21 June 2004
One man, one motivation
This Bill Quick post at his Daily Pundit site expressed some impatience with George W. Bush. A commenter asked if Quick would therefore be supporting Kerry, and Quick replied:
The fact that I won't vote for Kerry under any circumstances should not be construed that I will vote for a man who seems to be trying to do as perfect a Kerry imitation on the important issues as he can.
I don't vote against, I vote for. And if there's nobody I can vote for, then I don't vote. Please spare me your tired and lame remonstrances about a non-vote for Bush being a vote for Kerry. That's Bush's problem, not mine. If he wants my vote, I've made it fairly obvious how he can get it. If he doesn't want it, I'm not going to give it to him anyway.
This is as good, and as terse, an explanation of this quandary as I've ever seen. And with the names inverted, it works just as well in the other direction.
Posted at 9:19 AM to Political Science Fiction
Not vote against people? But... but... what if there was an election and nobody came?
If we really want folks to turn out on election day and vote for something they feel strongly about, we'll include a "none of the above" option on the ballot.
I'd support that in a heartbeat.
And yes, I consider defensive voting against the other guy a legitimate use of one's vote; I simply prefer not to do it myself. If I can find no one I can support for an office, I leave it blank and go on.
Nevada has a 'NOTA' choice on it's ballots.
The Libertarian Party always has 'NOTA' as an option in all party elections.
Oklahoma doesn't allow write-ins, either.