[Am-info] Re: Nader Vote

[Erick Andrews]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:14:06 -0600, Glenn Livezey wrote:

>> Reply-To: "Erick Andrews" <eandrews@star.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Am-info] Re: Nader Vote (Matthew Elvey)
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:48:25 -0600, Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. wrote:
>> [...]
>> >>You may want to, but there is zero probability that you will reach =
your
>> >>goal in this election. On the contrary, there is a great probabilit=
y
>> >>that such votes could be key to a marginal Bush victory.
>> >Erick Andrews replied;
>> >I take many of your points, however I'm not so pessimistic.
>
>Not so pessimistic regarding the probability of destroying the system
>with your vote or supporting a Bush victory indirectly?

Hah!  Not a chance my friend.  Not here in Taxachussetts!  13 biggies
are, as expected, committed.  Stay up late to-night or read about it 
on the 'morrow.

We've got bigger referenda to fish fry here!  With 3 million or more out=
 in the 
polls to-day, I just heard, the pres election is really just a side show=
!!!!!

[...]

>> >>You have every right to vote as you wish. If you desire a Bush vict=
ory,
>> >>then either a Bush or Nader vote seems reasonable. But don't tell m=
e
>> >>I'm wrong for pointing out the price you and Nader will extract fro=
m
>> >>the 95% of us who will not benefit from a Bush victory, if indeed t=
he
>> >>margin of that Bush victory is smaller than the votes cast for Nade=
r.
>> >>Certainly not everyone who might vote for Nader would otherwise vot=
e
>> >>for Gore (you are a case in point). But I can't imagine the
>> >>psychoactive cocktail one would have to swallow to change one's vot=
e
>> >>from Nader to Bush or Bush to Nader. Therefore, the larger the Nade=
r
>> >>vote, the more likely it is extracted from the Gore vote.
>> [...]
>
>>I think this needs to better qualified, logically.  If you are in a st=
ate that
>
>> >is VERY much likely to go for either Gore or Bush by a wide margin,
>> >I don't see a real impact if you vote Green in any of those states, =
given the
>> >5% that Ralph Nader is touted to currently have.  For instance, I'll=
 bet
>> >my socks that Massachusetts will completely go for Gore, whatever th=
e
>> >Green Party impact is here.
>> >Perhaps this is what you were getting at, but it wasn't clear to me.=

>
>> If I were in a state "up for grabs", then your argument may be sensib=
le.
>
>Granted, the argument was crucial only in pivital states, but your argu=
ment
>for making your voice heard did not indicate it only applied to states =
that
>were already a lock for Bush or Gore. Hence my objection was aimed at
>a generalized statement arguing for Nader support.

Well, should I say thanks or *tr=E8s duh*?  Sorry I wasn't totally clear=
.  I'll
try better next time.  Promise!

>
>> >I still hold out some hope for more choice in 2004, M$ or not, Ralph=

>> >Nader in 2004 or not.
>
>As do I, Sir. As do I.
>I also want to do something NOW to slow/limit the damage.

[...]

My mother thanks you, my brother thanks you, my sister thanks
you, and ....I thank you!

-- 
Erick Andrews