Leo fails to grasp basic addition:
Vox, You miss the point and fall victim to faulty math! For Example, Bush has 40 votes, Kerry has 30 votes, and there are 100 votes out there that haven’t been voted or counted. Assume 30 of these votes are voted for a third party candidate. The reamining votes break 50 break for Kerry, and the remaining 20 for Bush. Kerry wins by 20 votes, BECAUSE, if the 30 voted for the third party were cast for Bush he would have won!
I can’t believe that some people are actually arguing that a vote for candidate Not-Kerry is a vote for Kerry after I demonstrated how it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to make this case. Leo’s logic here is simply insane. Yes, if the 30 that voted for the third party were cast for Bush he would have won, but then, if the 50 that were cast for Kerry were instead cast for Bush, he would have won too. All Leo has proved here is that a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush. Brilliant.
And if we further examine the logic laid out here, not voting at all is a vote for Bush. Therefore, I recommend that all of you who were going to vote for Bush simply not vote, as you are assured that your non-participation is a vote for Bush by a Bush supporter.
The GOP holds no claim on anyone’s vote. A vote for Michael Badnarik is just that, a vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. The same holds true for votes in favor of the Constitution, Republican and Democratic candidates. Anything else is just twisted and dishonest semantics. If the majority want Kerry, let them have him. They’ll get what they deserve, just as those who supported Bush in 2000 already have.