EXCLUSIVE: Exclusive ATSNN Interview With 2004 Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik.

How many votes Badnarik did get? I've been searching off and on all day, and can't find anything...

Originally posted by soothsayer
How many votes Badnarik did get? I've been searching off and on all day, and can't find anything...

Only about 400,000 I was really let down.

The LP vote didn't mean squat, as usual. The reason there was such a turn-out this election, is because more people voted against Bush, by voting for Kerry. If more people would have done the same, the monster wouldn't be in office for another term. Now, we're all screwed.

Yeah, my LP vote meant squat just like your Kerry vote and my friend's Bush vote. Congrats! None of us individually accomplished anything.

You have two possible purposes in voting: the process itself (yay, I voted, I'm proud, I did my duty, etc.); or affecting the outcome.

If your purpose in voting is the latter, it will always be a wasted vote: you will never affect the outcome. Therefore, the only way to actually make your vote meaningful is to vote for the first reason in some capacity, and I'd argue that the best way is to vote your conscience.

You really gotta respect someone who casts a vote for a guy half of whose opinions he finds abominable. What a bunch of cowardly nonsense.

-Prophasi

Originally posted by mpeake
Ok...time to get my warning for the month.

Saying that voting LP takes votes away from Kerry is complete BULL#

If Kerry deserved to win, he'd have more votes no matter how many people voted third party. Why? because if he was a better candidate to the third party voter, then they would have voted for him. Fact is, he wasn't as popular as Bush. Which says a lot considering the majority of people who voted for Kerry were really voting against Bush. Imagine if people really liked Bush. He would have won in a landslide. Fact is, as much as so many people hated Bush, they felt even worse about Kerry, which must be a lot.

So, next time you say that an LP vote was a stolen vote of Kerry's, STFU and face it. Kerry lost because he was less popular than one of the least popular presidents in history.

I never said it was a vote "stolen". I merely said you're throwing your vote away at a time when it could've been better used to rid us of Bush.

Once again, America has underestimated the seriousness of their mistakes.

Maybe you haven't heard of the electoral college? In order for an LP vote to matter at all, you'd have to have every single vote from one state only. Even then, you'd only win that state's EV. However, a few more votes for Kerry in any of the close states could've very well decided the election in his favor.

Obviously, it doesn't matter anyway, right? That's your thinking? You don't like Bush or Kerry, so you decided to rebel and vote for someone you know has no chance in hell of winning. Normally, I'd do the same, but this time, I do believe America is definitely underestimating the danger that Bush is causing America. Some things are going to change in the next 4 years. Things that will never return to their previous state. Your rights are being systematically stolen from you by people who don't really care if you live or die, as long as they make some money. Good luck with that.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Damned]

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. You feel that it was more important to vote Bush out rather than vote the right person in. That's fine and dandy if that's your beleif. I, on the other hand, don't feel that anything will change for the better with Kerry in there instead of Bush. My vote was not wasted. Did I vote for the person who wasn't likely to win? Yes. If you think that voting for the person who is more likely to win is the right thing to do, then go ahead. I voted for who I personally beleived in. I didn't take a vote away from a more deserving person. I gave it to the more deserving person IMO.

You also underestimate the danger Bush poses to this country, then. Kerry, while he may not make the best president either, isn't a war monger, hell bent on invading the world for the actions of a few.

You also underestimate the danger Bush poses to this country, then. Kerry, while he may not make the best president either, isn't a war monger, hell bent on invading the world for the actions of a few.

You obviously underestimate the danger that Kerry posed to the nation. He's hell bent on allowing the world to invade US! I don't want a president who has to run to the UN or a gallup poll to make a decision. I don't want a president who thinks that europe knows whats best for America. I also don't want a president that is "hell bent on invading the world".
That's why I voted for, Badnarik.
Unfortunately he didn't win (or get the 5% we were hoping for)
At least the one that did win has a spine and won't just bow to the rest of the world when the heat is on.
Now I just need to spend the next four years enlightening others of the virtues of the Libertarian party so we do better next time.

However, a few more votes for Kerry in any of the close states could've very well decided the election in his favor.

Haha, yeah, where "few" means hundreds or thousands.

Even if a few meant literally 3, your vote still wouldn't have accomplished it. You voted against your principles for a tactic that was destined to fail. I can't believe I've been so blind to the sheer brilliance of that maneuver.

-Jeremy