WARNING: Since this journal is primarily a vehicle for me to chronicle various aspects of my life, for myself, I'm not going to be a stickler concerning grammar and spelling. If you are, sorry about that -- I'll try!

This has been perhaps the most frustrating of elections. I've had a terrible time deciding exactly who to vote for. It's funny how many people came out of the woodwork trying to convince me that this candidate or that is the one I MUST vote for, else would waste my vote. I can understand the perspective of 'wasting one's vote,' but most people who use that line only consider it a wasted vote if the choice is not in accordance with their own particular choice and/or viewpoint. "So, you're mad because I'm wasting my vote by voting for _______, but if I vote your way then, of course, I'm not wasting my vote." To hell with the notion of voting one's conscience. I certainly can't be a good Christian and vote for the reprobate Gore. I certainly can't be a member in good standing of the gay community and vote for the Fascist (and a simpleton at that) Bush. Isn't' that right? "The only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don't want," said Nader. I agree with that.

I don't want either Gore or Bush to be the next president, and here we are on Wednesday, one day after election day, still not knowing who the next president will be. This is a historic and exciting sort of outcome, but I don't hold much hope for a positive and productive next four years. In this particular election, I can't buy into the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, especially when another consideration presents itself.

I considered voting for Gore -- the candidate who seems more supportive of the civil rights of gay people. When the debates came around, however, I was far less impressed with Gore then I thought I would be. I wanted him to give me a good reason to vote for him, but he didn't. Frankly, he really turned me off. Not that Bush's performance was anything to write home about, but Bush did do better then I thought he would. I know that Gore would nominate Supreme Court Justices who would be much more sympathetic to gay civil rights then would Bush, yet I think Gore is a liar. How can I trust or be excited about someone who doesn't know how to be honest at best, or is a pathological liar at worst.

By the way, the Snicker's candybar commercial was incredible. "Kiss me. I'm on TV!" Wonderful!

Then there is Bush. Don't like him. Don't think he will make a good president. He is beholden to the religious right, although not in lockstep. I think he is double-minded and inexperienced. Yes, Texas is a large and wealthy state. I've heard a number of Texans say that the Bush campaigning on the national scene certainly isn't the same man who is the governor of Texas. Who is the real George W. Bush? I would tend to support the nomination of Supreme Court Justices that take a more positive view of a consistent life ethic. Yes, I am pro-life -- not that I am against a women's choice because frankly it is a decision between her and her God, but I think abortion is the taking of a sacred human life and abortion is never the good answer to horrible circumstances.

I just can't in good conscience vote for either of them. AND, the main motivator of me considering a third party candidate is the belief that we desperately need a viable third party to challenge the Republicans and Democrats. As Ralph Nader said, "they are the same." If people say they want a third choice, yet no one bites-the-bullet and actually votes for third party candidates, we will never have a viable third party.

As I went into the voting booth I was torn between voting for Gore over the gay issue and voting for a third party candidate. Who? - Nader, Haglin (sp?), Brown???? Green Party, Natural Law Party, or the Libertarian Party? I like libertarian political philosophy, but Brown's big issue is the drug thing again. They will go no where until they get off the legalization of drugs. I actually like the platform of the Natural Law Party -- the notion that we should support what can be empirically proven to be the best option. But, who's criteria do we use to know the best proven option? Anyway, I went to punch my card and I just couldn't. Why am I making this so hard?? I voted for everything else using my handy-dandy Stonewall Akron voter guide, among other things. So, I voted Republican, Democratic, Green, and Natural Law! Back to the presidential pick: I wanted the Green party to get at least 5% of the national vote in order to secure federal matching funds for the next election. Not that those funds would make much difference -- look at what happen to the Reform Party and the Buchannen takeover. I still think it would be good for the Green party to get the money. I voted for Nader! It was the federal matching fund notion that finally persuaded me, not that I really thought Nader would make a good president. All things considered, I would have probably wanted Haglin above all the others, but Haglin and the Natural Law Party didn't have a chance of anything -- at least the Greens had a shot at the 5%.

No clear victories. No clear mandates. The election may be uncertain until perhaps 10 days from now. I'm not looking forward to the next 4 years of politics. What happened in Vermont? Yes, there is that pesky question of Supreme Court Justices again!

That's it.

copyright © 2000 hyperSYNC.net