Election Day!

When presented with a choice such as Dr. Orac describes, the only solution is to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Given the corruption of the Republican Party in Washington, election of Kean (who may well be an estimable fellow) will mean a continuation of that corruption as it will almost insure Republican control of the Senate for the next two years. Therefore, as bad as Mendenez seems, returning him to the Senate at least gives the possibility of Democratic control and would allow the Republicans in opposition to clean up their mess internally.

Sounds like you have the same lousy selection of candidates that I do, Orac.

When presented with a choice such as Dr. Orac describes, the only solution is to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

Not to be confrontational, but isn't this kind of like saying "Yeah, it's okay we're in a never-ending downward spiral because I voted to slow our descent a bit. The country will still be screwed for my children, but maybe I can keep it mediocre for the remainder of my life"?

Seriously, if you are going to vote for a republican or democrat do so because you believe in them and believe they will make the country a better place. From the sounds of it you agree with me that it's not going to make a difference; whichever one wins is going to take us further down into the fire. So why not at least make a statement that you're not going to stand for it anymore and vote a third party? Otherwise you're simply wasting your vote; allowing yourself to get manipulated.

Here's an idea to ease your conscience. Find someone who also believes a third party would be a better choice, but who is going to vote opposite you so they can vote for the "lesser of two evils". Agree with them that you will both vote for the third party. The reps and dems don't have any change in their relative level of votes, but you both got a chance to vote for who you believed in.

I'll be voting almost completely libertarian tonight.

SLC is exactly right. In an election (like this one) where the balance of control in the House and Senate are at stake, you're not just voting for one single candidate. You're actually voting for all the Congressional leadership and committee chairs. Which means you're voting on whose bills even get to be heard.

In the NJ case, a vote for Menendez is, inter alia, a vote for Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, whereas a vote for Kean is a vote for Mitch McConnell for that same position. That's simply the way our political system works, and it's something that a purely individualistic analysis is going to miss. For example, if you're pro-choice you'd do better to vote for an anti-choice Democrat than a pro-choice Republican; in a Democratic Congress, the former would be a minority in a pro-choice party and not able to do much harm; in a Republican Congress, the latter would be a minority in an anti-choice party and not able to do much good.

My understanding is that party affiliation has only got about a 50% predictive power for congressional voting behaviour anyway so it doesn't tell you much about what you are getting (expect for who the Speaker will be).

The bitch of it is that voting is unlikely to change much. The problems with your government are systemic, not partisan. I would attribute most of them to a lack of competition, brought on by very high barriers to entry.

The comments by Nicholas are what got us into this mess in the first place. (If Nader hadn't run, Gore would have been the President.) It is a shame that you are stuck with Menendez, and equally a shame that RI had to vote out Chaffee (If only he'd pulled a Jeffords six months ago), but in this case, party DOES matter, because the party who holds the majority names the Committee Chairmen, who set the agenda, and choose to hold the hearings and investigations we need. (I can't wait to see the investigations on Haliburton's profiteering in Iraq.)