While we know how many of the regulars will vote, I wanted to take a poll to see where the board leans today. There is only one rule: votes made by unknown anons will not be counted to avoid ballot stuffing. Granted their may be several regulars who have multiple handles(March for Bullshit and Access for all come to mind), I will leave it to their honesty to vote once. Lurkers, here is your chance to check in.

Any complaints about votes thrown out under the one rule may be lodged with me-LOL

I will vote for Al Gore.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 14, 2000

Answers

I would vote for Al Gore.

-- Aunt Bee (Aunt__Bee@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

Al Gore [but you already knew that.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

Al Gore. But seriously considering Nader.

:)

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 14, 2000.

Harry Browne (Libertarian)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 14, 2000.

Are we having voter apathy here or privacy issues?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 14, 2000.

Not necessarily voter apathy but apathy to the poll. I'm for Bush.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 14, 2000.

I vote for FutureShock.

You knew that was coming didn't you?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 14, 2000.

Would have voted for John McCain.

Will not vote for either Bush or Gore.

Undecided IRL, but for the sake of the poll I'll go with Harry Browne.

If I may cast a proxy for Oxy - George W. Bush.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 14, 2000.

I live in DC. Gore will win DC no matter who I vote for. I don't find him too appealing, but as a man he is the lesser of two evils. No matter what Bush's stand is on the issues, I think the man is a dolt and I don't think he'll make a good president.

If my vote mattered I'd probably vote for Gore. Since it doesn't I may write in myself just for laughs.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 14, 2000.

I'm in the same situation you are, Buddy. I live in Texas. I'll go through the motions, but this state's electoral college won't go with anyone but Bush.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

Gore. Not quite sure how my new state's **two** electoral votes will go (do we have that many? LOL!).

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 14, 2000.

Bush, baby

-- lars (lars@indy.net), September 14, 2000.

As most here already know, Nader.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 14, 2000.

Nader is on our ticket. I can vote for him. He won't win. I won't feel guilty about the damage done by the winner. Wait a minute...I feel guilty about voting for Perot and handing things to Clinton. Oh no! Guilt no matter which way I vote! Guilt if I don't vote! Guilt! Guilt! aaaaaggggggg

-- helen (b@s.a), September 14, 2000.

Like Bingo, I would have voted for McCain. Now that he's out of the running, Bush will get my vote.

(My God! Don't you Gore supporters ever listen to Rush Limbaugh? LOL)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

Jean Chretien

Oh...sorry............wrong election.

[But I did like those buttons some men were wearing at the Republican convention: "Secretly, I've always been a Bush man"]

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

Harry Browne.

And to all of you who will vote for Bush or Gore...(or Nader for that matter)

SHAME ON YOU!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 14, 2000.

Mule poop on YOU, Unk. Harry Browne didn't make our ticket. WHY can't all the declared candidates run in all states, anyway?

-- helen (b@s.c), September 14, 2000.

>> Shame on you! <<

Hey Unc, using guilt as a way to change votes is great idea! Can the rest of us do it, too? Or do you claim "patent pending"? I'd be willing to pay a small royalty on every vote I swing to Nader using your invention. But, I want a 60-day trial period where I can use it free and see how well it works.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 14, 2000.

>> WHY can't all the declared candidates run in all states, anyway? <<

Excellent question, helen! The arrangment of Presidential elections is up to the states (within very broad Constitutional guidelines). Each state has its own Byzantine set of rules, none the same. But they do share a theme: the rules were written by Republicans and Democrats in the State Legislatures.

Now, the Rs and Ds don't agree on a whole lot about who should control power (they each want it for themselves). But they can reach unanimous bipartisan agreement on the idea that third parties are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and should be stifled out of existance or marginalized into insignifigance as efficiently as possible.

The Rs and Ds understand it would look bad to actually outlaw third parties. This draws unwanted attention to the rules and invites revolt. It might not even pass a court challenge.

They decided it was much better to make up a maze of pointless obstacles and requirements, deadlines and dead ends. In a lot of states, parties that draw a certain percentage of the vote (say 15%) in the previous election are exempted from all these qualifying rules for the current election. So, year after year the Rs and the Ds are exempt, and the third parties are caught in a hellish maze of wasted effort.

Enlightened now?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 14, 2000.

I'm voting Bush. I'm sick of the Clinton-Gore era of corruption!

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), September 14, 2000.

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), September 14, 2000.

Haven't decided except that it won't be a major. For polling purposes put me down as a supporter of Harry Browne. The old hardline Soviets used to speak of putting their plans into effect "brick by brick;" those desiring to reform the system in this country may need that degree of patience and persistence.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 14, 2000.

George Bush

-- me (me@adelphia.net), September 14, 2000.

Brian [and Helen]:

If Nader/Browne, etc. isn't on the ticket, can't one still write him in?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

Cheney & the other guy.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 14, 2000.

>> If Nader/Browne, etc. isn't on the ticket, can't one still write him in? <<

Yes. Absolutely. But write-ins are easy to invalidate, too. The name must be complete, correctly spelled and perfectly legible. Having the name pre-printed on the ballot, with party affiliation clearly identified, is better by far. Only the true dyed-in-the-wool political junkie will write a candidate in.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 14, 2000.

results so far:

Gore-5

Bush-7

Browne-4

Nader-1

Keyes-1

FutureShock-1

I will allow oxy's "write-in" vote and I am not sure, really, about Helen's vote-want to chime in again?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), September 14, 2000.

George W. Bush/Cheney

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), September 14, 2000.

Bush, I wish it was McCain.

-- Chief (bmc@sealret.com), September 14, 2000.

Buchanan

-- XXXXX#### (####@XXXXX.com), September 15, 2000.

To those of you who would have voted for John McCain, I would challenge you that you did not read enough, analyze enough, or listen closely enough, to his philosphy, and actions in Arizona government during his appointed time. I stand firm for Al Gore.

-- Aunt Bee (Aunt__Bee@hotmail.com), September 15, 2000.

Ya know, Aunt Bee, you have a point there. It's easy for me to say that I would have voted for McCain, but I haven't lived in Arizona and don't really know about the guy's record there. I DO live in Texas, [which is why I would NEVER vote for Bush.] I'm growing more fond of Al Gore each time I see him. It would be nice if I lived somewhere where my vote made a difference. [Why did I leave Illinois? The weather, stupid!]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 15, 2000.

In my case you are correct, Aunt Bee. I have better things to do than analyze any political candidate very closely. If he had won the nomination I would have performed some cursory searches on him.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 15, 2000.

go BARBIE to hell w/the rest!!!!!

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), September 15, 2000.

Futureshock, if I can write a candidate in, then I'll write in Keyes. Somebody had better clue me in on exactly how to spell his entire legal name...

-- helen (b@s.e), September 15, 2000.

I think it boils down to Wierd Al Yankovic and Al Gore. Since Al is not running, what is left? x for Gore. We had Howdie Doodie once, not again, say no to Bush. Dubya that is.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 15, 2000.

Nader, of COURSE! If any of you folks vote for Gore, thinking you're wasting your vote on Nader, SHAME ON YOU! You will be, for all practical purposes, giving a vote to G. Dubbya.

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), September 16, 2000.