Quote:
Originally posted by island911
Yeah, your not alone. There are quite few people who want "vote for a winner."
. .. I suppose that means that you should be voting for Bush then.  . .Why "throw-away" your vote for Kerry? I mean really! --no one is voting FOR Kerry. And what are the odds on Kerry winning? A vote for Kerry is just a vote for more of the same. More of the same growing of the federal govt sector. More of the same choice of twiddle-dee or twiddle-dumb.
A vote for a third-party influences the future. Just even having one of these guys in the mix of the debates . .. .they might even be interesting then. (remember Perot? . . .he didn't let the entrenched crap remain underground)
|
"Vote for a winner"? Yes, when I vote for someone it is usually because I think my vote can help them win.
"What are the odds on Kerry winning"? Well, you can read the polls too. It looks like about 50/50, +/- 5.
As for third-party candidates, we discussed this in a prior thread. I am generally opposed to third parties because I'd prefer each election to result in one clear and dominant victorious party (even if it is not the one I prefer) so that their ideas can get boldly adopted and thoroughly tested. I think third parties lead to coalition governments which, I feel, tend to be less decisive.