for Nader because he's not part of the system. I also saw what a poor job W did as governor here in Tx. This time I'm voting for Kerry (though I still like Nader).

W's hometown newspaper in Crawford, TX had the best editorial I've seen yet about why we shouldn't vote for Bush. The poor editor has been under attack (withdrawal of advertisers, threats, etc.) since he wrote it, but it's a well written opinion:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Ed...editorial39.htm

 

Here in PA , my vote for Kerry will not be 'pointless'. My area of the state will definitely go for Kerry - we have lost jobs, our boys have been killed in Iraq, and we are tired of all the lies Bush has told over the last 4 years. I marched in my first ever (in 53 years!!) protest march when Bush came to Erie. My wife is working with the Dems as a volunteer. We are NOT political people, we are just mad at what has been going on.


To those who think their vote is 'pointless': If Bush wins electoral vote but NOT the popular vote, the people will have spoken about the lunacy of the Electoral College and the push will be on to eliminate it -finally. Please, your vote will count for something. An hour of your time is not too much to give to set this country right. The lives of our sons and daughters are on the line!

 

No vote is pointless. If the winner of the electoral college once again loses the popular vote, maybe we can then look to presidential election reform. I do believe that third-partys do need a voice in our political arena as well as fringe candidates of each political party.

 

Not sure I understand. Hasn't that held true (with the possible exception of a few landslides) over the past several decades and didn't whoever was elected act as he saw fit, numbers notwithstanding?

I mean, in 1992 Clinton only got 43% of the popular vote (Perot got 19% while George, Sr got the balance); meaning about 57% of the voters did NOT want Clinton in office. Regardless, as I recall, Clinton ignored those numbers and did what he damn pleased.

 

Clinton had a good number of Republicans in his cabinet.

Bush never has.

 

I recall Cohen, specifically, but I believe Clinton appointed him during his second term.

From his first term, I recall the likes of Christopher, Reno, Bentsen, Aspin, Espy, Reich, Shalala, Riley, and Cisneros but I don't recall any of the foregoing being Republicans. Who were they?

 

Thanks for looking that up. I didn't have time to.

And thanks for showing he had at least one Republican. That's one more than Bush.

To Bush, bi-partisan means the Democratic opponents drop everything they stand for and embrace his view of the world.

To Clinton, bi-partisan meant negotiating with Republicans and arriving at a concensus that is both part Democrat and part Republican.

The first is ruling as if you had a mandate when you didn't, the second is ruling as someone who knows he didn't have a mandate. Something most people would see as inherently fairer and more decent.

And this, after all, was the intent Bruce's post.

And again, thanks for looking that up and finding that Republican for me. When you count a number of his advisers, there were quite a few more. Wasn't Gurgen hired as a spokesman?

All Bush had was Zappy Zell who said some things so disgraceful that even the Repubs have shunned him.