There's apathy and there's disillusion, and they aren't the same things.

In principle the second is quite constructive, because it means you've seen through the illusions that have been thrown before you, and that can mean you are ready to actually do something relevant.

I've quite often gone into the polling booth and spoiled my vote, normally writing why I'm doing for the local candidate to read (they do, actually) - but I'd never just stay home. That's one reason I dislike these modern voting systems that get in the way of that kind of thing.

The apathy that means just not bothering to vote is something very different - and it's deadly. But it's not that different from the apathy that means voting under the influence of adverts, or without making any attempt to understand what its about, or of how the voting system works, when it comes to odd stuff like minority candidates, and that things in quasi-magical ways.

By quasi-magical I mean the kind of idea that somehow, if you vote to increase a massive local winning margin, or to reduce a massive local losing margin, of a candidate you don't much like, that is a strong enough reason for you to abstain from voting for a third candidate you know can't win, but whom you actually prefer.

Given all that, I'd hope Nader will campaign like hell to make sure some issues couldn't get buried, and to help interest a few more people in the idea of actually voting this time. And then at the most effective moment, recognising that there's a pretty naive set of voters out there (as in most countries), he'd be best to pull out of the race, and to urge people to do what they could to make sure Bush is defeated in the vote once again, and that, this time, this is allowed to stand.