There are 2, TWO candidates for president, right now.

[Pobeka]

1) George W. Bush
2) John F. Kerry

Nobody else has any chance. If your preferred candidate is not on this list, sorry. If you are frustrated by that fact, then PLEASE realize your main frustration is about our election laws. All the frustration in the world will not help to change the election laws for the Nov 2, 2004 election.

The reality is you can vote for one of those 2 I listed, or purposely make a vote of defiance of the election system by voting for someone else.

So, you have 3 options. If you think 4 more years of Bush is worth a vote of defiance, then cast your vote that way. I'm not voting that way. John Kerry gets 100% of my support. He may not be perfect, but compared to Bush he's an angel of mercy.

[Massacure]

1. As shrub said:

"You are either with us or against us!"

[Cleita]

2. Angel I'm not sure, but 'not Bush' is enuff for me.

We are fighting for our very identity as free Americans now.

[kalian]

3. And if we have to get rid of Kerry in four years....?

then what? Vote for a repuke...? :eyes: Interesting catch-22, no?

[gratuitous]

4. Well, we may not know what Kerry will do

But we sure as the world know what Bush and his corrupt administration are capable of. And I doubt very much that Kerry could govern in one-tenth as corrupt a manner as Mr. Uniter-Not-A-Divider.

[mike1963]

5. Either he fixes it or it's all over anyway. This is the last shot.

:grr:

[kalian]

9. Hate to break it to you....but....

our last shot was in 2000...and they stole it from us.

[gratuitous]

12. Nope, the wheel always turns

Always.

[kalian]

14. But the car keeps going the same direction....

wonderful.... :eyes:

[gratuitous]

21. Okay, go vote for Nader or whoever

If that's what you got going for yourself, then you might as well just flush the country.

Me? I'm going to stand and fight for it, because the U.S. was great once, and it can be again. Step One is prying the White House away from the Bush Clan. I'll work on Step Two when that's accomplished.

You can go assume a fetal position, suck your thumb and finger your wubby. When you're ready to grow up, hopefully we'll have done the heavy lifting for you, and you can go back to a soporific happiness.

[Pobeka]

22. This time vote for Kerry.

And in the meantime, fight to change the election system.

Until the voting rules are changed, you have to vote for the candidate who stands a reasonable chance of winning, and makes the most improvement (or does least damage) to our society in your judgement.

That's how it works. It does suck. But it's what we have.

[mike1963]

16. That was a battle, the war ain't over. For me anyway...

:eyes:

[Pobeka]

6. What if Bush turns into an angel on Nov 2, and becomes liberal?

[Pobeka]

7. What if aliens zap Kerry immediately after the inauguration?

[kalian]

8. Don't kid yourself....

I'm much more concerned that the right-wingers might take out
Kerry IF he is permitted to win... Its a plausible scenario.

[Pobeka]

10. I hear you on that one. Scares me too.

[pocoloco]

13. Why would they bother???

[Pobeka]

17. * declares state of national emergency. Holds another election in '05

I don't know if this is legal, but legalities seem are readily ignored these days by the Bush cabal.

[louis c]

11. Beat him in the primaries

Just like LBJ., only hope they don't kill the winner this time.

[merh]

27. We will deal with that 3 years from now . . .

Today we must deal with the simple facts -- Kerry or Bush.
If you want to consider it the lesser of two evils, then so be it, but to make a change, to regain our country and restore it's reputation in the world, then IMHO, Kerry is the only one on the ticket!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

40. We have to get rid of Bush now. There is little else to it.

Kerry can in no way be worse. No way.

[Cheswick2.0]

15. vote of defiance? Defiance?

Jeez, I am tempted to vote for Nader just to be defiant towards an internet stranger who would tell me I can't without being defiant.
I don't even like Nader.

[Pobeka]

18. Other than defiance, what is the rational to vote for someone else?

I'm open to suggestions, defiance was the thought that came to my mind.

[Solidarity]

19. 4 Candidates at Least

After Bush and Kerry are officially nominated there will be 4 candidates that I'm aware of.

Right now only the Libertarian Party candidate and Ralph Nader as an independent are official candidates.

There could be as many as 10 candidates with ballot status in at least one state by the time November comes around.

[Pobeka]

20. And what is the reason to vote for LIbertarian or Green?

Knowing full well that only Bush or Kerry can win?

[Cheswick2.0]

23. I'm thinking being defiant is a pretty attractive reason

:7

[Pobeka]

24. Careful. Agent Mike is here.

Looking for you defiant types. ;)

[NMDemDist2]

32. ROFL

i haven't waved to agent mike in a week

:hi: Hi Agent Mike, how you doing/?/?

[mike_c]

25. well, let's see...

