2–for–1 Voting

May 5, 2004 8:00 AM

Electoral slight of hand is suggested by NYT columnist Bruce Ackerman in his opinion piece for May 5th, where he suggest that Nader choose Kerry's electoral slate when filing for the November election. It's a clever idea, and I'd be interested in seeing if it has any traction.
posted by silusGROK (52 comments total)

From the article:

If he truly has no desire to be a spoiler in November, he can structure his candidacy to allow his supporters to vote both for him and for Senator Kerry. (emphasis mine)

False dichotomy. There are those out there, (possibly myself included) who absolutely despise Kerry and would want to vote for Nader because first, I want to vote and second, because Nader happens to have similar view to my own. Do I want Bush in office in November? Hell no. But would I compromise my voting conscience simply because I'm against Bush? Hell no. I'll vote for a Democratic Senator, Democratic Congressman, etc. in my attempt to balance Congress.

I am really, really sick of the "anyone but Bush" campaign. It's the exact tactic of "us or them" that turned me off of the Bush Administration and now the Democrats, pretending to take the high road, are using the same strategy.

Guess what Kerry fans--he's not the greatest Democrat that ever lived, and those of us with a decent background of political history know that although he won the primary, he wasn't the best representation of Democratic ideals. He was simply the best candidate to beat Bush.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:14 AM on May 5, 2004

Did I not read the article correctly, or is it just immensly dumb?

None of Nader's electors in 2000 went to their state election conferences, because Nader didn't win a single state. Our voting system is all-or-nothing for each state, so only the party that wins the popular vote for the state will get any electors.

Nader shaved off a few percentage points from Gore in each state in 2000, so he was that much less likely to win several states.

Again, either I'm just mistaken here, or Mr. Ackerman really needs to learn how our presidential election system works.
posted by mragreeable at 8:15 AM on May 5, 2004

Oh, and now I'm just being a jerk, but it's spelled "sleight of hand."

(And yeah, I know I misspelled "immensely" in my own post, so I should just shut up.)

posted by mragreeable at 8:20 AM on May 5, 2004

This plan is consistent with the original understanding of the founders. When they created the Electoral College, they did not anticipate the rise of the party system; they expected voters to select community leaders who would make their own judgments when casting their ballots for the presidency.

I think this means that as a voter you are not voting for the candidate, but for the slate of electors. If Nader and Kerry have the same slate, and Nader votes + Kerry votes > Bush votes, the Nader/Kerry slate would win and the state's electoral votes would go to Kerry.
posted by Hlewagast at 8:26 AM on May 5, 2004

(Don't sweat the lesson, mragreeable, I'm a stickler for spelling and am always grateful for a helping hand.)
posted by silusGROK at 8:29 AM on May 5, 2004

It's a clever idea, and I can't argue about the law with a Yale law professor. (Hell, I'm not that good with the UConn Law professors.) But he fails to adequately address issues of federalism that are inherent in his argument.

There are two constitutional sources of authority on presidential elections. One is original to the Constitution, the other was added after the 1800 election fiasco in order to ensure the political solidarity of the executive branch.

Art II, Sec. 1 states: (emphasis added)

...Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

That's all the authority we have. The Twelfth Amendment requires electors to fill separate ballots for President and Vice President, whereas before they only filled a ballot for President. Otherwise the Amendment deals only with the formal voting and certification process after the electors have been chosen.

Notice what's missing? Voting. Nowhere in either of these provisions does the federal government mandate how presidential electors are selected. Compare Art. I, Sec. 2 (providing for popular vote for the House of Representatives) and the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of Senators.) The equivalent language ("chosen... by the people of the several States") is missing in either the presidential election provisions.

Of course, the states are limited by several provisions in how they can choose electors. They cannot do so by denying the vote to anyone because of race (15th Amendment,) sex (19th Amendment,) failure to pay a poll tax (22d Amendment), or age above 18 (26th Amendment.) And the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses preserve a general fundamental right to vote, see Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 667 (1966) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)) ("the political franchise of voting [is] a fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all rights").

