Would you ever vote for one? Would you vote for one, if you didn't think you were throwing away your vote? Do you wish there were more options at election time, or do more choices just lead to chaos? How closely do the two major parties match your political views?

Do you ever have to hold your nose as you cast your vote?

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Answers

I'm tempted to vote for Nader. However, I probably won't because I'm more afraid of four years of Bush than four years of Gore.

Do I wish there were more choices? Yes, as a liberal, I wish there were at least one progressive candidate. Instead, I'm faced with the option of a right wing republican (Bush) and a moderate republican (Gore). Which is the primary reason why I will be tempted to vote for Nader- not because I think a strong enough showing will ever move us out of the two party system but because I'm so fucking sick of the democratic party's strategy... Court the conservatives because the liberals may hate us for ignoring them but they're still going to vote for us because they're afraid of the MORE conservative candidate. If all of us liberals did vote for Nader- it might suggest that the democrats can't go republican and still count on our support.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Yeah, that issue bugs me, as well. We ought to be taking notes from the religious right -- they've effectively held the Republicans hostage for years, even though I think a significant number of registered Republicans (and Republican candidates) would be more socially moderate if they didn't have to bow to the agenda of the religious right.

George Bush the elder is a perfect example. He never struck me as being personally very socially conservative; I always got the impression that he wasn't very interested in issues of morality and religion and sex. But during his various campaigns, it was essential for any Republican running for president to cater to the hard right -- because if he didn't, they'd all stay home or vote for Pat Robertson. Democrats have never felt the same compulsion to cater to the far left, because they know we're all so terrified of the damn Republicans that we'll vote Democrat regardless.

Not this pinko-commie-liberal, though. Not anymore.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I would be open to the idea of voting for a third-party candidate, but Nader is not someone I would vote for. I've read the votenader.com page backwards and forwards, and I don't see anything there that convinces me that Ralph Nader would be a competent president. He's got a collection of short quotes about how big corporations are bad, the Democrats and Republicans are bad, and free trade is bad, but with the exception of a few social issues, he doesn't seem to have any clear agenda for change.

Ralph Nader is a great activist, but I think he'd be a lousy president- -he just doesn't seem to have much interest in most of the issues a U.S. President is called upon to deal with.

And you can just imagine what his relationship with congress would be like...

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I had tentatively planned on voting for Nader until I heard an NPR interview with him (local) a few months ago in which he came off as a complete whack-job. Despite the interviewer's repeated (and polite) inquiries into how Nader thought he would be able to work with multiple entities he has consistently criticized, Nader would not do anything but continue to criticize. I think society needs somebody in the Nader role, but the president needs to be able to compromise.

Also, Nader went off on a tirade about uselessness, nay threat, of computers and technology, and bragged about how he still uses only a typewriter. Kind of old codger behavior, I think.

To return to the question, I will vote for third party candidates, and I do sincerely wish we had more options this time around. As it is, I'll probably end up with Al since the other third party guys I've checked out don't seem capable of dealing with views at all different than their own.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I think Nader would make a pretty lousy president, too, to be honest. And Jeremy flat-out hates him. You could say our votes this fall will be a protest and nothing more. Let's just say we're protesting the following:

• A candidate who keeps talking about his environmentalist roots, but has financial ties to a pretty nasty oil company.
  
  
• The PMRC. Hey, we weren't old enough to vote in 1985, but that doesn't mean we've forgiven Tipper Gore for her brave campaign against songs about female masturbation.
  
  
• The new Democratic puritanism. Yeah, they need to distance themselves from Monicagate. Do they need to do it by becoming sexless? Do they need to do it by choosing a VP candidate who thinks Friends is too racy for prime time? Geez.
  
  
• The death penalty. You can't be a politician in the U.S. without falling all over yourself to assure everyone that yes, yes, yes, you are one hundred percent pro-death. I think there's room for disagreement on this issue, and it's about damn time we saw some disagreement. But no, Gore acknowledged that innocent people get executed, and his response was, "So what?"
  