...there's conscience, and principles, and last, but certainly least around here these days, there's the reason the electoral system-- flawed as it is-- remains open to anyone who can get on the various state ballots: every American deserves a chance to express their desire for political representation in the executive branch.

You know, there are any number of other countries where your style of "pluralism" is the norm. You might want to consider emigrating. Me? I'll take the freedom to vote for WHOMEVER I think best represents the interests of the American people.

[Pobeka]

26. Again, I think your frustration is with the voting system.

Practical reality is that because we only have one vote, one chance, we must factor in whether we want to have our vote make an impact on the election, or not.

I wish we had a different voting system, where I could vote for the candidate who most aligned with my principles, and if that candidate didn't win, I could pick a second or third choice, or have run-off elections or whatever...

But given the lack of an voting system that frees us from the 2 party system, we have to face reality. Reality is it's Kerry or Bush. The vote we cast can only help determine which one of those 2 will win.

On edit: subject changed to I *think* ...

[Solidarity]

48. Impact?

Your one vote will have absolutely no impact on the election. It will decide nothing. It might not even be counted.

[Pobeka]

51. That's absurd.

EVERYONE STAY HOME! YOUR VOTE WON'T COUNT!
--

You know better.

The votes add up, one at a time. Also, the more who show up for one side or another, the harder it becomes to commit election fraud and not get caught.

[sangh0]

53. It's "Your vote don't count. Your vote don't count"

until it's time to ask someone to vote for Nader. THEN, your vote counts.

:carzy:

[LoZoccolo]

29. (Sung to the tune of "Darling Clementine")

Yawn yawn yawn yawn,
Yawn yawn yawn yawn,
Yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn,
Yawn yawn yawn yawn,
Yawn yawn yawn yawn,
Yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn.

:boring:

[Sirveri]

43. The way our system is set up

is in such a way that it encourages a two party system. The Library of Congress has a website explaining the electoral college in great depth. (it's 5AM here and I've been up all night, so I'll let you do the googling).

What is suppossed to happen is that the major party will pull some of the ideals of the more radical party into its own party and thus win their votes. It's similiar to a parliamentary coalition in that sense, except that it's all done behind the scenes.

There will never be a long term viable third party, the system is designed to eat the weaker and leave two standing. It encourages moderation and stability. It encourages compromise and working together. Which is something we could learn from the Repukes, their sheepish undying devotion to the party line.

So in theory, voting Green is suppossed to swing the Democratic party further left. The only problem with that right now is that this is such a hot contested election that people will realise that they can not afford to protest vote. Just like I realised when I voted Gore in 2k. I thought Gore sucked ass as a nominee, but I was more scared of Bush. Now I know what Bush is capable of, and I know that the leash will be off next turn. If the greens are too far gone to see that, then quite frankly they see the truth as well as the freepers do.

[Guaranteed]

38. Good post.

FUCK those who would try to tell ME how to vote. How's that for defiance?

[never cry wolf]

28. Bravo, well put!

Yes, there are other options, and votes of defiance. Anyone who wants can vote for Nader, or vote Libertarian or they can write in George Wallace, Jon Anderson, Pat Buchannon or Mickey mouse, for that matter, as I once did many years ago. I also voted for Anderson in '80. Boy, I sure am glad of THAT vote and all the damn good it did to change the system!

Face it people, a protest vote means crap. It has meant crap for over a century. I wish we had a parlimentary system where minority parties have a real chance of gaining influence but we don't.

This is a watershed election. I am not, nor have I ever been a registered dem. I have voted Indy, Libretarian, Socialist and Dem, (as well as repug in some local races.) BUT, this year there is only one possible choice. This year it is a referendum on the performance of the BFEE. It is either bunnypants or Kerry, face it. Toss your vote against shrub if you care to, but for me the stakes are way too damn high!

[Pobeka]

31. Referendum on Bush - important!

That's well worth considering, if all the progressives united and voted for Kerry, this would become a referendum. It would send a clear message to all politicians, including Kerry, that the conservative agenda is not a winning agenda.

:thumbsup:

[Norquist Nemesis]

34. The best post I've seen on the issue yet!!! *applause*

At best, Republicans will stay home in November to protest. The market share is 100% of those voting. Does any one really believe enough of them will stay home to make a difference? I don't. If they're not hardcore, a good number of them will justify it with a "at least I know what to expect" mentality and look at recent election-year posturing thinking that Bush has changed...but he hasn't.

That leaves the rest of the market. Democrats, Nader, Libertarians, Greens, LaRouchies, etc. The only candidate that will win electorial votes (which is actually what counts in the Presidential election) is Kerry. Anything less, throws away your vote and gives Bush the electoral vote.