State law, not federal law, decides what Nader can and can't do with regard to his electors. All that the Constitution cares about is that Congress receive and tally the votes of electors on a prescribed day. If this is done with appropriate deference to civil rights and individual freedoms, the federal government doesn't care. Nader would have to appeal to officials in each state, and he'd get a different answer from each one. Ackerman's plan might work, but it wouldn't be uniform, and the end result would make Bush v. Gore look like a shoplifting trial.
posted by PrinceValium at 8:50 AM on May 5, 2004

Thanks for that response, BlueTrain. I'll be happily voting for Nader in November and I really don't care what the "anyone but Bush" camp has to say about it. Ackerman is completely missing the point of the Nader candidacy.
posted by maurice at 8:58 AM on May 5, 2004

According to this page, provided by the Federal Election Commision, Maine and Nebraska have individual electors chosen based on each disctrict's popular vote winner. Everyone else is all-or-nothing. I don't know how authoritative a resource that is, and I don't really plan on spending the afternoon researching each state's election laws, but I'm assuming the FEC is somewhat on the ball as far as election laws are concerned.

So Mr. Ackerman's plan will in fact work in Maine and Nebraska.
posted by mragreeable at 9:05 AM on May 5, 2004

Ackerman is completely missing the point of the Nader candidacy.

I'm intrigued. Explain to me "the point" of Nader's candidacy, because as I understand it, it's all about Ralph Nader.
posted by rocketman at 9:19 AM on May 5, 2004

Whatever.
"slight of hand"-- a very telling mistake. Kerry's chances seem indeed slight to say the very least.
posted by 111 at 9:20 AM on May 5, 2004

Everyone else is all-or-nothing.

You've completely missed the point of PrinceValium's post. It's all-or-nothing because the people who have selected the electors control the elector's vote.

Simply put, an elector is being paid (theoretically, I'm not sure) to cast a specific vote (D or R). That said, I don't know how they're elected to become electors, exactly (as PrinceValium alluded to). That would be a good thing to research.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:23 AM on May 5, 2004

2000 Election - Electoral College members.

Procedural Guide to the Electoral College.

Federal presidential election laws, 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 et. seq.
posted by PrinceValium at 9:31 AM on May 5, 2004

Ok, I researched Virginia law, and he's right. You vote for electors, effectively - not for candidates. Assuming the rest of the country works that way his plan really will work. And it's quite clever.

And, incidental to this discussion, Virginia's house passed a bill this year to make our election systems work like Maine and Nebraska. The senate hasn't voted yet. (Oh, and here in VA electors get $50/day while they're at the actual conference.)
posted by mragreeable at 9:36 AM on May 5, 2004

Electors are selected at party caucuses - usually just before the primaries. I almost ran for elector in my state, but I knew I could never win as I couldn't personally bring hundreds of my friends to the caucus. People do vote for electors at the polls though, and those electors then vote for the President. It's unusual for electors to vote against the peoples' wishes as the electors are usuaully die-hard supporters.

Anyway, I hate Nader and I don't like Kerry - they're both sleazy liars. I dislike Bush too, of course, and my main goal will be getting Bush out (which might require voting Kerry). I have a lot of politically aware and involved Democrat friends and we all feel the same about Kerry - we are all pissed as hell that he won the primaries on an "Electability" platform. Now it seems that everybody is waking up from the primaries and wondering "wtf happened?" I do feel torn about Kerry v. Bush though. I feel that Bush will do even more immense damage to the country in four years, but I don't think that a Kerry Presidency would be all that great either and that it might guarantee another right-wing President in 2008. Furthermore, I wouldn't want to vote to reelect Kerry in 2008. What a sad state of affairs we're in.
posted by crazy finger at 9:41 AM on May 5, 2004

Kerry's chances seem indeed slight to say the very least.

111, you live in a dream world.
posted by mcgraw at 9:43 AM on May 5, 2004

Suuuuuuuure
posted by 111 at 9:47 AM on May 5, 2004

mcgraw, jpoulos said this earlier. Wise words.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:54 AM on May 5, 2004

That's it, 111! You're going to HELL!

On preview, Blue Train: I recall the suggestion that people simply ignore 111. But, I hope 111 will rethink his "I'm always right" approach to other people. It must make his life lonely, except when he's around other arrogant assholes like himself.

Someday 111, with his self-righteous condescension, is going to anger some chap on the street and lose his teeth. Good luck, 111. God doesn't like your attitude towards others.
posted by mcgraw at 10:01 AM on May 5, 2004

Ok, I take that back, 111.

You're going to heaven. But you are a butthole, man. BUTTHOLE!
posted by mcgraw at 10:08 AM on May 5, 2004

I'm intrigued. Explain to me "the point" of Nader's candidacy, because as I understand it, it's all about Ralph Nader.

