I would rather vote for the lesser of two evils, than not at all. Why settle for the greater evil?
I haven't been lucky enough to have ever come across a "knight in shining armor" candidate to vote for, so to speak. I could have, but I was too young to vote for Reagan. But if Fred Thompson gets the GOP nomination. Then I just may have one.
2007-09-12 20:31:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
When it gets to President sometimes, I am voting for a lesser candidate than I would prefer. However, mediocre beats bad.
For local government, I have the advantage of living in a small town and actually get to know the candidates well enough to be able to say with confidence that the person I am voting for is someone that I believe will do the right thing.
2007-09-12 20:14:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tmess2 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I wish EVERYONE would vote for the person they truly believed in, not the lesser of two evils. In 1996, 2000 and, yes, 2004, I voted for Ralph Nader for president and I KNOW (from people I talk to) that they thought he was the only honest candidate and voice of reason, but they were so afraid of "throwing away their vote" that they REALLY threw away their vote. Sometimes it takes a long time for change to take place (like women's suffrage), but we have to make tracks for what will happen in the future.
2007-09-12 20:24:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kittenpaw 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
When I voted for Pat Buchanan. This time I am voting for Ron Paul. The other clowns are just shills for the Council on Foreign Relations.
Ron Paul is the only candidate dedicated to restoring Constitutional government. That means no more undeclared, foreign wars across the globe. Ron Paul is on record as opposing every government program or agencies that is not authorized by the US Constitution.
Ron voted against the Patriot Act. He wants to abolish the Department of Homeland Security. His message is about freedom. It means restoring our Rights and reining in government.
When we stop intervening in wars against nations that haven't attacked, there will be no terrorism against us. no terrorism means no more Nazi-style "anti terrorism" legislation.
I always vote, but I never waste my vote on the lesser of two evils. I generally write in. I am voting for Ron Paul whether or not he is on the ballot. Why waste your vote on a phony like Hillary, Obama, Rudy or Mitt? They are all the same. They all work for the same team. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who opposes the sellout of this country.
Ron Paul in 2008
2007-09-12 20:49:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by iraqisax 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I vote regularly in my local elections, mayor, state representative, congressional representative and I have been lucky enough to vote for people I believe in and support in these elections. The presidential election is another matter all together. The person I believe in , Denis Kucinich, will never be nominated by his party let alone elected, although I will have the opportunity to vote for him in the primaries and I will happily do so. The last person I voted for in a Presidential election whom I believed in was John F. Kennedy and that was sooooo long ago.
2007-09-12 20:33:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sicilian Godmother 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The last President of the United States: Ronald Reagan.
2007-09-12 20:41:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Joe Richtofen 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
George Bush in 2004. Perhaps it is a good idea that you don't vote if your view of all candidates is so cynical. Try getting a positive outlook on life. It'll do wonders for you.
2007-09-12 21:36:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, when I voted for Kerry he was the lesser of two evils...
I actually found him quite boring...
Theresa rocks though.
I wished John Edwards was running with Theresa H. Kerry as his VP... that would have been awesome!
2007-09-12 20:12:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by rabble rouser 6
·
1⤊
1⤋