It's their choice. It just seems like people who are going to be 'protest' voting with Nader are looking for an excuse to keep bitching and making the rest of the country pay by handing another term to Bush.

[NuttyFluffers]

42. truer words have yet been spoken.

"Face it people, a protest vote means crap. It has meant crap for over a century."

there is reality, or the running from said reality. you choose your hell, but you can never escape the consequences. what color hell do you want?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Thanks. I'll take choice 3.

Defiance of both the pro-war candidates.

[Pobeka]

33. Face reality. Bush or Kerry. Who's better?

After all is said and done, do you really want to risk another 4 years of Bush, so you can have your protest vote?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Kerry's better but not by much.

And, I will take the risk so I can have my vote count.

[Pobeka]

46. Better, but not by much?

Compared Bush's and Kerry's voting records lately?

Compared Bush's and Kerry's activities with regard to corporate crime?

When I do that I come to the conclusion that Kerry is better, by orders of magnitude.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Not by much.

Compared Kerry's and Bush's records on the invasion and occupation of Iraq lately?

Compared their records on globalization?

Kerry is "better" without doubt. But, so is the average turnip.

His support of the war is beyond my ability to hold my nose. When political ambition supercedes ethics to the degree that the candidate is willing to sacrifice thousands of lives to achieve them, a line has been crossed that I won't support.

I'll be voting against the war and those who supported it, and continue to support it. Having a (D) after their name doesn't give them a pass for their lack of basic principles.

[Solidarity]

49. Who Is The Worst Evil?

Did you mean which candidate is worse?

[Pobeka]

59. Which is worse, having 2 legs, or one leg amputed?

Neither option is good, but we can still identify the better of the 2 choices.

There are no perfect candidates. Never has been, never will be. We still need to be informed, and recognize which candidate is best for us overall.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. Actually, there are dozens. It's YOUR system. Love it or leave it.

AMERICAN PARTY:
Diane Templin (California)
Presidential Nominee

CONSTITUTION PARTY:
Michael Peroutka (Maryland) +
Presidential Nominee

GREEN PARTY:

Sheila Bilyeu (Virginia) *
Peter Camejo (California) *
David Cobb (Texas) *
Paul Glover (New York) *
Kent Mesplay (California) *
Carol Miller (New Mexico)
Christina Rosetti (New York) *
Lorna Salzman (New York) *


LIBERTARIAN PARTY:
Michael Badnarik (Texas)
Presidential Nominee

PEACE & FREEDOM PARTY:
Leonard Peltier (Kansas) +
Presidential Nominee

PERSONAL CHOICE PARTY:
Charles Jay (Indiana)
Presidential Nominee

PROHIBITION PARTY:
Gene Amondson (Alaska)
Presidential Nominee


RENEGADE PROHIBITION TICKET

Earl F. Dodge (Colorado) for President

REFORM PARTY:
Ralph Nader (I-Connecticut)
Presidential Nominee

SOCIALIST PARTY USA:
Walt Brown (Oregon)
Presidential Nominee

SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY:
Bill Van Auken (New York)
Presidential Nominee

SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY:
Martin Koppel (New York) +
Presidential Nominee

WORKERS WORLD PARTY:
John Parker (California)
Presidential Nominee


INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:

Ralph Nader (I/Populist-Connecticut) *

A.J. Albritton (American Republican Party-Mississippi) *
Sterling Allan (Providential Party-Utah) *
Stanford "Andy" Andress (I-Colorado) *
Joe Bellis (America's Party-Kansas) *
Kenneth M. Bonnell (I-Mississippi) *
Fred Cook (I-Georgia) *
Eric J. Davis (Michigan) *
Robert DiGiulio (Children's Party-Vermont) *
Bob Dorn (Washington) *
Lonnie D. Frank (I-California) *
John Galt Jr. (I-Pensylvania) *
Jack Grimes (United Fascist Union-Pennsylvania) *
Michael Halpin (I-New York) *
Larry D. Hines (I-Texas) *
Georgia Hough (I-Georgia) *
Keith Judd (I-Massachusetts) *
Darren E. Karr (Party X-Oregon) *
Samuel Keegan (I-Rhode Island) *
Joseph Martyniuk Jr. (I-Illinois) *
David Mevis (I-Mississippi) *
Muadin (E-Democratic Party-Massachusetts) *
Jeffrey Peters (We The People Party-New Hampshire)
Andrew M. Rotramel (I-Texas) *
Joseph "Average Joe" Schriner (I-Ohio) *
Dennis P. Slatton (United America Party-North Carolina) *
Dan Snow (I-Texas) *
Brian B. Springfield (I-Virginia) *
Lawrence Rey Topham (I-Utah) *
Lemuel Tucker (I-Michigan) *
Da Vid (Light Party-California) *
Tom Wells (Family Values Party-Florida) *
A.J. Wildman (I-Virginia) *


etcetera...