As near as I can figure it, he's on the GOP payroll.
posted by callmejay at 10:17 AM on May 5, 2004

What Nader's candidacy should be about is demonstrating the unrealized power of the liberal vote. Liberals do not make up a large enough percentage of the electorate to elect a president. That's just fact. Neither Nader or Kucinich have enough draw to make them viable.

Nader, if he were to adapt a pragmatic strategy such as the one above, could draw enough support to say "we're here, we have influence, and we want a voice." This is what progressive Americans should aim for, rather than Pyrrhic personal victories. (I include myself. I vote in a solidly red state, and frequently cast my vote with third party candidates and idealists like Kucinich)

I would really like to vote for Kerry through Nader, as would millions of un-represented progressives.

I wouldn't be so smug if I were 111. If Bush does win, it will be close, and probably through voter fraud. And the sheer amount of antipathy Bush has generated abroad is so great it will eventually reach the American people. I have lived abroad on and off since 1972, and have never until this year really felt hatred against Americans, even among Canadians, Britons and Eastern Europeans.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 12:23 PM on May 5, 2004

I didn't read the article because it's friggin NYT link (hate hate hate req registration) but it would be great if Nader agreed to run as Kerry's vice president. Slam bang.
posted by Eyegore at 12:28 PM on May 5, 2004

The further we keep Nader from office, the better we'll be.

I mean, I understand that people have an amount of dissatisfaction with the political process, but does anyone really think that Nader would be an effective president? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
posted by Jart at 12:37 PM on May 5, 2004

I'm sure he would keep us safe from Corvairs of Mass Destruction.
posted by ulotrichous at 12:47 PM on May 5, 2004

I do not want an effective president. I want a gridlocked president.
posted by thirteen at 2:41 PM on May 5, 2004

I'm sure he would keep us safe from Corvairs of Mass Destruction.

They're driving in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
posted by eddydamascene at 3:17 PM on May 5, 2004

mcgraw, the leftist thought police tells you not to talk to me! How dare you disobey their stalinist dictates! You can't say that Kerry has already lost! Even though that's the plain truth, it makes the lefties cry, thereby ruining their day and elaborate make-up.

Someday 111, with his self-righteous condescension, is going to anger some chap on the street and lose his teeth. Good luck, 111. God doesn't like your attitude towards others.

You know, Michelangelo apparently had his nose broken on account of a fight he had with such a resentful "chap". But don't worry about me. I take care. Anyway, Kerry could ally himself with Michael Schumacher and he'd still manage to lose. He's hopeless. Even the Village Voice has asked the dems to forget Kerry and choose John Edwards instead.
The fact that people will even discuss measures such as a let Kerry and Nader drown together in a loving embrace is a sign of sheer desperation. Nobody even likes John Kerry. It's more of an anti-Bush campaign than anything-- there are no enthusiastic Kerry voters. The Nader people are much more secure of their choice than the average Kerry, so it sounds like a truly desperate measure.

If Bush does win, it will be close, and probably through voter fraud.

See? The left cannot live with the idea that Bush is indeed a much better choice than Kerry. They develop little fictions in their had to cope with the idea that they actually a minority-- and a clueless one too.
posted by 111 at 3:44 PM on May 5, 2004

I'm intrigued. Explain to me "the point" of Nader's candidacy, because as I understand it, it's all about Ralph Nader.

one of the many "points" of Ralph Nader's candidacy is to oppose the continuing "corporatization of our political economy."

he's mentioned that several times this year, along with weakening the power of the industrial-military complex. those are at least two major issues that veer significantly from Kerry's platform, and they're reason enough (imo) to run as an independent candidate.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:06 PM on May 5, 2004

cope with the idea that they actually a minority

Huh? More people voted for Gore than Bush in 2000. Are you suggesting that the percentage of people who didn't vote at all in 2000 would have supported either candidate by a different margin? If so, please show why (1) this is true and (2) if it is true, why these people would have supported Bush in larger numbers than Gore.
posted by PrinceValium at 4:13 PM on May 5, 2004

Here's what Nader should do instead of electoral chicanery. He should tell everyone who wants to vote for him, that they should vote Kerry instead. That way, instead of getting <5 % of the vote, nader will get>40% of the vote, or at least can claim too.
posted by drezdn at 4:17 PM on May 5, 2004

Huh? More people voted for Gore than Bush in 2000.
PrinceValium, not really.
posted by 111 at 4:21 PM on May 5, 2004

here's an interesting, contrarian (to my opinion) view of Nader's motivations from the Village Voice: Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber

111, i think PrinceValium was referring to the national popular vote, not the Florida popular vote specifically.

also, as for there are no enthusiastic Kerry voters, you're dead wrong. i'm not a fan of Kerry myself, but i know a few people with this organization who are extremely enthusiastic.
posted by mrgrimm at 4:28 PM on May 5, 2004

111 - huh?

