So, Kerry lost. I'm dissapointed, and can only hope that Bush can buck up and make some positive changes in his foreign policies and domestic issues. I cast my vote, and am proud of the voters for having the best turnout at the polls in.. ever I believe.

On another topic, I was arguing with someone on another journal about third party voters. My position is that voting for a third party in an election like this is a waste of a vote, and not the right thing to do. His seems to be that he shouldn't have to defend voting for a third party. But, he quickly got to a point of "kicking you in the head" verbage, which you simply can't continue debating on. That's the "I'm just going to talk now, and not listen" stance, which is a waste of time.

But, let me explain my position on this. I'm a social libertarian, liberal in some area, and conservative in others. I'm probably what you'd call "middle of the road". I don't usually vote based on party lines, and I'm currently a registered Democrat because I want to vote in the Primaries. For the most part, aside from "open borders" and their stance on gun control, I most closely align with the Libertarian Party.

With that, it looks like I'm a third party sort of guy. And I am. But, not in the presidential election. I'm all for it with local, district and state positions. I think having the third party views mixed in with legislature, congress, the senate, etc... is a good thing. It's the best way to ease communities into third party politics and values. You have to start small. A mayor, state rep, senator, and on up the line. You can't just throw a Libertarian or Green Party candidate into the White House. The counrty simply isn't ready for that sort of radical change of views. It could also slow down Washington even more than having a Democractic president and republical senate (or vice versa). These third party positions need to be eased in, and become accepted by more people first. People are used to, and comfortable with, Republican positions and Democratic positions. That's what we have all grown up with, what we are used to, what we learn about in school, and what we mainly read about.

So why should a "third party voter" not vote for a third party candidate for president? Because, they won't win. Most will rebute saying they are voting for the person which they are most aligned, and that's what they should do. They shouldn't have to vote for someone because they are one of the likely winners Good points. But, if I live in Chicago I won't put my money on the Cubs winning the World Series. I'd bet on the Yankees or someone who actually has a chance of winning it. Maybe I'd put a small bet in for the Cubs, or probably bet on them winning a certain game. That's like voting for third party candidates for mayor or state rep. But, I surely wouln't bet the bank on them winning The Series. They could be who I root for, but in reality, they won't win. Why take your precious vote, in a close race especially, and cast it for a sure loser? In what other area of your life would you put your time, money or backing into a sure loser? But, people so flippantly cast their precious vote that way. Many have, and will, die for your and their right to be able to cast that vote, but people so easily throw it away. Some people may say they live in a "red state" anyways, so their vote won't make a difference. Sure it does. It gives one more to that popular vote. Ever throw a soda can into the garbage instead of the recycling bin and think "It's only one can"? Ever wonder how many people are throwing a can into the garbage thinking "it's only one can"? The thing is, you just never know. It may be your can, or your vote, which makes the difference. Imagine what a difference 538 extra cans in Florida would have made in 2000? Did you know 2,274 people voted for John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party? That's right, the Natural Law Party. Those 2,274 votes went to a party which doesn't exist anymore, and believes laws should be discovered, and not created.

So why not vote for a sure loser, even though that's what your heart tells you? After all, this is a democracy? (Well, it's really a republic, and arguably socialist) Do people really think Nader would be a good President? Exactly what makes him a leader or presidential? Bandarik? The only office this guy ever held was Executive Vice-President of his dormitory at Indiana University. How can someone actually vote for a person for President of the United States whose political career began and ended with his college dorm? He is a Life Scout (didn't make Eagle Scout), but that doesn't give him the experience to be the most powerful man of the free world. No matter how you align yourself with his party ideals, he really isn't much more qualified than myself to do the job. Heck, I was Greek Council President, after all! When people are voting for these folks, I believe they are really voting for the party, and not voting with the person in mind.

You need to remember, you vote for a person as well as a party. I've said, from before the primaries, that if Dean won the nomination that I would vote for Bush. Why? Because I believe Dean would do a worse job, and wasn't presidential material. I wouldn't vote Democrat because I couldn't vote for the man of the party. I also wouldn't vote for Nader or Badnarik for the same reasons. I don't believe they are qualified for the job, so why would I vote for them?

So, that leaves us with Kerry and Bush. If I felt that Bush did a good job over the past few years, I'd vote for him. Partisan ideals aside. But, I don't think he did a good job. I don't think he's done well with the economy, I don't think he's done well with the deficit, I don't think he's done well in Iraq, and I don't think he's capable of rethinking any position he has made in the fear of showing any weakness. He'd rather be right, than correct. On the other hand, there was Kerry. I believe he is qualified to do the job, and that he could do no worse than Bush. Also, it's expected that the next president will be appointing up to 3 new Supreme Court judges. This is a huge thing. A very huge thing. As my grandfather said to me "Most people don't understand the power these people have. It's greater than the President, and can sometimes be more important." I'm afraid that Bush would appoint based on his personal beliefs and morals. I'm afraid that he could and would appoint people who interpret the Constitution with a Christain slant, instead of having no theology in their decisions.

This rant has sort of jumped around, but I hope you get my point. I'd hope that one day this country could have a third party president. But, it's just not ready and no third party candidate has remotely been qualified for the job. Of course, if Kerry represented the Natural Law Party, I wouldn't vote for him because of the idiotic party :-) And, I don't think that burning a vote to "take a stand" against the "two party system", or "because where I live it won't matter anyways" are valid reasons to do so. It's just taking your vote for granted. I live in NY, and we all know it's a "blue state", yet I was up bright an early and went right away to cast my vote. It didn't matter what the polls said my state would go. It didn't matter what history shows my state would go. There was no bandwagon involved. I went and voted for one of the two realistic candidates for Commander in Chief which were on the ballot.