  
• Free speech. The last Democratic president signed the CDA. This time around, the DNC has thrown a hissyfit about a female speaker holding a fundraiser at the home of a famous soft core pornographer. The Dems have joined the conservatives in whining about the children. Here's a hint: children don't care about politics, except when the convention coverage interrupts their cartoons. How about tossing a bone in the direction of free speech?
  
  
• Democratic scare tactics. "We're going to ignore all your key issues, but vote for us anyway or those bad, evil Republicans will take away your abortion rights! And, uh, ignore the fact that our VP candidate is a little wishy washy on those rights himself." I've been a registered Green Party member for a number of years now, and every election, the Republicans try to woo me into the fold with phone calls and campaign fliers. I never hear a word from the Democrats. Do you think they consider me a sure thing or a lost cause?
  
  
• Bribery. Corruption. The increasingly annoying assumption that I will vote for whatever scumbag they put in front of me just because I'm too scared not to vote for him.

Viva la revolución.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Since a third party candidate can not win (the presidency is determined by the electoral college, not popular vote), I think the question of whether Nader would be a good president is somewhat irrelevant.

It seems like the fundamental issue is whether you choose to use your vote as a protest and possible means of influencing a "real" candidate or if you choose the lesser of two evils.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Wow. Dave has some good (well, bad, but well said) things to say about Al Gore over at Retrogression. Scroll down to near the end; it's second from the bottom and the header is "The Boogeyman Defense." There are a few things here that you might have forgotten about your good friend Al.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

So you're willing to vote for Nader as a protest against Gore and you're willing to accept the potential consequence of ending up with Bush, whose record is even more heinous on most of the issues you stated? Do you think that a protest vote will cause the Democrats to embrace liberalism?

If anything, I think a large protest vote will have the opposite effect. The Democrats want to win, and in order to win you have to be as centrist as possible, because that's what most Americans want. If the Dems feel threatened, I think it's likely they'll become more centrist rather than less so. You can't win a Presidential election in America today by publicly catering to the extreme elements in your party (that goes for ultra-conservatives as well as ultra-liberals).

Maybe I'm being overly pragmatic, but I think that voting for Nader as a form of protest is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And if Bush gets elected as a result, it would hurt a lot of other people, too: gays, children (I think school vouchers are a recipe for inner-city school disaster), women facing unwanted pregnancy, minorities, and the working poor.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I completely disagree, Jen. As I said, I think the religious right has effectively strong armed the Republican party into embracing strict social conservatism, even if the majority of registered Republicans are more moderate. I don't understand why the left hasn't been able to do the same thing to the Democrats -- and I think it's because we're always too scared to abandon ship. We're so scared of the consequences that we take whatever we're given.

As for Bush being so much worse than Gore, how is he so much worse? Tell me exactly what the Democrats have done for gay rights in the last eight years. (And don't forget that Al Gore is far more conservative than Clinton ever was.) Tell me exactly how the Democrats have protected abortion rights to a greater degree than their Republican predecessors did. Tell me exactly how the Democratic administration has saved welfare, improved civil rights and criminal justice, and stopped the insane rush to lock up a troublesome segment of our population instead of addressing the real problems.

As far as the judicial appointment process, it's a false promise. I no more trust Al Gore to appoint pro choice judges than I trust George Bush to appoint pro life judges.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

The only way I would vote for Ralph Nader is if I honestly believed he was the best man for the job, as that is my only criterion. If I believe that Ralph Nader is the best man, I'm voting for him, regardless of whether that's popularly considered to be "throwing my vote away" or not.

However. For awhile, I did think that Nader was best; then I started looking deeper into his candidacy, and I think he has some pretty scary opinions about foreign relations and social welfare. As one of my co-workers said this morning, and as I think someone pointed out already in this thread, Nader is Nader. He's great at being Nader. Will he be as great at being President as he is at being a consumer and environmental advocate? I don't know.

I think that Al Gore is a reasoned, intelligent, and thoughtful man. I don't think he's the perfect man to be President, but I do think he's the best choice of the available options. I simply don't think that George Bush is smart enough to be President; this is notwithstanding the fact that his opinions about defense spending and minority rights are not simply abhorrent, but terrifying.

