At 9:48 AM +0000 11/1/00, Ken Brown wrote:
The same has, I suspect, been true of 3rd parties in the USA. You can't judge their strength by their vote because many of their votes because they are nearly always a vote *against* whoever seems most likely to get in. And because genuine supporters, knowing their preferred candidate won't get in, may pragmatically vote for the contender they consider least damaging. As Tim pointed out the other day. We're not doing this for fun. If there is a chance of getting someone in who will do less real damage, vote for them. In the absence of revolution, amelioration at least ameliorates.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I'm bouncing between voting for Bush as a "do the least damage" (on gun issues, tax issues, foreign affairs, etc.) and voting for Browne of the LP on "feelgood" issues. (In that I'll feel better in coming years being able to think to myself: "I didn't vote for that Bush clown...I voted my principles!") However, as any vote is of marginal importance, as with the amelioration issue you mention, I'm still undecided. Needless to say, neither Gore nor Nader are in my universe of choices, however. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.