That seems like throwing away your vote. Since you know one of the two major parties is going to win, shouldn't you pick the lesser of the two "evils" so you at least had some choice? I don't think either of the major parties is planning to change because 5% of the voters (or whatever small percentage it was) didn't vote for one of them.
Of course I live in a state that counted the votes, declared a victor, recounted the votes, declared the same person as a victor and then let the other party pay for a hand count and declared their candidate the victor with no further recounts possible. Included in the hand count were ballots "forgotten" in machines stored in unguarded warehouses. Even two out of three wasn't enough to overcome the bias. In the ineveitable court case, the judge decided that even if dead people and felons did vote, which he acknowledged happened, he wouldn't change the outcome. What a way to pick a governor. So, I think that for the next 3 1/2 years until I retire, I'll just keep polishing the shiny black S class and hope for the best. Ken In a message dated 6/29/2005 7:18:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Zeitgeist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [MBZ] Re: Government is on a rampage To: Mercedes mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I did my part and avoided those two like the plague, and will continue to do so. On 6/29/05, Mitch Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe voters were really, really afraid of Kerry? Gore was the only reason I voted for GWB. By 2004, not even Kerry could make me vote for Bush. Why does the Republicrat party keep giving us two non-choices? Because 98% of us vote for those two. Casey
