Bush Lied, People Died^H^H^H^HAre Still Dying

[c9]

I hope tonight's debate goes as well for Kerry as the last one.

During the Canadian federal election, there was much debate regarding so-called "strategic" voting, meaning the vote for a lesser of two evils rather than the third party, whom you actually want, simply because they won't win and you might "cause" the worst of the three to win. I wonder if the phrase strategic voting has entered the US lexicon, since Ralph Nader "caused" the win for Bush in 2000, since he received far more votes in Florida than the margin of victory. I wonder how many people are unwilling to condone strategic voting in Canada, but happily promote Kerry to get rid of Bush, when they're both straight white Christian millionaire males from Yale, and their parties are both corporately controlled to a large extent. Interestingly, Ralph Nader is (without researching this, I might be wrong) straight, white, Christian, wealthy, male, and well-educated. Makes you think.

Comments

[simplisticton.livejournal.com]

Rick Mercer said it best: Even if it's choosing the least of three evils, when you're talking about the guy who's going to lead your country, it's really important that the least of three evils WINS.

Of course, Nader has a good point -- a democratic system where all but two parties are basically systematically repressed is really no better than a one-party system. However, how he goes about arguing it could use some work. It's not fair to the country to put your agenda -- no matter how well intentioned -- in front of that of the country. Nader ought to voluntarily take himself off the ballot in battleground states to prevent the need for strategic voting.