[WhiteGuy]

While the dissatisfied Republicans didn't "add" to the Kerry total...

My point exactly, candidate kerry has exactly the same number of votes regardless.

Your logical flaw lies in the assumption that the "3 votes" that were cast for the libertarian candidate were actually taken away from bush. In other words you are suggesting that bush, or whatever candidate you are talking about, actually has a pool of votes that are committed based on party.

It's a common misconception, I have heard the same arguments from democrats stating that a vote for nader was the same as a vote for bush, yada yada, yada.

The argument is made often that perot cost bush1 and dole their respective elections. This is incorrect. Both candidates lost because the majority of votes in the race went to another candidate. In reality both were very poor candidates.

The concept is quite simple.

Each vote must be earned, not taken for granted.

[Designer]

In reality both were very poor candidates.

There, in a nutshell, is one of our most compelling arguments.

Thanks, WhiteGuy.

[Tokra]

Your logical flaw lies in the assumption that the "3 votes" that were cast for the libertarian candidate were actually taken away from bush.

I respectfully disagree with you. If the dissatisfied Republican decides to vote for a 3rd party INSTEAD of the vote they would have given Bush - then yes, that vote was taken away from Bush. It's got nothing to do with a "pool of votes committed to Bush". If a Bush voter decides to vote for someone else, then Bush has lost that vote. Seems logical to me.