>On the local public radio news, a few locals here in Oregon
>have come up with the ultimate strategic vote: wait until
>7:30 our time on election day to see how the vote's going
>back East. If Oregon's going to make a difference, they'll
>vote Gore; if not, Nader. I understand the rationale
>behind this, but it seems like a sad corruption of the
>democratic process. Color me naive, but why can't people
>just vote for the candidate who best represents their
>interests and political beliefs? Why second guess what
>millions of other people will do?
>
>Miles
because the idea is to support gore if need be, if the race is that close, but if it's a lost cause then go for nader in order to push for a third party, etc. i've read staunch libertarians (not on dc-stuff) arguing to vote nader even tho he's a socialist. it's not about whether they represent your beliefs but, rather, about a vote to disrupt the status quo two party system we have now. as they see, this will inject the money and enthusiasm into other paties, like the libertarians.
kelley