Nader Off Virginia Ballot

rwiedower writes "Nader's not on the ballot in Virginia. This means he's off the ballot in 16 states: AZ, CA, GA, ID, IN, IL, MD, MI, MO, OK, OR, PA, NC, SC, TX and VA. Is it time for Ralph to call it quits or does every vote count?"

Comments

Missing Option:

[identity0]

I don't care as long as there's an CowboyNeal option, you insensitive clod!

What's that phrase I'm looking for?

[Neil Blender]

Oh yeah - "Jumped the shark."

Nader is just an attention whore

[ageoffri]

The only thing Nader is good for these days is confusing democrats to vote for him. I'd love to see him on the ballot but really overall he just doesn't matter.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[slughead]

Yeah, and since it looks like Bush is going to win, you'd better vote for him because otherwise you'll be wasting your vote.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Radical Rad]

This election will not be a good one for Democrats if Nader drains many votes from them. Historically, presidents who get a second term make their most unpopular decisions during the second term because they can't get re-elected anyway. What will Bush do if he gets re-elected? He could effectively overturn Roe v. Wade through executive order, start a war with Iran or Korea or China, release pseudo-scientific studies declaring homosexuality to be a mental illness, continue to chip away at the Bill of Rights, relax pollution standards even further, push for a constitutional amendment to allow foreign-born sons of nazis to hold our highest office, eliminate capital gains and estate taxes (after all, why should a rich senator's son ever have to make his own way or risk his life in Viet Nam for that matter!)

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[saden1]

You give too much weight to executive orders. They are typically nonsense/fluffy orders that can be overturned by either court orders or the next president.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[TRIEventHorizon]

I hope Nader is on the ballot

I want Bush to win

BUSH 2004!

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[DShard]

Ignoring all other points... Is homosexuality based in thought or genetics? The problem is that mental health is based on normal behavior, dictated purely by statistics. Assuming a free environment where homosexuality is accepted without prejudice, what percentage is there for homosexuals? 5%? Good, bad or indifferent, it would still stand to be considered a "mental" illness if not genetic.

Conversely, if, as I heard recently on TV (not accepting it as fact, instead just an illustration) that 60% of adults show signs of depression. Shouldn't we treat the 40% for excessive happiness.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Radical Rad]

Just like laws passed by the legislature can be overturned by the courts or not enforced by the President? I don't think I give too much weight and I suspect that the men who designed our system of checks and balances would agree.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[saden1]

Lol...I'm afraid the men who created the system of checks and balances didn't have anything to do with the abomination that is executive orders. Perhaps a little history on the subject is in order.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Anonymous Coward]

Nader's right to presence on the ballot is derived from the nature of this democratic system. He represents the environmental left environmentalist. The Libertarians and all other parties also have the right to nominate their own candidates. Or do you believe the system is only one of choice of entrenched parties? If so then you will agree with the statement that the system has been corrupted into simplistic halves of a whole that does not represent the majority.

This is a perfect opportunity for an effective centrist party to develop and provide actual representation for the majority of Americans that are not extremists of either variety currently represented. Lack of actual representation is why many who are economically able to vote still do not do so. To be forced to pick one or the other of a pair of individuals from extremist parties that are melding into the single party of the interest of the wealthy above the common citizen is an affront to representative democracy. The majority of the faults in the American system that are not the result of feuding intelligence agencies are the result of the present rivalry of extremes forced into simplistic policy by the variety they attempt to represent with extreme policy. They are more interested in party power than representing the citizens of this nation.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[dubious9]

effectively overturn Roe v. Wade through executive order

And through the Republicans into political disorder? Though the religious right is one of Bush's constituancies, there are still more people who either belive that 1. it isn't the government place to say, right or wrong and 2. that women should have the choice. Please don't argue with me because I'm halfway between banning and number 1, but leaning towards the latter, and I really don't care what strangers think on this.

