James Leroy Wilson's blog

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

The Myth of the Wasted Vote

This article by Charles L. Hooper explains the futility of voting for the "lesser of two evils" and that if you want to vote at all, it might as well be for someone you agree with, even if he has no chance of winning.


  1. Anonymous5:47 AM PDT

    This advice might be well taken, perhaps in every election until this one. But this is my country! A voter may believe that one of the candidates is not only wrong on the issues but also a dangerous, arrogant incompetent who cannot be trusted with the power of the presidency. In such a case it is common sense to vote to keep that candidate out of office so that the country can survive until the next election day.

  2. On the other hand, it is also unique to this election that the opponant has been a "Yes" man on all of the key policies that the President proposed. John F. Kerry is paid a high salary to look after the best interests of the nation, and his record is disasterous. How can a rational being vote against repelling Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, about as clear a violation of "international law" as can be comprehended, and then vote for the invasion of Iraq twelve years after? Sure, it is a virtue to change one's mind, but Kerry changes his mind for all the wrong reasons.

    How can the Democratic Party support a candidate who believs in a woman's right to choose abortion, but won't stand by that woman's right to save her own life with "illegal" drugs?

    The advice of Mr. Hooper is compelling: vote your conscience, not the lesser of two evils, because that is a one-in-230-million chance. Mr. Bush is a depraved war-mongerer; the record shows that Mr. Kerry is, too. That Kerry is "smarter" or "more comptetent" than Bush means nothing. On a lesser degree, to be sure, this election is akin to being forced to choosing between Hitler and Stalin. Who cares who's more competent - these guys embody pure political evil. The responsible decision is to vote against both of them.