Jeremy Lott writes that he is planning on voting for Badnarik. Quote:
“At first glance, the choice is between a candidate who would spend a lot more money, chip away at taxes, and at least whisper the right sweet nothings about Social Security reform and a candidate who would spend a whole lot more, raise taxes, and let some other president deal with the problem when Baby Boomers start to retire. Given those options, a lot of otherwise disaffected conservatives will grab a clothespin and pull the lever for Bush.
That’s not a hard vote to understand. If I had to cast the deciding ballot between the two, I’d go for Bush. The lesser of two evils is, well, less evil. But I live in Washington state, which will not cast its votes in the electoral college for the president unless Kerry’s campaign implodes. A vote for Bush here is wasted; it amounts to cheerleading for an administration that could use a stern talking to.
No thanks. I’m voting Libertarian for president this year, and I encourage all small government conservatives in solidly Kerry states to do the same. The logic behind this tactical voting is simple: If your vote won’t count toward Bush’s victory anyway, why not vote for a party — even a fringe party — that advocates a much smaller government? It would be our own small way of standing up to be counted at a time when so many of our elected leaders have decided to sit this one out.”
I understand Bush is bad but I haven’t heard a good explanation of why Kerry is better.