A rebuttal for "The Bad or The Terrible"

Those Who Insist Nader Supporters Should Vote Kerry are Holding Back US Democratization:
------------------------------------
"all these voices - indeed just
about everyone on the left - have been urging the voters in swing
states
to choose John Kerry.

Their argument, of course, is that Kerry is the only candidate who can
knock George Bush off his perch. He might be about as inspiring as a
parking lot on a wet Sunday in Detroit, but his vacuity is better than
the president's aggressive certainties.
...
And their argument has merit. Bush has already launched two unnecessary wars, threatened 40 or 50 nations with armed aggression, ripped up international treaties and domestic regulations, granted corporations a licence to cook the planet, waged a global war against civil liberties and sought to bury that old-fashioned notion that the state should tax the rich and help the poor. The world would certainly be a safer and a better place without him."
--------------------------------------

This article argues that people can't continually support the system which produces such terrible choices, that one should take a stand with one's vote and vote for who you really believe could create change.

The main problem I see with that argument is that it still holds this American dream ideal that voting is a way to change this system. It doesn't advocate actual protest and boycott of the vote, advocating demonstrations and protests and sit-ins at voting booths (that would be certain to get coverage on Election Day by networks)... refusing to vote because the very basis of our voting system, with its jerrymandering and legislative manipulations, is part of this corrupt system. If you accept the system enough that you actually vote, don't claim that your vote could make a difference in changing the system: It can't.

I will be voting in this election, and I'm in a city in which it makes no difference how I vote, this portion of Michigan's voting public will vote for Kerry. So do I think that my vote for Nader is going to somehow make a difference... or a difference for third parties? No. I voted for Nader in 2000 (safely, in NYC) because I wanted to support the Green Party, to make sure that they received enough votes to take part in "the system" on the next election cycle. Now Mr. Nader has disappointed me because he didn't support the Green Party by not running against them. I'm disappointed because he could have taken the step forward that would have allowed the Green Party to maintain its newfound position of financial security for the presidential election. He could have endorsed the Green Party candidate. Perhaps the Green Party could have endorsed Kerry, I don't know, but I doubt it. They probably would have run the campaign that they are running right now, not putting their candidate on ballots in "swing states." They could have possibly maintained their needed percentage of the popular vote this way. But Mr. Nader will now split those voters up. A voter for Nader would have been a voter for the Green Party if the Green Party was on that person's ballot... now Nader will take that vote. I kind of wish I hadn't voted for Nader last year... but then I remember: I wasn't voting for Nader last year, I was voting for the Green Party because I'm supporting this fucked-up system by not protesting this fake voting system in the first place.