That's an interesting distinction Nerd made about the meaning of the expression "the government" in the USA which is different from how it's used in other places (I think the UK is pretty typical on this). In a way it's an institutional equivalent to the old anarchist slogan "whoever you vote for, the government always gets in".

RichardP's level-headed summary of the situation, pointing out that for most of your country this issue, about how voting for Nader helps Bush, is not in any way relevant. Unless you are voting in a state where the vote is close enough for the result to swing from one party to another, there is no reason why anyone should feel any obligation to vote tactically. It's not exactly difficuly, but so many people seem to miss the point. (They do it here as well when it comes to analogous though different distortions in our electoral system.)

Unless - and here is the point people should surely be focusing their attention on - people cooperate in different part of your country to make the system work more democratically.

The sensible way to respond to this distortion in your electoral system, which makes it virtually pointless for most people to vote at all in the Presidential election, is to start organising more effective ways of pairing your vote with someone in another part of the country.

If all the would-be Nader voters in swing states were to arrange a pairing arrangement with someone in a non-swing state who would otherwise be voting for Kerry, that really could make a significant difference, helping get rid of Bush, and upping the overall vote for Nader across the country as a marker fro the future. If you'd done it last time Bush would be a forgotten footnote in history.

But instead, if this thread is any evidence, you plan to keep on cutting each other's throats. And everyone else's.