Your post raises an interesting point about how much effect your vote has.
At the local level, your vote is quite important,
and basing votes on coin tossing is a real shocker.
For the larger event such as Senator or Governor and President this does not apply.
The truth of the matter is that your vote (for president) does not select a president.
It does add weight to the arguments of who you vote for.
Consider
H. Ross Perot, for example.
He did not win the presidency but the votes he received
� impacted the Democrat-Republican behavior for years afterwards.
There are many other examples, but the best latest is Nader.
His
2.74% in 2000 has inspired an effort all out of proportion to this level.
Just think - if you voted for Nader in 2000,
� you are in part responsible for
�
an accelerated collaborative effort between Republicans and Democrats
� to suppress third-party presence in the United States.
A vote like that had a weight of 1 in 3 million,
� as opposed to the pathetic 1 in 50 million weight a Gore vote had.
Your Nader vote had much more effect on later events than a vote for Gore.
Gore was relegated to history, whereas Nader inspired,
� along with electoral suppression, more awareness of corporate villainy.
Ultimately, a vote for the winner is a vote with no significance whatsoever.
With a weight of one out of 50 million it is less than useless for being a voice of change.
The victor never pays much attention to campaign promises anyway,
� whereas he pays an inordinate amount of attention to what drives
� support levels for his opponent.
In closing:
Waste Your Vote !
>...X...