If you begin to seriously challenge RvW, you lose the next election. This one will be close and neither has decided to make abortion a big issue. Why? Because it's a lose-lose situation. Washingtonites don't like polarizing issues, that makes everything too clear. They talk about stuff that doesn't matter. Like stuff that happened in the military 25 years ago. Guess what. I don't if Kerry exagerated or Bush defected, this is here and now.

Despite popular misconception R's and D's are more alike than different. That's why I support the third party.

Don't talk to me about the president and anything that you've listed. The congress has more of a say on those anyway. I want real issues. Not psuedo-party beliefs that will never enter the realm of public lawmaking.

Dammit. I left rant lock on. It's so close to backspace. Sorry.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Radical Rad]

LOL or cry in silence, it doesn't matter to me which you do. Executive Orders are not fluff or nonsense and are enforced even when they contravene the Constitution. You should read one or two before you pooh pooh them as impotent foolishness. And how do you expect anyone to take seriously your link to a crackpot website? Did you know what kind of "fluffy nonsense" that site contains, or did you find that particular page in Google and so accept it as gospel truth?

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Radical Rad]

If you begin to seriously challenge RvW, you lose the next election.

That goes back to a major point of my original post. Presidents who go a second term don't have to worry about losing the next election. I guess I assumed wrongly that everyone knows this but... here in the U.S. no one may hold the office of the presidency for more than two consecutive terms.

So to recap: if Geourge Bush remains in the Whitehouse then he can reward his rightwing, conservative constituents whose hottest button is abortion by creating legal obstacles to abortion that only the rich, priveleged daughters of the powerful can navigate. So if Jenna comes back after being a little careless on spring break her life won't be ruined, but Suzie Sixpack who gets pregnant through accident, rape, or incest will have to carry to term and foster the next generation of wage slaves.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I support the third party.

Right on!

Badnarik 2004

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[EnderWiggnz]

no - you've got it wrong:

vote for dubya, or the terrorists will *win*.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[jfengel]

Actually, I'm not convinced that Nader will draw more Democratic voters than Republican ones.

In 2000 he represented a more liberal choice that many Democrats found attractive, especially with their particularly uninteresting candidate. Nader convinced people that Gore and Bush presented no real differences, and the candidates didn't do much to fight that perception: they were both boring.

Four years later the Democratic candidate is not significantly more interesting, but the opponent is far more unattractive to Democratic voters. For Democrats, its not simply the unfortunate opportunity for Republicans to control the government any more; it's now a matter literally of life and death.

Therefore, Democrats line up behind Kerry. But many Republicans are uneasy about Bush, both on privacy and budget issues as well as the more obvious Iraq question. But there's no way they're going to vote for Kerry; Republicans are far more likely to believe the accusations of the SBVfT (I just can't bring myself to spell out their name). Some will vote for Nader as a no-vote vote.

So at this point, I believe that Nader may well be swinging the race Democratically to the degree that he makes a difference at all. The most recent Gallup poll supports this notion: the three-way race is 52/41/3 (Bush/Kerry/Nader), and the two-way is 54/43 (Bush/Kerry). In other words, Nader draws equally from both sides.

That's just general vote, of course. In 2000 Nader's dropping out needed to have swung less than 600 votes to change the outcome, due to the electoral college. But with the numbers I see, that ax may swings both ways in 2004.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Anonymous Coward]

How long to Supreme Court appointments last? I forget.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Rei]

Wait, 5% is a level for mental-illness? Good god, I should quit playing badminton before they lock me up....

Seriously, you forgot a critical distinction: Illness generally requires harm (to one's self or others). Where is the harm?

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Rei]

Don't give me this "both parties are the same" nonsense. In 9 out of 10 votes, the vote largely splits along party lines - and they're *ideologically consistant* splits. You may not agree with all points that both sides adopt, but their platforms on the vast majority of votes are starkly different.

And since you say "single party of the interest of the wealthy above the common citizen", apparently you've never compared the Democratic tax policy with the Republican tax policy, the Democratic party's trade stances with the Republican party's, etc. Yes, there are *always* exceptions in *both* parties, but look at the general party splits here!

