Quote:
Originally Posted by Sowa
The question is if you felt like both candidates were piles of ****s like Nicole and also myself whats the point... I voted in thlast election because of other issues, but I just wrote in Nader as my choice for president I might as well have voted for a pile of crap... So who would you voted for in that instance?
|
Well, you have to vote for the person you think protects your interest the best--that's how democracy works. A lot depends on where you live; but voting for Nader is better than NOT voting, IMO.
To answer your question--I would have voted for Kerry. Not that I think he's great, but I think the Bush agenda is bad for the country and morally bankrupt. But then I'm pretty comfortable with voting for the "not as bad" in a given election.
It's a two-party system--which means that it's not designed to give every person their ideal choice for a candidate, it's designed to give you two choices so that as a collective, the electorate can articulate their desire to either continue on the current path or change to a different one. In 2004, those who chose to participate effectively endorsed Bush's presidency. Someone who chose not to vote at all was also effectively endorsing the Bush presidency. At least by voting for Nader you used your voice to express unhappiness with the nation's current direction.
But the bread and butter of American elections is all those other people that you can vote for--sheriffs, councilmen, congressmen, senators, dogcatchers, etc. These are people who affect your life far more directly than the president, in a lot of ways.