I find it really hard to believe that it is the day before the election. The election season has been so long that I almost forgot that we are actually voting for one of these people to be the next president (I already voted absentee so it has felt even less real to me).
There are two encounters I have had in the past week that I think characterize two types of voters that can really annoy me. The first one happened about a week ago. I was helping someone study for a chemistry exam when she noticed a big Obama poster I had hung up. Her response was "I'm a Republican but I'm voting for Nader because they both suck!" As the conversation continued another resident (a McCain supporter) walked into my room. The Nader supporter ended up storming out of the room yelling at both of us "I can't believe you're voting for either of them, they both suck!"
I'm not one to discourage third party candidates. They have made the democratic process more effective by preventing politicians from drifting too far to the middle without the worry of loosing the base. I also completely understand her cynicism (and for that matter encourage it). I would even respect her supporting a third party candidate in many previous elections. However, there is a war going on now. In this war (something people tend to forget) people are dying every day. This election is an opportunity to end a cruel and unnecessary war, if not anything else.
The other type of voter that has bothered me is the kind of person which I have nick named "double speak voters." These people are voting for McCain under the assumption that he is simply pandering to the right wing religious nuts, and, once in office, he will revert back to the maverick (that word makes me cringe now) that he once was. This admittedly may or not be true, but it would send a message to politicians that reasonable people don't care if they pander to hateful people that they don't agree with. To vote on such an assumption is undemocratic (to put it lightly).
Here is how democracy should work (in my oh so very humble opinion): you have the candidates. These candidates make their argument for what they would do and why they think it would work. The people listen to the arguments and vote. The winner becomes the next occupant of that office. In closing, I would like to suggest that it may not require two years to carry out this process. Next time, can we please limit this kind of stuff to six months? I don't think my nerves can take another 2 year election.