I've heard the argument that Bush only needs to be smart enough to surround himself with good advisors. I have to disagree. I want a President who's an incredibly smart man, able to look at the big picture and make his own decisions -- informed by advisors, yes, but able to make informed decisions about the advice he gets from those people. I don't think that Bush has that capability. I think that Al Gore does. That's why I'll most probably be voting for Gore this fall.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Oh, and as for Dave's rant against Gore, it's not terribly accurate. While Gore did bring up the issue of weekend furloughs during a debate against Dukakis in 1988, he never mentioned Willie Horton's name or race. It was George Bush the elder who ran racist ads using Horton as a bogeyman. It sounds like Dave has been reading too much Republican propaganda.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I voted for Nader last time, and will again. I would also like Nader and Buchanan to take part in the national televised debates. Democracy is not not well served by only having two pre-screened candidates to debate and campaign over barely differing differences. I enjoy voting, though I know it's a fool's errand to think I can change anything. But someday, enough people may think the same way. It almost did a couple of years ago: about a hundred thousand people wrote in a name for mayor that didn't even appear on the ballot in a rejection of a slick Democratic machine politician and wealthy businessman looking to buy a political office. This guy came in a close second in the general election, forced a runoff and NEARLY WON. Whether or not his election would be a "good thing" is less important than defeating a political system which limits voters to merely ratify decisions already made by "fat cats in smoke filled rooms".

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Oh, and as for school vouchers -- I really see that as an issue that's going to be decided by the states. I agree that it's a terrible idea that will have dreadful consequences for schools in poor areas. (Not just inner city schools; schools in working class suburbs and rural areas are already hurting and will suffer just as much.) But I think it's a perfect example of an issue that will and should be decided by what people want. I hope the majority of voters (and their elected officials) will realize what a horrible idea it is, but I don't see this is as something that ought to be decisive issue in the presidential election.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Oh, and one more thing. I think that it's a lot more important, when considering Supreme Court Justices, to look at whether they take a literal or an interpretive view (are those the right terms? It's been a long time since Poli Sci) of the Constitution than it is whether they're pro- or anti- some specific issue.

I want Justices who are willing to interpret the Constitution in the light of today's society, using the guiding principles of the document, not Justices who blindly adhere to the letter of the law, basing all their decisions on "what the Founders would have wanted."

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

"differing differences?" LOL! I should edit more carefully.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Hasn't it been demonstrated over and over that Supreme Court justices tend to "go their own way" once appointed? Eisenhower appointed Warren, who turned out to be much more liberal then expected. Today's court seems to be all over the place, depending on the issue.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Clinton has done quite a lot to protect gays and lesbians, including issuing Executive Orders prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal civilian workforce and mandating that security clearances no longer be denied based on sexual orientation, and he has appointed more than a hundred open gays and lesbians to administration posts.

As for the issue of Bush and abortion, it's true that it's impossible to say what effect he will have on abortion rights if elected. But certainly some of his supporters believe that Bush would use abortion as a litmus test for Supreme Court appointees, and if you're voting on principle and support abortion rights, I don't see how you can support a man who as governor has signed 16 bills restricting abortion rights in that state, according to NARAL.

As for your other issue, well, I have to get back to work now. I'll talk about them later.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

What Beth said.

I'm in Texas, where Bush will win all the electoral votes no matter what, so I might as well vote for Nader. I think I would even if I were in another state. I'm too disgusted to vote for the two major-party candidates, who seem practically indistinguishable at this point. I'm not the world's biggest Ralph Nader fan, but I don't expect him to win, and I'd rather have him than one of the Bobbsey Twins.

In a nasty and cynical way, I actually kind of hope Bush wins. Perhaps his good-ol'-boy style of political behavior, and neglect of issues that affect people who can't afford to influence him, will disgust enough people to force some kind of change in the next presidential election. Perhaps everyone will be tired of feeling like they have no real say in the electoral process. Yeah, I'm a cynical idealist, so sue me.

