Bartholemew raises a good point, in his typically inoffensive and extremely articulate way (I wish I could be like that!). It's not just a question of whose views you like -- it's also a question of who is going to be able to accomplish what he sets out to do if he DOES get elected President. Despite its shortcomings, this IS a democracy -- I reject the arguments of those who would define it otherwise because it doesn't measure up to the ideal (what country does?).

The way things are structured in the USA, the Legislative branch is in charge of making the laws, the Judicial branch is in charge of interpreting the laws, and the Executive branch is in charge of administering the laws. And all, directly or indirectly, are subject to the will of the voters. Which means that people have to work together to get things done -- and working together means compromising, convincing, persuading, maneuvering, horse-trading, etc. A President needs to be able to form alliances and coalitions with people he might not otherwise associate with, and work with them on a sustained basis; he needs to try to win the big battles, even if it means losing the smaller ones. If he can't do those things, the only power he has is the power to make things worse. You may not like it, but that's the way it works.

You want Nader? Vote for him. But think about whether he'll be able to accpomplish anything -- not in some Utopian democracy of the future, but in the country that we actually have today. If you vote him in and he's unable to accomplish anything, when do you think the millions of other voters in this country will give someone else like him another chance?