If you're looking for someone that you will view as a perfect candidate, you better run yourself. If you want to live in the real world, you have to expect at least *some* policy stances to differ from yours.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[dubious9]

The point I was trying to make was the if you do challenge it, your *party* loses the next election. But I do agree with you that a 2nd term president has a lot more leeway than the 1st. I guess my main point is that as president your actions reflect on the party and will impact the next elect whether you are in it or not.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

Having no opinion on the argument over executive orders in the preceding posts... that is one f*ed up link. Wow, their views are so far outside mainstream science that it might be a fun read for an afternoon. Sometimes I think that these sites are setup by reasonable people hoping to discredit ludicrous views by exposing them, but then other times I worry that these are legit websites and people really believe that stuff!

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[Anonymous Coward]

but then other times I worry that these are legit websites and people really believe that stuff!

We do! Some of us.

Re:Nader is just an attention whore

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

No wonder you won't use your real name. Or handle for that matter.

Not really.

[aeinome]

Judging from what I've seen of Nader in the past, he's not going to "call it quits". He seems to just want to show people that there is not just a Democratic vote or a Republican vote; quitting would undermine his entire reason for being in the race. I'm sure he'll still have his little 2% taking away from the Democrats come Election Day.

Re:Not really.

[drivers]

We really need to switch to a runoff (preferably instant runoff) election where you can vote for third parties without it being considered a protest vote.

Re:Not really.

[Rob Riggs]

And give the rest of us with no party affiliation a reason to vote! Actually, this year I am in the ABB camp, so Kerry/Edwards gets my vote. But last election cycle, even with the Nader votes, Gore would have lost my state.

The two-party system sucks. I'm not a lesser-of-two-evils type of guy. I don't see either party looking to shore up the public domain, protect my liberty, or move this nation forward. Both candidates are more interested in advancing their own parties than in doing what's right for the U.S.A.

How about we drop the per-state Senate and make it a national body with proportional representation? In my state (CO), we have a ballot measure, the Colorado Electoral College Reform Initiative, up for a vote to make the electoral college vote based on proportional representation. I'm all for that.

Re:Not really.

[Phillup]

I would agree, if there was someone I actually wanted to vote for.

As it is, for me, this will be 20 plus years of voting against someone.

Something is seriously wrong with a system that comes up with Bush vs. Kerry (or Bush vs. Gore, etc...) as the "best" candidates for president.

Re:Not really.

[captnitro]

I understand your point about the electoral college was a little bit different, but I'll tag along because it's a good time to mention it.

In the last four years, I've heard more people talk about reforming the electoral voting system. They proclaim the virtues of direct election without realizing the incredible drawbacks.

We have a senate and a house of representatives in the United States not just for fun, it's because there are states which have miniscule sizes. But, by virtue of geography, tradition, or community, or law, they are designated as one state. California is a state, so is Rhode Island. California gets more votes in the House because they have more people. But Rhode Island gets the same number of votes as California in the *Senate*: 2.

My point is, right now we have Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida -- battleground states. If we implement direct election, then you campaign in New York, Los Angeles, DC, Detroit and Chicago, and you're done; write your speeches.

The electoral college system exists to protect those states with smaller populations from being forgotten. But with the electoral college, as backwards as it may seem, we're campaigning (of all places), in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, and places you wouldn't imagine because guess what: their votes count. "And in a country based on the right to be heard, what could be more American than that?"

Re:Not really.

[AuMatar]

First off, you're majorly overestimating the populations of those three cities. But even ignoring that, you're taking logic and throwing it on its ear. You admit that the EC causes the vote of someone in a less populous state worth more than someone in a more populous one. Yet somehow you manage to draw the conclusion that this is a good thing?

Please, explain this to me. How in the hell is it even remotely fair that someone in Wyoming's vote is worth more than mine, just because he happens to live in Wyoming and I live in California? Hint: it isn't. This is why the EC needs to go.; One person, one vote. The idea that less popular states should have theit votes counted for more to equalize them is utterly asinine.

