Yoshie, I really do not understand your logic. Let's imagine the following hypothetical situation - a terminally ill patient is desperately looking for cure. A doctor proposes a treatment that at best is questionable and unproven - it may slow the progression of the disease or it may have no effect at all. A priest points at the likelihood that the treatment may not be effective, and recommends abandoning it altogether in favor of a faith "therapy."
Most sensible people, and I am pretty sure you are among them, would not deny the sick patient even the meager benefits of a questionable treatment - and most would view replacing that treatment with faith "therapy" as an essentially criminal act. In fact, parents have been prosecuted for faith "therapy" in lieu of medical treatment of their sick children.
Your standing on the upcoming election, however, is equivalent to proposing a faith therapy instead of a questionable treatment. The choice is between a solution that may have some limited effect (voting for Kerry) and the one that is 100% certain not to have any effect at all (voting for Nader & Co.). Most rational people would opt for the former, even if they expected only rather limited results. Yet, you opt for the latter. WHY? Can you explain your thought process?
Wojtek