Okay, I'm prepared to take some heat on this, but here goes. If you vote for a third party candidate, you are not wasting your vote. The fact of the matter is that he or she may not win now or ever, but his or her ideas, platform and/or philosophy might very well catch on like wildfire once it reaches critical mass.
The question is, do you trade today's election of the lesser of two evils for a vast improvement that may or may not ever happen?
I know in the case of Nader, there are some very strong opinions. I also have to believe that most of us would agree with most of his policies, but that our disdain for Bush and our fear of a hand-picked conservative Supreme Court prevents us from giving him our vote.
On the other hand, I have to agree with Nader when he says that the "Anybody but Bush" line of thinking would lead to no clear mandate to whomever was elected. To me, it's a dangerous line of thinking. Anybody but Bush? Okay, how about Charles Manson? Or even Marilyn Manson?
Personally, I strongly agree with Nader on a lot of issues. Like Nader, I truly believe that Washington is corporate held territory. I also like the fact that he wants to eliminate corporate personhood. He wants tax reform that would shift the tax burden away from the workers, which is good. He's great on the environment (although I think Kerry is too).
On the other hand, I don't like the fact that Kerry voted to authorize the war (he should've listened to Byrd), and I really don't like the fact that he voted for the Patriot Act. But, and here's the rub, he is the lesser of two evils, probably by a longshot (unless he and his bonesman brother Bush are playing a game of good cop/bad cop).
So the question remains, at least in my mind, do I take a chance on voting for someone who has no chance of winning, but who's ideas could one day reach critical mass, or do I vote for the lesser of two evils.
Please take this opportunity to help me make up my mind.
Hinky Dink