The same is true in states with the reverse situation. There's every reason to do it, and no reason not to. The obvious answer from Nader supporters is that this just encourages the Duopoly Parties to think we're happy with their manufactured candidates, their fund-raising orgies, their constant compromise on important issues and their demagogic fixation on unimportant issues. Still, there are going to be folks who will argue that one must vote for Gore, even if it hurts worse than unanesthetized root canal work, because, well, there's the Sup reme Court . Those of us who think it's better to elect legislators and executives who have the courage not to pass unconsitutional legislation in the first place, rather than getting so obsessed with appointing a Supreme Court who will save us from the excesses of our own legislature, will just shut up now.
Nothing spoils a good cynical argument faster than changing the subject.
Of course, it's hard to know how a vote for Nader could be a waste of time in any state Bush or Gore is going to take anyway. Texans and Nebraskans , for instance, are unlikely to be in danger of seeing their state's electoral votes go to Gore even if no one votes for Nader. So a vote for Gore in these states doesn't benefit Gore any. Both of these things would help make the next election cycle less cynical and drab. In other words, it has been argued, if you have to throw your vote away, throw it away where it can do some good.