>There are over 200 people registered with the FEC as presidential candidates for the election Tuesday.

>>How many are actually on a ballot? How many are on ballots in enough states that they could possibly obtain a majority of electoral votes? This number is far fewer.<<

Yep, but I didn't ask for an absentee ballot (Colorado is a "vote early if you want, but here you gotta do it by mail" state.)

>To say that there is really no significant difference between the two major parties is a statement based in cynicism or far radical thinking.

>>Yet apparently none came to mind or I'm sure you would have listed them.<<

The differences are so significant that it'd take me hours to clarify all of them.

>Do you REALLY believe that a vote for Gore is the same as a vote for Bush?!?

>>I can't think of any significant way in which they are different.<<

....just one. Al Gore says he's for smaller government, then proposes huge increases in new programs. ...okay, maybe an easy second difference. Al Gore is a pathalogical liar, and has been for years.

>I've gotta ask WHY you basically waste a vote?

>>Well actually the question is why would you want to waste your vote. On this issue I will just quote the candidates Harry Browne --

"Can I win?

Probably not. But if you vote for anyone else, you won't win either. Your candidate might win, but you won't get what you want. Government will continue to get bigger, more expensive, more intrusive, and more oppressive — and you will have given your approval to this.

No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore — to keep Al Gore out of the White House or to ward off the Religious Right<<

I had to interrupt that statement. Does Harry Browne think (or do you think) that GW is the Religious Right?!?

>> — your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of every big-government proposal your candidate has made.<<

That's a litmus test falacy put forth by your candidate. Some areas of our government DO need to grow because they've been GUTTED by the current administration, our military being the prime example.

>>Even though we Libertarians may not win this year, every vote I get will be an endorsement, a statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller government. No one can misinterpret a vote for me as a vote for more government."<<

Again, I'm uninformed about his feelings about our military. Clinton promised to reduce the number of government employees on the payrolls during his watch. Most of those reductions were from our armed forces.

>>and from Ralph Nader

"If you want to make your voice heard and make your vote count in November you should be voting for the candidate you believe in. When our elected officials vote for the laws that affect all of our lives, we hope that they vote their consciences. We can't expect less of ourselves. "<<

Go Ralph! Vote for him if he represents you!

>We have a fundamental nature of how our government is run, and it is based on our constitution. It makes for both pretty good reading and is the best platform for treating a nation that I know of.

>>Yet somehow many of the "issues" which Gore and Bush are talking about are things like how to Federally fund education, Social Security, Health Care systems.

Bob, I'll give you a $5 chip if you can find the part of the Constitution which authorizes the Federal Government spending my money on any of these things. Unlike either of the candidates i have actually read the consitution and studied in context.<<

It doesn't. Entitlements are a product of the last century, and increasing the scope of them is how democrats get elected.

>You can say what you want, but you can't FORCE people to listen to you, nor can you force media outlets to be your hydrant.

>>I agree with you here, however, I can suggest to people like Greg that they include those candidates (And I don't just mean Harry Browne). But my point was that if the mainstream media gave more attention to these candidates (And I don't mean interviewing at 3:00 AM on deep cable) that in fact more voters would care about them and consider them as viable options. The only hope for a real third party (Not Ross Perot's little cult of personality) is for prolonged media exposure to allow a party to grow support over time. <<

Fox News Channel isn't deep cable. Bill O'Reilly has a larger audience than Larry King on CNN. ....but you did hit the real nail on the head.
Most people don't care enough to get informed about the candidates or the issues, and will vote partyline, if they vote at all. That's not something anyone should feel comfortable with.

Bob