I have:
Gore 50,996,116
Bush 50,456,169

Are you telling me that Bush is missing 550,000 votes in Florida? If not, why did you post a link to a Florida recount story? Do you even know what you are arguing?
posted by PrinceValium at 4:28 PM on May 5, 2004

A vote for Nader was a cute form of protest in 2000. My friends who did just that stated at the time that there really wasn't much difference between Gore and Bush, and I'll be damned if I was able to give them a substantive explanation of how their own lives would be affected by any differences between Gore or Bush. Hell, I almost voted for Nader myself, but decided my (then) state (Michigan) was going to be too close.

The difference between then and now is that we do know what the differences would have been. There wouldn't have been this whole Iraq debacle, there'd be meaningful stem cell research going on in this country, and there would never have been talk about amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. Yeah, I know Gore sucked, and Kerry isn't much more exciting, but unless you don't have a problem with Nixon, Regan and Bush I administration retreads working to invade every shitty little county on the planet (these people fucked up in the '70s and '80s, and now again in the '00s, do they really deserve a THIRD chance?), or you plan on never getting old and suffering from Alzheimer's or cancer, or you don't mind W appointing two or three Scalia epigones to the Supreme Court- then go ahead and vote for Nader. Protest the fact that Kerry isn't 'liberal enough' for you by objectively voting for Bush and his arch-conservative agenda. If you didn't learn your lesson over these past 3.5 years there's really nothing I or anyone else can do to convince you otherwise. Just don't complain about any of W's second term actions- you'll have helped bring them to fruition.
posted by crank at 4:32 PM on May 5, 2004

What crank said.
posted by amberglow at 4:40 PM on May 5, 2004

111-- Where the #$%* have you been?More people did vote for Gore than Bush, though a handful of Republican papers say otherwise. And pretty much everyone agrees that there were wide-spread irregularities in the election, though some attribute it to incompetence, and others to fraud. In fact, most call the last election the closest in history.


" See? The left cannot live with the idea that Bush is indeed a much better choice than Kerry.""

Aside from being sanctimonious, this is a non-sequitor. What does this mean? If you look at the polls, pretty much all of them, you see that the race is very close, and probably will continue to be close, though Kerry is actually ahead in many.

When I read that a candidate has negative votes from precincts in Florida, I get suspicious. I do expect there will continue be voter fraud and that neither side will really accept the results of the next election. But, Bush's approval rating is pretty pathetic for a sitting president.

I would, outline the many very good reasons why Bush is not a good choice, but you're just an unpleasant, ill-informed little troll.

I say good day, to you 111.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:40 PM on May 5, 2004

Why doesnt Nader run for something he can win like an congressional seat? Obviously he's not ever going to be president, and he could make a difference or at least be in the news more often than once every four years if he actually did something pragmatic like win a real seat.

How about vote Kerry, get Ralph to run for congress in '08?

I hate to break it to die-hard Naderites, but this run isn't doing anything. Nader should put his money where his mouth is and run for something other than attention. Hell, I'd rather get Nader's message from a book than deal with his pie-in-the sky presidential campaign. Hey, we gave him a fair shake with the greens and party building in 2000. It didn't work out. Adapt. Think of solutions. Running for president again aint it.
posted by skallas at 4:44 PM on May 5, 2004

111, i think PrinceValium was referring to the national popular vote, not the Florida popular vote specifically

True, that's right PrinceValium and mrgrimm. Gore did get more votes (California, NJ etc...). But you know what I meant. This time Bush will win in more states and get more votes as well.

On preview:
Aside from being sanctimonious, this is a non-sequitor. What does this mean?

