Reason #10:  Kerry is hard-working, Bush is lazy.
Reason #9:  Bush is careless with his words.
Reason #8:  Bush is dangerously secretive.
Reason #7:  Bush refuses to listen to contrary opinions and is
     incapable of changing his mind when the facts require it.
Reason #6:  Bush is cruel.
Reason #5:  Bush uses fear as a weapon against the people of the United States.
Reason #4:  Bush refuses to take reponsibility for his actions.

And now...

Reason #3:  Balance.

Balance?

Yes.  Specifically, I mean balance in government.

(Today's reason is for all of you who would rather see less government.)

Right now, we have:

President:  Republican George Bush.

Supreme Court:  5-4 Republican-appointed--and, since they broke down along exactly those lines in Bush v. Gore, you can guess that all nine pretty much follow the lines of the President who got them in.

Senate:  51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

House of Representatives:  227 Republicans, 205 Democrats, 1 Independent, 2 Vacancies.

Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives is very likely to shift from Republican to Democrat this election.  Even if one does, the likelihood of both switching is vanishingly small.

The Supreme Court is currently conservative, but just by one vote.  Recent Supreme Court decisions have broken down along party lines (again, based on who nominated them) more than most years.

Here are the ages of the Supreme Court Justices as of Election Day, November 2nd, 2004:

John Paul Stevens, age 84
William Rehnquist, age 80
Sandra Day O'Connor, age 74
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 71
Antonin Scalia, age 68
Anthony Kennedy, age 68
Stephen Breyer, age 66
David Souter, age 65
and the baby of the group,
Clarence Thomas, age 56.

As if that weren't enough, William Rehnquist recently had thyroid cancer and has only recently been released from the hospital. (link is to AP article at Salon)  As if that weren't enough, three other justices have had cancer previously:  John Paul Stevens (prostate), Sandra Day O'Connor (breast), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (colon).

If what I've read is accurate, most "experts" expect two, and perhaps three, Justices will be replaced during the next Presidential term.

So...

If Bush wins:  that also means that more of his voters got out and voted.  The likelihood of either the House or the Senate swinging to the Democrats is nil.  Bush then gets to select a couple of Supreme Court Justices.  All three branches of government belong to the Republicans.  This is what we've had for the last four years, and it has led to a lot of extreme actions being taken, both on the part of the President, and the legislation passing Congress, because little consideration of the other party has to be taken.  That's how Bush gets by putting industry lobbyists governmental positions where they "oversee" the companies they previously lobbied for.  It's why there isn't a clamoring to figure out who in Bush's Administration unmasked our CIA operative.  It's why Halliburton gets handed no-bid contracts without a whisper from Congress.  It's how a lot of rather shady things just slide on by.

If Kerry wins:  the Presidency becomes Democratic, of course.  One house or the other of Congress may also swing Democrat, since it means he got out the vote, but it is unlikely that both will.  Eventually, Kerry will get to pick some Justices.  But the likelihood of everything becoming Democrat is extremely small, almost nil.

So, if you think Bush does great unleashed and able to do pretty much as he wills, go ahead and vote Bush.  If you prefer more checks and balances, if not outright gridlock, you have a strong reason to vote for Kerry, even if you can't really make up your mind whether you prefer Kerry over Bush in other respects.

One-party government:  perfect for the USSR and the Third Reich, not so hot in a democracy.