The party primaries are a joke ... by the time the Texas primaries were set, the two candidates were already selected. Makes you realize that you're not really living in a democracy. Say what you like about Louisiana, but I prefer their open primary voting system to the ones in other states such as Texas, and the farce of a presidential primary.

I feel like my vote in this election is more of an investment in the next one. I've given up on this year's race.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Okay, so we're hearing from some Democrats who are thinking of defecting. What about the Republicans? I know you're out there. Have any of you ever supported a third party candidate? Perot? Buchanan? Browne? What factors led you to consider abandoning the party line?

There have to be a few libertarians reading this ... hey, Jan! Come tell us about your candidate.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Who, me? I'm not the very model of a modern Libertarian!

Although I did toy with it a bit in college.. I like the bits about self-determination and total government noninterference in my life. But I don't like the bits about no social welfare programs.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I've held my nose in every election since I've been old enough to vote. I'm a very disloyal registered Republican (that is, I've always registered in the Republican party because I always seem to have stronger views about *which* Republican I want in a particular office, but I do not always cast my final vote for the Republican. I tend to find local and state politics to be much more relevent in terms of the usefulness of my vote.

This year's election, for a brief little while (dashed as the Monica Wars went on and on) actually excited me - we were going to have an open race, no incumbents to the Presidency. It could have been an opportunity to clean house from some of the entrenched habits both parties have sunk into. Instead, because of the morality foolishness, each party is scared to death to bring forward anyone of substance and we're stuck with a pair of clones battling for the religious right's vote.

I can't find anything worthy of even a token vote, and my party ties are too weak to just close my eyes and go with a party.

This is the first year I'll be voting as a resident of Maryland, who tends to vote Democrat. So I'll be doing the third-party thing (yep, Nader) without worrying about it being a throwaway vote - it won't give anything to Bush, and maybe it will help send a signal that once the two-party system starts looking like a one-party system, people are going to start dumping them both.

I give them about two more National elections before they go the way of the Whigs and Tories.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I am tempted by the siren call of the Libertarians, but I think I'm better off pushing the Republicans toward Libertarianism.

I can't handle pure Libertarianism. I know its not totally logical, but can't buy the whole package.

My favorite Congressman is Ron Paul (R-Texas) who is very Libertarian in his thinking. I think we can get more like him if we Republicans work at it.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I think third party candidates are fine, as far as they go. Sure, have more of them. Whatever. Would I vote for one? It's unlikely. While I know my vote doesn't "matter" in the sense that I'm not likely to decide an election, I believe in voting for the candidate I would most like to see run the country. As others have pointed out, Nader's political knowledge doesn't run deep and he's not exactly an administrator -- in other words, bad presidential material. Since the US has a two-party system, it's unlikely a third party candidate is going to develop much in the way of political skills unless that person is a recent defector from a major party. I suppose I could imagine voting for a third party candidate in a Bull Moose Party type situation. If I liked the candidate, that is.

I don't really think much of protest votes. If you have something to say, a vote is not a very specific way to say it. I mean, honestly: if you're Al Gore and you win on a squeaker because a bunch of people defected to Nader, is it because they're pissed off about free trade? About free speech? About your record? Do they hate Clinton? What? What? All of the above? What do you do with that information? My guess is, you drift a little further to the right and try to pick up some more liberal Republicans, who have at least explicated a covering philosophy. I mean, that's what I'd do. Now a bunch of delegates showing up at your convention and giving you a piece of their minds, that's something else again. That's what civil rights activists did. Protesting at the voting booth is kind of, well, lazy.

I don't think that the two major parties mirror my views, not at all. But why should they? They're supposed to represent lots of people, not just me and my particular set of issues. I'm unique. They aggregate. That's democracy. I pick the party and the candidate who's closest to the ideas I care about most. Sometimes I don't like the choices as much as other times, but that's okay. I feel pretty fortunate every time I talk to friends who do field research in countries where people with guns follow them when they try to be election watchers. I live in a country where I can cast my vote without feeling it will be ignored or change my life significantly. Since I'm not motivated to change the system, run for office, and so on, I count my blessings and write my elected representatives about my issues. They're usually responsive. I think it's a good system.

