It seems that everyone I tell that I'm not voting for president responds with a resounding "are you kidding me?" followed by a brief lecture on how important it is to exercise my right. Then, since most people on this campus are Democrats, and I'm a Republican who is scared of George W. Bush, they usually try to convince me that instead of "wasting my vote," I should vote for Gore so as to make sure Bush doesn't become our next leader.
I say to all of you who are not voting for someone who you believe in, but are instead choosing "the lesser of two evils," you are the ones who are wasting your votes, and you are the ones who are compromising the democratic process by endorsing a candidate you do not trust, simply because he's not as bad as the other guy.
Am I not exercising my right to vote just as much as those of you who do vote? I have evaluated the candidates, I have thought hard about it, and I cannot endorse either one (or Nader, or anyone else). I have chosen not to vote for Gore, just like some of you, and I have chosen not to vote for Bush, just like the rest of you. I have taken advantage of the democratic process to tell the Republicans that I disapprove of their nominee for president and to tell the Democrats that they have not fielded a candidate strong enough, in my opinion, to lure me towards voting Democrat. Many fear that this year will produce the lowest presidential voter turnout in a long while; I regret to say I hope that, come the end of the day, this is actually the case - those of us who find neither candidate appealing will send a stronger message by not endorsing either of them. This, of course, is not to say we should refrain from the other choices on the ballot. I am far from endorsing political apathy, and I have voted in my own local elections.
I was going to vote Bush until maybe a month ago. I generally tend to associate myself with Republican principles, especially Republican economic principles and size-of-government principles. But I'm not very conservative on some of the more concrete issues, and I have always struggled to compromise my belief in conservative economics and government with my lack of agreement on social conservatism. My vote for Bush/Cheney was not on solid ground to begin with; after listening to Bush speak over the last month, after evaluating his image and his questionable record as governor of Texas and his inexperience in Washington, and maybe even after getting one too many "Bush-isms" emails, I feel that voting for Bush would be to sell myself short. I could not invest myself in such a vote, so I will not give it.
I don't understand why people tend to think that means I should automatically vote for Gore, or for Nader for that matter. I don't agree with the Vice President on some important issues, precisely because of my Republican orientation: I worry he will increase government size and programs, raise taxes, and further socialist-style economics. I am concerned about his ties with labor unions and, to top it off, I simply don't like him whenever he opens up his mouth. Why would I vote for this man? Should I vote for him because the country is thriving under his boss?
Speaking of the President, I can't help but think that if this were the last election not dealing with an incumbent, the '92 election, I wouldn't have to pen something like this Viewpoint. Bush, Sr. versus Clinton is a far more appealing choice for me, as I'm sure it is for many Americans, than Bush, Jr. versus Gore. So too, listening to Colin Powell speak last week, I couldn't help but think that, were he to run, all this "lesser of two evils" rhetoric would be greatly reduced. In my humble opinion, Gore should have had a much easier time with this election. If he can barely beat Bush, he would have been toppled by the General.
So I am telling my party that I am unsatisfied with its candidate; that I will not vote for him. That shouldn't have to mean that I cross over to Democrat, and it won't - I am not voting Al Gore by default, though I'm sure a lot of people are. Gore is the safe vote, I guess, and that's fine. Go ahead and vote him because he is the lesser evil. Go ahead and be proud of how you are taking part in the democratic process.
That process was designed to give us a say in the way this country operates. But a "say" without conviction is empty, and I will not give an empty vote. I am voting, or not voting, based on conviction, and that is my "say." It may be in a distorted and impractical way, but I'm taking advantage of my freedom more so than any person who is voting without believing.
Russell Capone is a junior majoring in political science. He is sports editor of the Daily.
