On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Tim May wrote:
Normally I vote Libertarian. This year I may vote for Bush as a vote for who will do me, us, and the Constitution the lesser damage of the two. (All voting is about bang for the buck, about effectiveness of a vote...an election is not about "voting for the best man," it is instead about minimizing damage.)
Back in 1984, I decided it was more important to vote for the anti-Reagan Democrat than to vote for the disorganized-again Libertarians; it was annoying that the Dems couldn't come up with anybody less tacky than Walter Mondale, but it would be better than getting four more years of Reagan/Bush wars and probably another 4-8 of Bush. All my vote accomplished was telling the Democrats that next time they should pick yet another loser to throw the election, though we fortunately ended up getting rid of Bush earlier, replacing an evil president with one who doesn't have enough principles to be consistently evil. Not doing that again. If you want to vote for somebody to stop Gore, rather than voting your conscience, it's probably more valuable to vote for Nader - he's no prize, but the Democrats deserve to get split. In some ways, it's too bad that Buchanan got the Reform nomination instead of Jesse, since that would have made splitting the Republicans possible also, but Buchanan does mean that the Libertarians have a chance of beating the Reform party this time... Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639