I definitely wouldn't want to see the US move to a multi-party system, however. In that situation, the election just decides who's going to be bargaining at the table, and an individual vote is irrelevant. Say I vote for a moderately right-wing party and my party wins the most votes, but not quite a majority. Then when the legislature meets the nationalists, a small cadre of fascists, and a moderately right-wing party get together to form a government. The moderate right-wingers agree to concede on the very issues I cared about and I'm left wondering why I bothered. At least American elections offer a known quantity. I'll happily deal with boring elections and imperfect matches to my political views in exchange for good information.

And of course, if I voted for a third party candidate, I'd have to explain to all of my political science colleagues why I was being so silly. That'd be a bummer, too.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I consider myself to be an independent, and always have, though my presidential voting record would belie that. I voted for:

Nixon Ford Reagan Reagan Perot Nader

And will vote for Nader again.

I have to admit it -- I simply despise the Clintons. No wishy-washy opinions here, not on that subject. I despise them.

It's all well and good for Gore to try and distance himself NOW, after the fact, by bringing on a "moral" man as his running mate. But I think anybody who stood by that septic tank scum, who sang "Stand by My Man" just as loudly as Hillary, is somebody I can't vote for under any circumstances. Which is sad. Because issue by issue, I'd vote for Gore. If he had distanced himself from Bill back when it counted, no matter how little support he got from the Clintons now, I'd be voting for him. Heck, I'd have his signs in my yard.

But he didn't. And if I'm a single issue voter -- that issue is "I despise the Clintons and anybody associated with them."

As far as reality goes? None of them have done a damned thing that has influenced my life as directly as what Nader has done.

Pooks

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Oh yeah -- almost forgot.

Somebody mentioned that Nader wouldn't be able to work with Congress.

Hey, this is a GOOD thing.

Four years of Congressional gridlock? Hey, I can live with that.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

"The new Democratic puritanism. Yeah, they need to distance themselves from Monicagate. Do they need to do it by becoming sexless? Do they need to do it by choosing a VP candidate who thinks Friends is too racy for prime time? Geez."

Well, note that politics (and other things, like in health) are hugely moving towards a sexless culture. A "never have sex or you'll get diseased" culture. And note the huge stink made any time any politician has a sexual thought and it gets out in public...The Democrats are just going with everyone else on that.

Anyway. I liked what Jan's first post said. Now on to new stuff: On a test of politicalness of some sort, I came out at dead center moderate. I vote Democrat because they tend to favor what I favor, and I despise how the religious right runs the Republicans.

While I would like there to be a third party, I suspect this isn't going to become a viable option in the near future. The other parties tend to be more extreme than I am, and the Reform Party (i.e. the one that's got the most $ and therefore has the best chance) is run by utter fruitbats, which made me cool on the prospect of a third.

I would never vote for a third party candidate, because I see no point. They can never win. I don't do protest votes, because I doubt this makes much difference in the other parties and I'd rather vote for the least of two evils instead of contributing to the election of the most evil (or in this case, the outright stupid). I've been told Nader is closest to my political beliefs, but I could give less of a damn about that, plus he doesn't have enough experience.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Does the US ever have joke candidates? Nobody ever seems to mention them.

Joke candidates are a great tradition in Canada (or at least in my part of Canada). Voting for them is *always* seen as a protest. Their platforms are really silly, but they often make fabulously spot on criticisms of the actual candidates, and because they're running for office, the media is obliged to report on them - in Canada, radio and TV media are required to spend a certain number of minutes during an election airing advertising for each party - you can buy more than what's required, but everybody gets a certain minimum. A few years ago a local joke party got so many votes they were concerned they might actually win, and ended up coming in third, meaning they beat out two of the major parties (we have four, outside of Quebec). Does stuff like this ever happen in the U.S.?

And how the heck do electoral colleges work anyway? I've never really figured it out, but it sounds terribly undemocratic.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I think a 3rd party or even more is an excellent idea.

