I respect, and my own vote may well be affected by, the arguments here for voting for Nader. But let me ask those who feel the (trivial but real) midgeon of difference between Ds and Rs is too tiny to balance the potential good of a 5+% vote for Nader: Would you feel this is your post-worklife health care would only come with COBRA (or from what you could, hah-hah, buy on the "open insurance market"), and/or your only "pension" a smidgeon of social security, and/or your capacity to stay "housed" dependent on government aid in some form, and/or your child's physical or emotional health had no recourse but what few public programs are left? Of course, I can turn this around--and agree with that Roosevelt to Mussolini/Pinochet progression (marvelously put!). Possibly, there IS sense to the (not purist but perhaps most efficacious) resolution one of you suggested. In the states where Gore is leading well, vote for Nader; in states like California etc. where it's very close, hold one's nose and vote lesser-evil (and yes we do know which is the lesser evil). Though I sometimes doubt the votes in presidential elections get counted, over the precinct level or so, anyway. Paula
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/01/00 EST