CDR: RE: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes

[Trei, Peter]

> ----------
> From: 	Ken Brown[SMTP:k.brown at ccs.bbk.ac.uk]
> 
> The voters will be able to suss it out without a website.
> 
	[...]
> The same has, I suspect, been true of 3rd parties in the USA. You can't
> judge their strength by their vote because many of their votes because
> they are nearly always a vote *against* whoever seems most likely to get
> in. And because genuine supporters, knowing their preferred candidate
> won't get in, may pragmatically vote for the contender they consider
> least damaging. As Tim pointed out the other day. We're not doing this
> for fun. If there is a chance of getting someone in who will do less
> real damage, vote for them. In the absence of revolution, amelioration
> at least ameliorates.
      [...]
> Ken
> 
I'd like to voice my agreement on this. Here in Massachusetts, the state
is considered such a Democrat stronghold that we've seen almost
zero campaigning by either major party (while this is usually considered a
godsend, I'm starting to feel ignored :-). 

At the local level, Senator Ted Kennedy's seat is up for re-election, but
Ted has such a lock on it that he isn't bothering to campaign. The
state's Republicans have managed to self-destruct (their initial candidate 
withdrew, and Jack Robinson, the replacement who popped up at the last 
minute, has proved utterly without merit - the state party no longer
supports
him, and he's out of money).

All indications are that Carla Howell, the Libertarian challenger for
Kennedy's Senate seat, will handily out-poll the Republicans this year.

As a result, my vote is immaterial to either major party, and I can happily
vote my conscience without any fear that I'm helping throw the election to
either Gush or Bore - both of whom I find utterly odious for intersecting
sets
of reasons.

(Just in case you were wondering, I'm voting Libertarian).

Peter Trei