Choosing candidates based on Republican or Democrat doesn't make sense anymore. There are so many issues that go beyond these two parties, who you often cannot tell apart anymore. As it is now only about *50%* of the American population votes. More parties to vote from can increase the amount of interested voters who finally feel represented.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Thanks, Beth - I was starting to wonder if you guys had ever heard of Libertarians. I am all for Harry Browne (again). I'm about as die- hard a Libertarian as there is. People tell me all that bullshit about the electoral college and how I'm throwing my vote away, etc, etc, but to me it's more of a wrong to vote for a candidate I don't believe in or downright despise than it is to "throw away my vote" on someone I believe in strongly. The only reason it's considered to be throwing away your vote is because too many people don't do it for fear they are going to throw away their vote. Yeah, I'm just one person. So are you. But a lot of single persons are what founded the country we live in. It's nothing to blow off.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

We have joke candidates in Australia as well, except we refer to them as the two major parties.

I don't really understand the American voting system with all its electoral colleges, but here at least the preferential system means a third-party (or fourth, fifth, sixth, etc) vote is never really thrown away and ultimately counts towards either Labor or the Liberals. (Roughly works out as Democrats and Republicans in US terminology; here the Democrats and Republicans are two entirely different things to what they are in the US). As each smaller party is progressively knocked out of the running in various stages of counting, their preference votes are counted towards either Labor or Liberal.

I don't fully understand it either but it does mean you must be very careful, if you choose not to vote Labor or Liberal, about who you do vote for. You may not want Labor to win and would rather vote for some smaller party, but that smaller party may have struck deals to cast their preferences for Labor. You can't quite even trust the so-called independents, sometimes. The only way around it is not to vote at all. Although voting is compulsory here, technically you only have to turn up at the ballot booth and have your name crossed off the electoral roll. What you do with the ballot papers after that is up to you.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

In Canada the multiple party system is alive and kicking. Outside of Quebec, we have four major parties - the Liberals (sort of like Democrats in their platform), the Tories or Progressive Conservatives (somewhat like Republicans but without the influence of the religious right), the Reform party (very right-wing, populist, and just changed their name to Canadian Conservative Alliance) and the New Democratic Party (mainly socialist, labour/union-oriented). In Quebec is the fifth major party, the Quebec separatist party. Then there's lots of smaller parties and independents.

I've never felt that voting not-Liberal and not-PC was throwing my vote away, I think mainly because no matter how I vote, the government will be formed by whoever Ontario chooses, because Canada has a strict rep-by-pop system. Our Prime Minister is always the head of the majority party, he (or rarely she) is not elected separately. Parties don't give their votes to other parties, but there's always the vote-splitting effect where a Liberal will get in with 35% of the vote because the 50% voting conservative were split between Reform and PC.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

On the one hand, I'd rather have Gore than Dubya as my president. On the other hand, given the way the Democrats have been going over the past ten years, I want them to have serious competition on their left.

So, come Election Day, if the polls suggest that one side has Massachusetts sewn up, I might as well vote for Nader -- if he gets enough votes this year, then the Green Party will become eligible for Federal matching funds. If the race in Massachusetts looks tight, I'll vote for Gore.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I can't think of any joke candidates for national office in the U.S., unless you count Oliver North's bid for the Senate (I was a Virginia resident that year). Our system makes it so hard to get on a ballot that it isn't worth doing it just for giggles.

I am one of those people who would be unlikely to vote for a third-party candidate for national office. I certainly would vote for an independent that I believed in for a state office where that candidate could make a difference as an individual, such as governor. I can't imagine ever voting for a Senator or Representative who was not a Democrat or Republican, though, because they would be totally marginalized in office -- unless they aligned with one of the two major parties, in which case, why vote for them?

