<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Bill Clark wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>Just the other day, I had a lengthy discussion in email with one of my<BR>
>friends over a hypothetical Cardinal Ratings vote between Gore, Nader, and<BR>
>Bush. He'd said that he would have voted Nader:10, Gore:7, and Bush:0. <BR>
>Nothing I could say could convince him that he should change his rating<BR>
>for Gore. He's not a stupid guy, either (he went to graduate school at<BR>
>Stanford, and used to teach at UC Berkeley.)<BR>
<BR>
Yes I've had similar experiences. I live in London, England and during the 18 dark years of Conservative rule when the Conservative party won 4 general elections due to the opposition vote being split between the Liberal Democrats and Labour many people, including myself, strongly advocated anti-Conservative tactical voting. The idea was simple. In seats where the Labour party were the major challengers to the Conservatives Liberal Democrat supporters tactically vote Labour, in seats where the Lib Dems were the challengers Labour supporters tactically vote Lib Dem. Trying to get people to do this can be an up hill struggle.<BR>
<BR>
For example in 1997 my flatmate's parents lived in a very marginal Conservative seat where Labour needed less than 500 votes to win. They were Liberal Democrat supporters who loathed the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats came a very poor 3rd in the seat in 1992. Inspite of this Simon's mother still voted Liberal Democrat knowing and accepting that they no chance of winning because she strongly wanted to vote sincerely and support her first choice party.<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble<BR>
</FONT></HTML>