Gesamtkunstwerk, it means the left can't cope with the fact that Bush is simply the best choice. You prove my point when you conspiratorially say that

I do expect there will continue be voter fraud and that neither side will really accept the results of the next election.

which I interpret as an acknowledgment that 1) the Kerry candidacy is pretty much defunct 2)the left cannot convince voters to give the unreliable Kerry a chance and 3) the left doesn't even trust the Kerry staff to send competent observers the elections in Florida or whatever it is.

But, Bush's approval rating is pretty pathetic for a sitting president.

You mean a sitting President fighting a war in Iraq, another against a rabid, resented liberal press and a third against cowardly countries who irresponsibly try to undermine US power for their own selfish reasons? Because if you take these three factors into account I'd say he's not doing too bad.

I would, outline the many very good reasons why Bush is not a good choice, but you're just an unpleasant, ill-informed little troll.

Makes sense for a desperate leftist.
posted by 111 at 4:56 PM on May 5, 2004

I say good day, 111

(Do you find that most people are irrational, rude, and consipiratorial? That's actually you.)
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:04 PM on May 5, 2004

Gore did get more votes (California, NJ etc...). But you know what I meant.

Nope, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Why is Bush the "best" choice? Your entire argument seems to hinge on your opinion that Bush will win, but you have never (at least in this thread) said why he will win, and why he should win.

You're going to need a little more gravitas than that to stand on even keel with us desperate leftists.
posted by PrinceValium at 5:16 PM on May 5, 2004

Gesamtkunstwerk, reread my comments and yours-- which ones sound rabid and desperate? I am a conservative so my own view is pretty much obvious, but when you talk to Kerry voters, don't you find them apathetic? The Nader treehuggers at least seem to actually believe in Ralph's fairy tales. Do you really think John Kerry can explain his dozens of tinfoil hat views on foreign policy, the US armed forces and so on? Would you trust John Kerry to deal with criminals who blow up buildings and trains full of innocent, civil workers? These are questions you'll have to answer for yourself, regardless of how you may feel about the fact that these issues exist.
posted by 111 at 5:16 PM on May 5, 2004

Would you trust John Kerry to deal with criminals who blow up buildings and trains full of innocent, civil workers?

I don't have a reason not to trust him, and you can't provide one, so why are you arguing that he's not trustworthy? Back up your arguments, please.
posted by oaf at 5:25 PM on May 5, 2004

PrinceValium, these are indeed two separate things. I think Bush will win and I also believe Bush is the best option because, among other reasons, he's

1)practical
2)attuned to the current world affairs and ready to deal with them
3)value-based
4)secure
5)true to his principles
etc

Kerry is a self-contradictory, vacillating figment who spends U$1,000 on a haircut and wants you to believe that his medals and ribbons are enough to lead the US Armed Forces. This is not real life.

I don't have a reason not to trust him, and you can't provide one, so why are you arguing that he's not trustworthy? Back up your arguments, please.

oaf, perhaps you're new here, but we've had this discussion before. Google Kerry's views on the command of US Armed Forces, for instance.
posted by 111 at 5:34 PM on May 5, 2004

Just don't complain about any of W's second term actions- you'll have helped bring them to fruition.

Very Machiavellian, but unfortunately, extremely short-sighted as well. You see, the reason why George W Bush will have earned a second term is because more people voted for him than any other candidate. If you want Kerry to win, convince the 50% of the population that's sitting on its ass in November to get up for 30 minutes and vote. Don't feed us your dogmatic bullshit that somehow Nader is spoiling the race. Those registered voters who choose not to vote are the problem. Oh yeah, and all those folks that decided Bush was better than Kerry.

This blatant labelling as a spoiler is such rhetorical bullshit.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:36 PM on May 5, 2004

1)practical
How?

2)attuned to the current world affairs and ready to deal with them
Which world affair is he attuned to, specifically? See yesterday's Talking Points Memo.

3)value-based
Whose values? Not mine. If they are your values, that's a fair argument, but you can't logically extrapolate them to anyone else.

4)secure
True, he has excellent Secret Service protection.

5)true to his principles
Peace? Freedom? Fiscal responsibility?

Kerry is a self-contradictory, vacillating figment
True. It's been a long time since we've had a politician who isn't. This does not negate the fact that a similar argument could be made for your candidate.

who spends U$1,000 on a haircut
Link, please. Difficulty: Non-Drudge. And if true, were your tax dollars spent on the haircut? If not, do you believe that people should not be allowed to spend their own money?

and wants you to believe that his medals and ribbons are enough to lead the US Armed Forces.
What were Bush's qualifications before he became president? How have the events of the past 4 years made him a better commander in chief? Again, see yesterday's Talking Points Memo.

