[clue-talk] McCain suggests raiding Colorado's water

[David L. Willson]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:45:43 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote
> David L. Willson wrote:
> > I refuse to answer a top-post that follows a bottom-post, or vice-versa, but if I didn't
> > refuse, I'd agree with Angelo and Richard.  A third candidate is a third candidate. 
> > Saying that a third candidate is a spoiler... Well, isn't that a little like saying that
> > Linux is a spoiler?
> 
> I'm not so sure.  There's been a lot of real mathematics to show that 
> the current voting system DOES have spoilers.
> 
...  I don't dispute that mathematically, voting for the third guy, will affect the
votes going to the other two.  It has to, doesn't it?  And my second choice guy is less
likely to get elected, based on the fact that I didn't vote for him.  That's also a
mathematical truth.  But, philosophically, democratically, principally, it is still the
proper thing to vote one's conscience.  If everyone does that, the election becomes a
true barometer of the will of the people.  If a mess of people vote for Ron Paul, that
will say something.  If that throws the election to Barack Obama, or to John McCain, so
what?  Neither man is the sort of leader I want, so I quite literally can't win this
election, I can only vote my conscience.  Let's go another step:  Let's say a mess of
people don't vote for Ron Paul.  They will, whether they vote McCain or Obama, be saying
something, too, that we're ready for more of the same...  :-)  That's OK, I suppose. 
I'm eating, living in a comfortable home, and doing work I love, but I sure will vote in
favor of some of those changes Ron Paul stands for.  And my vote will go to the guy I
approve of, and it will be a tiny fraction of a little statement of protest that I, and
some folks like me, will make.