Re:Not really.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Given modern communications, why the heck is this even an issue? Can't the candidate just stay home and broadcast his speech everywhere (like Perot did) in a half hour infomercial?

Re:Not really.

[blate]

The reason that the states you mention are "battleground" states is that:

a) They carry a non-trivial number of electoral votes and
b) They are potentially "swing" states, i.e., both candidates have a chance of winning them

You don't hear much about Kerry campaigning in, say, Georgia, even though it carries 15 electoral votes, more than twice that of, say Idaho (7 votes). That's because Georgia is going to vote for Bush.

Now, if the election were decided on percentage of the total vote or, say, by obtaining a majority (>50%) of the vote, then it might be worth it for Kerry to campaign in urban Georgia areas, such as Atlanta, where he might be able to pick up thousands of votes.

You also have all the little or low-population states who, perhaps, get more than their fair share of electoral votes. The minimum number of electoral votes allocated to a state is 3. So, states such as Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, DC, North and South Dakota, and Vermont each gets three votes, regardless of population. Is that fair? In a sense, each voter in such small states has control over a larger fraction of an electoral vote than does a voter in a large state, such as California.

But that's how the Founding Fathers designed the system and, at least for the 2004 election, that's what we're stuck with, like it or not. Personally, I'm undecided as to whether, if I had the power, I would move away from the Electoral College system or stick with it. It clearly has its advantages and disadvantages.

Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.

Another salient point comes from my own experience as a voter in North Carolina, where I lived during the 2000 election. At that time, there was no way in hell I was going to vote for Bush. However, he was polling at over 60% in NC, so, in essence, my vote was irrelavent. I could vote for Gore, but it wouldn't matter, because the majority of the state would have, metaphorically, drowned me out. How I ended up voting is not germane, but I think you can see the quandry one might be in.

I think this situation may lead some folks to apathy, i.e., not caring about or getting involved in the system, perhaps to the extent of not voting at all. If you live in a state where you are in the minority in re your political opinions, then your vote really doesn't count for presidential elections. That's just how it is.

Now, if we moved away from an Electoral College system, then all those "minority voters" (as defined in the previous paragraph) WOULD have their voices heard, since their votes would "count" towards the candidate's total. Somehow, that seems more democratic to me.

Re:Not really.

[aeinome]

I agree with you a lot. I don't really believe in political parties that much, they do much more bad than good. I did notice that much of your suggestions (more than two-parties, proportional representation) resemble the Canadian political system. Just something I noticed.

Re:Not really.

[DShard]

How is the tyranny of the majority good? How was Gore vs Bush good as our only choices? How would it have been better if california and New York decided the whole election for the rest of us?

Re:Not really.

[AuMatar]

Excpet they wouldn't. The populations aren't nearly high enough, your FUD not withstanding.

Besides which- how is someone getting 100 more votes (or possibly not) in Florida deciding an election a good thing when it was won by the other guy on the popular level by hundreds of thousands of votes? Thats what the EC causes. Without it, the vote of someone in a rural state would still count- it would count equally as much as someone in a popular state. There would be no tyranny of the majority, it would be ending a tyranny of the minority.

Think of it this way- do you think ethnic or religious minorities votes should count more than anyone elses? I don't. So why should a population minority be any different?

Re:Not really.

[DShard]

Tyranny of the majority afflicted politics in europe leading up to the facist regimes. The problem comes when the system breaks down the potential for abuse of a minority class is probable. This is what the founding fathers were striking a balance against. The EC may not be the best, but it is still better than pluralist elections in a party system.

The issue minorities are a red herring. They affect _any_ democratic society just being there. I also wouldn't want enviromentalists, animal-rights activists or the teachers unions have a disproportinate power in government.

Re:Not really.

[ZeLonewolf]

I live in Rhode Island, and let me tell you, the electoral system does exactly one thing: makes my vote worthless. Whether I'm voting Democrat or Republican, my vote sure as heck isn't going to matter. With the current system, Rhode Island *IS* forgotten.

Re:Not really.

