With election day looming, I'm picking up where I left off in 2002 and giving out my official Blogalicious endorsement. There's only one this time around, given that all the other races on my ballot are state or county. If you want my view on the Essex County sheriff's race, feel free to drop me a line.

Of course, the one race is pretty important. In the first post-9/11 Presidential election, you get the sense that the choice we make on Tuesday will shape America's long-term direction to a degree we haven't seen since Reagan was in office. Unlike 2000, there is a much more distinct difference between Bush and Gore. Not that those two were twins or anything, but the hot-button issue this time around - the whole terror and security thing - has made it much easier to see where these candidates diverge on all issues.

Even so, there's a great similarity to 2000 in that it seems like there's a healthy percentage of folks who aren't thrilled with Bush or Kerry. For every person who is voting for a candidate, you get the sense that there's someone else whose vote is against that person rather than for their opponent.

Or, to recognize another group, you have voters who feel like they have to vote for the major candidate that comes closest to their world view, even though their support is, well, uninspired. It's hard to get really excited by either Bush or Kerry. Which means we have to settle.

Well, I don't think you have to settle. You do have choices.

That is why for the 2004 Presidential election, Blogalicious endorses the third-party candidate of your choice.

For those of you to the left of center, that'd most likely be David Cobb of the Green Party or independent/Reform candidate Ralph Nader. For those of you on the right side of the aisle, Libertarian Michael Badnarik is probably a good choice, though social conservatives may find themselves opposed to some Libertarian positions. If Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party is on your ballot, they may be more to your taste.

There are a number of smaller party candidates out there, especially of the Socialist variety. Check your state website to see your local ballot.

I know that a number of people get nervous voting for a third party candidate given the whole "vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" vibe from 2000. It's a legitimate concern. My personal belief is that neither major party is going to give us better candidates if we keep voting for the ones they currently give us. Of course, what we probably need is better people going into elective office, but that's another problem for another time.

Anyway, if you do have this concern, I have two suggestions:

1. Vote pair. For those of you living in states that are pretty much spoken for already, you can try to get someone who lives in a swing state and would vote third-party if they weren't in a swing state to swap votes. For example, a Massachusetts Kerry voter would vote for a given third party candidate while an Ohio Nader voter would vote for Kerry.

While vote pairing is best known in a left of center context, it's also set up for conservatives.

If you're interested in this, there is a link to a vote pairing website on Julie's blog.

2. Vote for all the third party candidates in the other races on your ballot. It doesn't send the same message, but it's something. I'd suggest even writing people in where you don't have a third choice, but given the possible ballot scrutiny after Tuesday, you may not want to put your ballot in jeopardy of getting bounced because you didn't use blue or black ink to write in your brother for county commissioner.

So that's it. I normally would urge you to vote early and often, but the way things are going that could be misconstrued. So vote your legally-allotted one time at the point in the day that makes the most sense for you.