---------- From: Ken Brown[SMTP:k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk]

The voters will be able to suss it out without a website.

[...]

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. [...] Ken

I'd like to voice my agreement on this. Here in Massachusetts, the state is considered such a Democrat stronghold that we've seen almost zero campaigning by either major party (while this is usually considered a godsend, I'm starting to feel ignored :-). At the local level, Senator Ted Kennedy's seat is up for re-election, but Ted has such a lock on it that he isn't bothering to campaign. The state's Republicans have managed to self-destruct (their initial candidate withdrew, and Jack Robinson, the replacement who popped up at the last minute, has proved utterly without merit - the state party no longer supports him, and he's out of money). All indications are that Carla Howell, the Libertarian challenger for Kennedy's Senate seat, will handily out-poll the Republicans this year. As a result, my vote is immaterial to either major party, and I can happily vote my conscience without any fear that I'm helping throw the election to either Gush or Bore - both of whom I find utterly odious for intersecting sets of reasons. (Just in case you were wondering, I'm voting Libertarian). Peter Trei