[Pobeka]

44. Name one of these who stands a reasonable chance of winning.

Just one.
--

And I'm not leaving it.
And I don't love it.
But I do recognize the reality of it.

[In Sha Allah]

37. Whose fault is it?

We have two choices because the two ruling parties crafted laws to keep it that way. Many liberals would vote for ANY anti-war candidate...if they could. Many Republicans would vote for a different conservative candidate...if they could.

But they can't, because the Democrats and Republicans ignore the will of their constituents by reducing their choices.

So take your guilt-trip and stuff it.

[union_maid]

39. Doesn't matter whose fault it is

It is what it is. We won't be changing it by November. Having 10 or 20 candidates doesn't change it. Nothing does without a run-off system. The guilt trip is still valid and repeat Nader voters get frequent flyer miles.

[Pobeka]

45. I don't have a guilt trip. I have a reality trip.

I agree with the other things you said though.

[In Sha Allah]

52. Sorry. These arguments always get my dander up,

...and sometimes I'm ruder than I need to be.

[Pobeka]

57. Apology warmly accepted.

:toast:

[mopaul]

41. to me, there's only ONE candidate..............n/t

[Outlaw420]

50. Vote Of Defiance???

How is it defiant to vote other than what you say? Its not defiance its Choice there is nothing wrong with voting for someone who is not a rep or dem. Hell at some point Republicans were a 3rd party so i guess it was an act of defiance to bring them to the point they are today?

[Pobeka]

55. No, there's nothing wrong with voting for a 3rd party.

I'm just making the point that in 2004, it's really hard for me personally to imagine handing the election to Bush so I could say I voted for my ultimate candidate. I'm going to use my vote so I can realistically make an improvement in my country. It is against my principles to knowingly vote in a way that degrades my country.

Be defiant if you want. It is your choice. But don't dare whine about how Bush is tearing the fabric of our society apart if you choose defiance, because you will have aided his re-election.

[KG]

54. oh, the daily scolding! wheather we need it or not!

how cute! :)

[Pobeka]

56. Yesterday, when I started this thread the anti Kerry threads were all over

I just couldn't take it anymore, it was making me :crazy:

[Ginaz]

58. There's a great quote Pitt put up in the lounge

in that Favorite Democratic Quote thread:

"I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning." - Adlai Stevenson

A lot of people think Kery has made himself unworthy of winning because of several of his votes. I can understand the feeling, but am going to vote Kerry regardless. I think its going to be up to us to drag him in the right direction once we get him elected.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. People actually DO KNOW this cognitively, my friend

There are only a few reasons people will continue to tear Kerry apart at this point:

They are disappointed someone else didn't win the primary and would rather complain than accept reality.

They are disappointed in the manner in which the US constitution is actually BUILT around a two party system and refuse to accept the reality of it.

They are our opponents and are here to sabotage.

Groups 1 and 2 can only heal their disappointment in the long term...short term there is nothing they can do.

Group 3 wins if we all divide ourselves and lose.

[Michael Costello]

61. momentum

You're probably correct that the 2004 election is winnable by only two candidates. However it depends on whether you're working on a short-term plan or long-term plan. If I thought a vote for Nader in 2004 would either allow Nader or some Green to win in 2008 *or* push the Democratic party to the left (or better yet, towards the direction of solving working peoples problems), then I might forgo my 2004 choice for what it would get me in 2008. Parties need to build a momentum.

I think you should look around the world a little bit, you'ree probably focused too much on US elections. In the twentieth century, the communist party was a major power in every country in Europe. In France in 1956 it was the largest political party. In Italy they won post-war elections but were robbed by the Italian elite (with help from the US), and almost won the 1976 election. West Germany banned the Communist Party (East Germany allowed the Christian Democrats to run in their elections though). Spain had a left/right civil war in the 1930s and was a right wing dictatorship for decades afterward. Germany had had socialists in their parliament since the 1870s. The communist parties never had a major direct hand in Western European government after 1945, with the exception of 1976 Italy which was an odd situation. But seizing immediate power so as to make minor changes in a Sisyphusean manner that would just become undone again was never their aim.

[Cronus Protagonist]

62. Al Gore will step in at the convention

And gain the unanimous support of the delegates with a monumental speech.

BLAME BUSH FIRST!

Click here for "BLAME BUSH FIRST", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

[candy331]

63. Has anyone told Kerry about this? n/t

[TexasMexican]

64. So its Nadar vs Badnarik

J/K

That being said I'm curious which one of them will get more votes.