I suppose that if there was a presidential candidate whom I really believed could pull in enough of the vote to put the election in the House, then I might jump on the bandwagon. But third-party presidential candidates so far have been mere spoilers, IMHO. I think Perot did nothing in 1992 except hand the race to Clinton, and while I supported Clinton in '92, I don't know that Perot's presence was good for the process. Perot essentially made it impossible to tell what the majority wanted, and at minimum cheated Clinton out of a clear mandate. We immediately saw the fallout from this with the health care legislation debacle.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Somewhat obscure comedian Pat Paulsen was a regular presidential joke candidate. However, he died in 1997, so I don't think he's running this time around.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jello Biafra was running during the primaries. I think Hunter S. Thompson ran one year.

Now would you people shut up so I can finish today's entry? Geez.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I like conservative third party candidates, of which a few Libertarians are. I support all that I can (I'm a registered Libertarian) as long as my vote might not help hand the election to a liberal (as I think Perot's candidacy did). I like third party candidates because I think they have more genuine interest and passion about issues, and are not as beholden to the party powers and lobby groups as the major party candidates are.

I am very curious how the two Reform party candidates might affect this election. I think Buchanon can pull some angry one issue voters from both the Democrats and Republicans, but I have no idea about the other guy. Nader would never make a good president I don't think, but I'm glad he is running. I think we need to stir up the pot some more.

By the way, why is Bush called Dubya and Jr. alot when Gore is truely a Jr. and was a bigger pot head? I can see the Junior maybe for Bush since his dad was a President and GW is running for the same office- the name helps tie them together. But I really don't see the other one. Anyone know? Is there anything to it?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jarvis, I think it's because Al Gore Sr. isn't really part of our current political scene. It's really hard to talk about George Bush as president without clarifying which one you mean. I imagine that if the younger one gets elected, we'll start calling his father "GB Sr." in time, even though most people are aware that they are not technically a senior and a junior. Saying the full name is just a pain in the neck.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Does the nickname Dubya have something to do with being a pot head? I thought it was just the phonetic spelling of G.W.B.'s middle initial?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I like alot of Jello Biafra's stuff if you like that punk ska thing he even did a rendition of Napoleon Bonaparte's "Their coming to take me away" ; but as president? I'm saying no.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jennifer,

I see that now on "W"! Thanks.

I thought it was "Doobie" related. Intentional or not, what a great, 2 meaning play on words!

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Because I know the answer, and some people have asked, I will explain how the Electoral College works. There is only one Electoral College.

Each state has a number of Members of Congress (ranging from 1 to 50- some) based on the size of the population in that state. There are 435 representatives in the House for the entire country. Each state also has two Senators (regardless of population size) for a total of 100 Senators. So Congress is made up of 535 people. The Electoral College also has 535 people, the same number from each state as that state has MCs and Senators. So California has 52 MCs and 2 Senators = 54 Electoral College votes. Wyoming has 1 MC and 2 Senators = 3 Electoral College votes.

Each delegate to the Electoral College votes for the candidate who won the most votes in that state. If Gore wins California by one vote, he still gets all 54 Electoral College votes. If he wins California, Ohio, and a couple of other big states, he's won the election. It is possible to win an election with a minority of the votes if you take the big states. It's happened on occasion.

As an aside, I don't think that the Electoral College actually meets anymore; when it did, delegates could change their votes, and things sometimes got interesting. Nowadays they're more trustworthy, or they signed away their rights, or something.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

If the Federal deficit hadn't been one of Perot's major issues, would the Clinton administration have been able to push through its deficit-reduction package? Ten years ago, I never would have believed that the US Federal government would be running a surplus in 2000, because everybody knew that a politician who proposed tax hikes or further spending cuts would be committing political suicide.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Here's a joke candidate for you, though not necessarily up for national election: We had a guy running for ASUCD (school senate) a few years ago running on the "free cheese Tuesdays" and "put a troll under every bridge" platform.

I voted for him. Yay free cheese!

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I would vote for a third party candidate, but not this time around and not purely as a protest.

I just can't vote for Nader. Even if there's just a snowball's chance in hell that he'll win, I imagine him as President and am terrified. As others have said before, Nader is what he is. As an activist, he's great. As the President? I have no confident that he'd be capable.

