politics

[laurenbrook24]

So I've decided I'll probably vote for Nader in the election. Here's how I see it, my main priority is to get Bush out of office. And since California is already in the bag for Kerry, then it's not an issue whether I vote for Kerry or not. Therefore, I want to vote for someone who actually supports many of my views. Nader is that man. I went

Comments

[rearviewregrets]

Thank you. I love Nader.

Also Micheal Moore has a simliar talk about republicans and democrats being the same in his book "Downsize This". Good stuff.

[laurenbrook24]

Yes, there are some Michael Moore books that I would like to read still, as well Glassner's "Culture of Fear," "The I hate George W. Bush reader" (hahaha) and others. I wish I had time to read them...But yes, Nader has so many better plans and ideas. Too bad he's not going to win.

[aznposseandajew]

No, Lauren, no!! Don't go to the dark side!!!!

--meilee

[laurenbrook24]

Meilee, I don't understand. His positions make sooo much more sense.

[aznposseandajew]

the problem is that california isnt necessary guaranteed to kerry. we elected schwarzanegger. i no longer trust californians.

also on another related note, i know some ppl say you shouldnt just vote for the lesser of two evils. But, despite the fact that i may not agree with all of Kerry's ideals, I would rather vote for someone that will benefit for the greater good and sacrifice some of my personal opnions. yes, democracy offers us the opportunity to "have our voices heard." But in a country as large and heterogeneous as ours, it is simply not feasible for everyone to have their say.

finally, a fact to think about: Bush's campaign ppl have actually been helping nadar's campaign and donating money because they know that if they can take democratic votes away to nadar, then bush will be able to win once again.

just spouting, su-han

[laurenbrook24]

Well, judging from the last election it just appears that California will go to Kerry. But you're right. It's not guaranteed. However, both candidates know that most likely California will go to Kerry. This is why they don't campaign in California and instead campaign in states that are not determined yet

[iandabear135]

Lauren, I think its great that you're voting for Nader, but I can't do the same. It's a shame that more people aren't voting for third party candidates, but lets face it the U.S. electoral system's flawed. It was set up for 2 parties to dominate. It would be great if there was an alternative. Like if we had a primary election where people could vote freely for whichever candidate they chose, without having to worry about voting for the lesser of two evils. At the end of that primary election the 2 candidates with the most votes would go into a head-2-head election. That way you'd eliminate the possibility of one party stealing votes from another

[laurenbrook24]

Alright, well thanks everyone who added their input in this. It was actually very appreciated and helpful. I still stand behind my belief that there should be more than just 2 major political parties, and I still believe that Nader has a right to be in this election and try to get as many votes as possible. But yes, you guys all have brought up good points on the topic, like how we elected Arnold or how votes for Nader could go to Kerry instead. But personally (and I stress "personally"), I still agree with Nader's positions on the issues. I feel like it would be morally wrong if I voted for someone who I didn't fully support. If I lived in Pennsylvania, like my brother for instance, I would most likely vote for Kerry even though I didn't totally support him. Since Pennsylvania is a swing state then I would want Kerry to win because I don't want Bush to win. True, it would go against my morals but it would go against my morals even more if I voted for Nader and the votes were so close between Kerry and Bush that Bush won. I