This is not real life.
It sure isn't.

You're wading in it, 111. There's nothing wrong with voting for your ideology. But you should be prepared to discuss and defend that ideology, not resort to platitudes.
posted by PrinceValium at 5:46 PM on May 5, 2004

Oh right, did I mention the fact that because I don't like John Kerry, somehow I'm less liberal, or even a Bush supporter? This site has plenty of Democrats that argue that the Bush Administration is unethical for calling ant-war demonstrators unpatriotic. But when the shoe is on the other foot, and non-Republicans suggest that they aren't going to vote for Kerry, somehow they're spoilers who will cause Bush to win. I think we have some major issues of hypocrisy here.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:50 PM on May 5, 2004

Kerry is a self-contradictory

cough
posted by mcsweetie at 6:09 PM on May 5, 2004

Don't feed us your dogmatic bullshit that somehow Nader is spoiling the race.

There is no dogma in pointing out the folly of casting a vote for Bush by-proxy. Maybe for you it's Nader or no one, but don't tell me that all of Nader's support in 2000 came from people who wouldn't have voted otherwise- that's simply not true. Perot played spoiler in '92, Nader played spoiler in '00. There- I said it.

Oh, and if you want to talk about "Machiavellian" what about the fact that 10% of Nader's contributions have come from wealthy republicans? Has former Nixon speechwriter Ben "Peace Bear" Stein turned into a flaming liberal?

Oh right, did I mention the fact that because I don't like John Kerry, somehow I'm less liberal, or even a Bush supporter?

Nobody said that. You are not a martyr.
posted by crank at 6:37 PM on May 5, 2004

but don't tell me that all of Nader's support in 2000 came from people who wouldn't have voted otherwise- that's simply not true.

Prove it. Further, address the issue that 50% of America isn't voting for your candidate.

From your linked article:

Nearly 10 percent of the Nader contributors who have given him at least $250 each have a history of supporting the Republican president, national GOP candidates or the party, according to computer-assisted review of financial records by The Dallas Morning News.

Technically, I'm still a registered Republican (I never bothered to change it) and if I were a little older, I too would have a history of donating to the GOP, since I consider myself politically active/interested. You are now making the assumption that former donators can't change their views, which isn't fair.

Nobody said that.

OR, you've never read anyone in this specific thread suggesting that, which isn't to say that it hasn't been said before.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:50 PM on May 5, 2004

I think Bush will win and I also believe Bush is the best option because, among other reasons, he's

1)practical
2)attuned to the current world affairs and ready to deal with them
3)value-based
4)secure
5)true to his principles
etc

posted by 111 at 5:34 PM PST on May 5

111, thanks. Honest.
i always wondered why anyone could possibly vote for Bush, with the way he's fucked up the economy. and now i have the answer. sort of a 'how the other half thinks'. i think those reasons are incredibly vague and redundant when they're not outright wrong but that's just my opinion. some people have other ones.
posted by Miles Long at 6:55 PM on May 5, 2004

address the issue that 50% of America isn't voting for your candidate.

Fifty percent of the electorate isn't participating in politics. It's been like this for decades. BTW some 97% of the electorate won't be voting for Nader.

But hey, I'm not a huge Kerry supporter, what do I care? My politics and beliefs may be closer to Nader than they are to Kerry, I'm just looking at the reality of the past 4 years and employing some strategic voting. I'm pretty sure I know what another 4 years under Bush will be like, and I know Nader will never be president, so I've split the difference and will vote for Kerry.
posted by crank at 7:22 PM on May 5, 2004

I think history will be pretty hard on your boy, 111. His foreign policy seems to be hit, hit harder, gibber, and hit harder again. Even his closest allies express extreme concern over his policies. I have no idea how anyone can respect a gibbering idiot who can't speak a sentence without being coached, who coasted through military service on family connections, who keeps his driving record sealed, and whose staff has a pattern of quitting and writing damning memoirs. I'm not saying that such a person couldn't be smart and principled. It just seems highly unlikely.

I actually hope I am wrong. As a student of history, I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that this man's tenure is the end of the American century.

So, just curious 111. When was the last time someone said "I like you", or "nice comment", or "gee, you seem like a nice guy"? Just asking.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:14 PM on May 5, 2004