As for why I wouldn't use my vote as a protest if the candidate was less than suitable ... as Lynda posted earlier, Maryland generally votes Democrat. In the 1994 governor's election, the Republican candidate was the very conservative Ellen Sauerbrey, who ordinarily wouldn't have stood much of a chance (and was way behind in the polls even into November). But the Democratic nominee, Parris Glendening, was much unbeloved, so a lot of Dems stayed home or voted for Sauerbrey as a protest. The result was that she came within a few thousand (disputed) votes away from winning.

In 1998, the same two candidates squared off for the same office, and Glendening won easily. IMO a lot of Maryland voters who would have been inclined to use their votes as a protest instead of support for a particular candidate in 1994 did not do so four years later, and will be less likely to do so now.

I guess the point is that wacky things can happen. Yeah, my vote might not make a difference, but I'm still going to use mine on the person who I think would be best suited for the office. Who that person is, though, I have no idea.

[Of course, I voted for Sauerbrey both times, because I feel the same way about Glendening that Beth does about Ted Kennedy.]

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Mike, I agree with you, but I don't regard my stance as a protest vote. I think every vote is an investment in the future, and if you can't vote FOR someone, you should at least vote for whoever you think will cause the least damage to that future. In this particular case, the sad truth is that neither major candidate is someone I can stomach voting for - I can't find 'least damage' on either side. That leaves me with two options - don't vote (an option I find appalling), or find a different way to vote for the future. In this case, I want to vote in such a way so that down the line there is a possibility that I will have more than just these two parties to vote FOR.

Granted, Nader himself isn't the candidate I want to see in office, but I think the odds of him winning are slim enough that I can risk putting my vote to good use, not for this election, but perhaps the next one. If that weren't on the table, I wouldn't register a purely protest vote. If I lived in a state where voting that way would be likely to swing the election, I wouldn't either. I'm not voting for THIS race, I'm voting for the next one. For me, unfortunately, the next 4-8 years were shot to hell during the primaries.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Just wanted to clarify that in citing Lynda, I meant to highlight just Maryland's voting record and not comment on her stance in this year's election. I just wanted to make it in statewide elections, a vote for the GOP candidate in Maryland can be as much of a protest vote as one for a third party. I'm sure that's true in other states as well.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Dorie points out regarding the electoral college: As an aside, I don't think that the Electoral College actually meets anymore; when it did, delegates could change their votes, and things sometimes got interesting. Nowadays they're more trustworthy, or they signed away their rights, or something.

The Electors never met as one body. The Electors from each state meet in their state; and cast ballots. Each state has its own rules for choosing Electors; and how they are bound from the popular election of their state.

As a couple of asides for our non-US friends, the Electors are obligated to choose at least one person for president or vice president who is not from their state. This is why Dick Cheney had to re-register in Wyoming (from Texas). If he stayed in Texas; the Bush/Cheney ticket could not have been selected by the Texas Electors.

The other interesting thing; the Electors send their voting records, signed, certified and sealed to the (Current) President of the Senate; which is the one consititual role of the Vice-President. So Al Gore will wind up reading the ballots that elect him or defeat him.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Tim said- "The other interesting thing; the Electors send their voting records, signed, certified and sealed to the (Current) President of the Senate; which is the one consititual role of the Vice-President. So Al Gore will wind up reading the ballots that elect him or defeat him."

Tim, that is a very interesting point. If one did not know the outcome, that could be nerve-racking!

I wonder if anyone will be counting over his shoulder .... ummm, I can hear it now ... "7 .. 11.. 54 .. 32 .. ok, total these up ... WOW! I got all 545 votes!"

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Yeah, I'd vote for a third party candidate and I plan to this November.

You've ratted out another Libertarian. Since I agree with their entire platform, how could I not vote for them?

-Nicole

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

I haven't decided what to do. Beth has awefully good points about Al, but George is just so scary in so many ways. As far as third party candidates go, I think there should be more (even signed the petition to put Nadar on the ballot).

As a side note, the Socialist vice presidential candidate, Mary Cal Hollis, is my first cousin once removed. Pretty cool, eh?

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000