Through Voteexchange.com, I found a gentleman in Florida willing to vote for Al Gore while I vote for Ralph Nader in New York, where I live. Since Gore's already locked my state, my vote for Nader won't help Dubya, and since Gore and Dubya are neck in neck in Florida, my partner in voting is making a sacrifice to help Gore get the electoral votes he needs to send Dubya packing back to Austin. The Internet is great, isn't it?

It was quick and easy. I registered on the site and then found out I had a match. I called my partner to grill him and to be grilled and it took us a few minutes to decide we aren't Republicans trying to trick people into voting Nader. Of course, a whole lot of Republicans would have to sneak in to sabotage this system since the person in the safe state (that is already a lock for Dubya or Gore) makes the actual third party vote. This is the first time I've ever felt like an election has helped me connect with a fellow citizen.

Generally voting is an isolating event. You stand on line, go into a booth, come out and it's over. It's kind of like... never mind. But the Internet has actually made voting social and might be a real boon for third party candidates. The purpose in swapping votes for Nader is to make sure Gore gets elected while getting Nader 5 percent of the popular vote. If it works, the Greens get $12 million in tax money for the 2004 fiasco. That would help a guy like Nader makes more commercials (and his commercials have provided the only laughs this season.)

Just remember that if you live in a swing state you should vote Gore and let the rest of us take care of Ralph.

Too bad Ralph hates the vote swapping idea. That's because, as Slate (www.Slate.com) reported (Slate also popularized the vote trading notion) Nader wants Bush to win so that we'll all be miserable and turn to the left in a panic when the four years are up. I don't know if Slate has it right, but I'm sure nothing is worth four years of Dubya (though the laughs will be abundant.)

What if Dubya wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college? I heard a rumor from a well-placed source (really, it does come from a well placed source) that Bush has millions in the bank to use for a "overturn the election" media campaign if this happens (and it hasn't happened since 1888 so it's an unlikely event, to say the least.)

Here's another Bush rumor that comes from a well placed source (we people in the New York media world are full of well placed sources, or full of rumors and gossip or just full of it): Bush was grounded from flying when he was in the Air National Guard because he wouldn't take a physical and the rumor goes that he wouldn't take the physical because he was either a) coked up all the time or b) didn't want to be set into combat. Now, I don't blame him for doing coke (except that he's a hypocrite who has sent people to jail for the same non-offense) and I don't care that he didn't want to fight a war (because I don't want to fight one either) but it is a juicy Dubya rumor so there you have it.

No good Gore rumors except that Tipper still scares me. I am hoping for a Gore victory but am not sure why. Really, he and Clinton have always been corporate tools, but at least Clinton had style and you got the sense that he was indebted to the right corporations (entertainment industry, high tech) and not oil like Dubya and Gore. I'll miss Clinton, but that's another column for another time.

Not a lot of serious commentary about the election in this, I apologize. But it's not a very serious election this year. I haven't heard one grand utterance from either candidate, and have no feeling that either is a great or deep thinker. We deserve better that Gore and Bush. We even deserve better than Nader (sorry, Ralph). But we'll have to abolish the two party system by going to direct democracy and instant run-offs before I can really feel like voting is worthwhile.

Michael Maiello is president of the United Hedonist Lovers Party which meets every Wednesday under the giant bong in Times Square.