On Wed, 01 Nov 2000, you wrote:

Tim May wrote:

...

(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.

Aside from whatever emotional gains you might make by voting for Browne on grounds of principle, that action has the added (albeit marginal) benefit of increasing Libertarian party legitimacy in the public eye.

Admittedly, a single vote will have no effect on percentages in a national election, but in the local arena, helping the party achieve 5% or even 1% of the vote will frequently secure ballot access next time around.

The real question is whether, given the current policital system, Libertarians that are elected would not be corrupted by the same influences before making any substantial gains. As much as I generally respect what Harry Browne says, I dontated money to his campaign only to see it squandered on expensive DC consultants who were 'friends of the party'. Nary a penny made it to drive-time radio ads, which are by far the most cost effective communication medium for reaching voters. Radio is cheap and hot. When was the last time you heard a Libertarian sentiment on radio (except talk radio). The closest I've heard are the "Vote Freedom" ads by Charleton Heston. Sad that the generic NRA ads speak louder for libertariansism than our best blood, sweat and tears efforts. Hats off to CH and NRA for those ads, even though I'm still pissed about the instant background check bullshit. Next time I want to excercise my right to free speach lets see if I need an instant background check. That particular compromise enabled the FBI to stop all gun sales by simply bringing down the database. (Not to mention unconstitutionally keep all records, making it a de-facto registration system.) jim