What would solve the problem, of course, would be preferential voting. With preferential voting, you rank the candidates in order of your preference. That way, you can rank, say, #1 Nader, #2 Kucinich, #3 Edwards, #4 Kerry. Then if it becomes obvious that Nader isn't getting enough votes, your vote switches to Kucinich. If Kucinich isn't making it, it moves to Edwards, then on to Kerry if Kerry is actually getting the most votes. With this kind of system, you can vote for whoever you really want without fear that your vote will be "wasted" if your candidate's chances are really slim. Under the present system, for all practical purposes you are wasting your vote, no matter how idealistic and superior it may make you feel.   

Preferential voting has the additional advantage that if, say, Kucinich winds up number two behind Kerry, then Kerry had better pay some attention to Kucinich's platform, because he now knows that a lot of people were behind it, and if he wants to be re-elected, he'd better take it seriously. Even if your favorite candidate doesn't win, your real preferences are made known to the one who does.

There are rumblings in a few states to bring preferential voting about. But if the two major parties have their way, it'll be a cold day in Hell before that ever happens. It will probably take a grass roots movement, but it can be done. But obviously not by November, unfortunately.

Don Firth