Lesser of two evils = still evil

What can you do?
Get active politically - in real life.
Vote.
Go to meetings.
Talk to people.
Make sure they go out and vote.
The more people are forced to think about their world, the more likely I think they are to value the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Now, I'll admit I'm probably biased. hamburger and mrs. hamburger have always seemed to value their Canadian citizenship. They've been active in their community in many ways. They didn't talk about things - they did/do them. Fine examples, I think.

Well, jpin, I have felt kind of like you do. In past elections I have refused to compromise only to see my candidate quashed by the two major parties. I have suggested before that restructuring our election process to be more inclusive of third parties would help, and so would allowing anyone who is on the ballot in all 50 states into the debates. This way the parties would be forced to stand firm on something rather than just trying to appear a little less bad than the other. We could work toward this for future elections, but there's nothing we can do for this election except vote or not vote. Sadly, that's what it comes down to.

I had originaly thought about not voting...a boycot of sorts. But that would never work becasue I would just be thrown into the masses of those who just don't care. Plus there will always be the party loyalists who just vote the party line no matter what.

What about a huge write-in movement? Someone else started a "Who would you like to see as president?" thread... what if everybody wrote in who they wanted? It wouldn't be enough to get someone else elected but perhaps if there were enough it would at least show the parties that we are not interested in who they are selling us.

I recall a long time ago that Bill the Cat ran for president via a write in campaign and actually got several votes. Didn't get their attention though.

How about something larger then several votes? How many do you think there would need to be?

A lot.

Nader is right. Assuming you are a progressive, Nader answers your question.

The problem is that the Democrats think they have the liberal progressives wrapped up. Therefore they abandon the causes we hold dear in order to try for the middle.

I think this is a bad idea for the Democrats. Not only do they risk losing their liberal progressive flank, they also open themselves up to the "flip-flop" charges that are now.

I think Americans want a leader who is willing to show some backbone and stand up for something. Bush stands up for the conservatie values at the core of his party. Kerry doesn't stand up for any liberal causes.

The question is what do liberal progressive voters do?

If we vote for Kerry in spite of the fact he doesn't really represent us, we prove that taking us for granted is a good strategy. We virtually assure that liberal progressive candidates (i.e. Dean) will never be allowed to win the nomination and that progressive issues will never be seriously addressed.

If, on the other hand, progressive voters refuse to vote for candidates who don't represent them, it puts a pressure on the system. It means that a party who wants our votes needs to address our issues and stand for a least a little bit of progressive values.

Right now, neither candidate represents my views on the three most important issues facing the country.

What really angers me is the fact that the Democrats are fighting against me to keep it this way. They are saying that it is irresponsible for me to not vote for them. Instead of trying to earn my vote by representing me, they are viciously attacking the man who does.

So what are you doing ebrown? Not voting?

Well, Ross Perot got their attention with 15%, which is why they swiftly closed the debates.

So is what you are saying is that they are to powerful? We get their attention - they close debates. Squash the rebellion before the rebellion gets to big?

I guess that is what I'm saying, though I'd love to be wrong.

Of course I am voting! My vote is very important to me.

Right now I am planning to vote for Nader. I want to be counted as someone who cares too much to vote for Kerry when he doesn't stand for me. A Nader vote sends a strong message to the Democratic party that they need to change and is a vote for the future.

I will pay very close attention to the debates. Kerry still has a chance to win my vote if he shows some character.

I'm still of the opinion that change has to start with smaller offices -- state gov't, mayorships, the House of Reps. I don't see much use in small parties throwing money after the presidential election. I admire the effort to try and get their voices heard on the big stage, but it's a hopeless cause. Throwing significant funding and effort behind, say, a couple of congressional candidates in potentially winnable districts could eventually get third-party heads more prominent voices, exposure, influence -- and, if all goes well for them, track records. To my mind, any resources that third parties put into the presidential election at this point are wasted.