[Bastian]

On the other hand, getting rid of the electoral college would be a hit to the third party camp, because right now the bread and butter of third parties seems to be people who live in strongly partisan states who know their vote isn't going to come close to mattering on the Big Vote, and so choose to use it to help a third party get recognition.

Re:Not really.

[MindStalker]

Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.

Not nessearly, because all players (presidential canidates) understood these rules during their campaining. They campained on that idea, that total votes didn't matter. Its a contest, and the rules are set they understood this. Now arguing changing the rules in the future maybe (though peronally I like the system) but arguing that Bush win is less of a win just because he didn't win the plurality is stupid. Cause those were the rules.

Now I know you didn't argue this, but many people seemed hell bend on arguing this, and I just needed to vent ok! :)

Re:Not really.

[blate]

Your point is well-taken. The system is the system and, according to the rules of that system, Bush was the winner.

Of course, this doesn't address the whole Florida isssue, which is another can of worms entirely. Without descending into an extended argument about hanging chads, the issues experienced in Florida underscore the way that small errors in tallying votes can really affect elections. It's my understanding that *any* voting method, be it punch cards, touch screens, color-in-the-box, or whatever, has some small, but non-zero, margin for error. In most cases, the outcome is not jeapordized by this errorbar, but, in some cases, it is. I am doubtful that introducing computers will solve the problem, but it might have a chance of reducing the errorbar.

Re:Not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if we moved away from an Electoral College system, then all those "minority voters" (as defined in the previous paragraph) WOULD have their voices heard, since their votes would "count" towards the candidate's total. Somehow, that seems more democratic to me.

Alas, you live in a republic, not a democracy.

"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin."

Re:Not really.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Actually, you're majorly underestimating the populations of those metro areas. The metro areas of NYC, Chicago, and LA and their surroundings equal the 23 smallest states.

From the 2000 census
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island + Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana + Chicago-Naperville-Joliet = 39,786,945

Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oregon = 38,406,741

If you go with a more narrow definition of those metro areas, those 3 cities still come out at 28.5 million. Leave CT and OR off the above list of states.

Now...is the EC current situation fair? Maybe, maybe not. It tries to give representative power to each state.
But a straight popular vote would shift the power completely to the cities (Not California or New York, but metro LA and NYC)

Re:Not really.

[cyberformer]

The system could still be (and, I believe, is) messed up --- even if every candidate agrees with it. It's not as if the candidates have much choice: They have to accept the rules when they when they run for President.

Democracy isn't a game with arbitrary rules. The rules should be designed to give every citizen equal representation in government. The current system clearly fails in this respect.

Re:Not really.

[Petey_Alchemist]

And explain to me why your vote should count, in effect, several hundred times more than a Californians vote?

If you had, say, one electoral college point for Cali and one for RI, and RI had a population of 100,000 and Cali a population of 50 million (pulling figures off the top of my head here), then your vote would be worth .00001 percent of RI, whereas a Californians vote would be worth .000000002 of CA.

And how is that justified?
This way, rather than states having equal votes, people have more equal votes.
Better to err on the side of Cali having more votes. Affects more people.
--Petey

Re:Not really.

[j. andrew rogers]

Okay, a lot of people here (not just the poster I'm responding to) need to get themselves a serious education on the US form of government.

The President is NOT the representative of The People, the President is the Executive of the States -- idiots who vote in the Presidential elections who don't understand this shouldn't be voting. Up until the early 20th century, people didn't even vote for the President, the President was selected by the State governments, and was accomplished via the Electoral College. Short of discarding the Constitution and starting over, this will remain the case, as discarding this would break some of the basic axioms of the US Constitution. The President represents the States, not the People.

Hence why they are called "States" and not "Provinces". A "state" in the US is very much akin to a "country" in the EU, and is a sovereign entity. This is why laws concerning a great many things vary so widely across states. Hell, that's why even the system of Law varies across the States. Beside the default English Common, you officially have Spanish Common, and Code Napoleon (and probably others) which are recognized in some States.

Re:Not really.

[ZeLonewolf]

Umm, how about my vote counting equally to a Californian's vote? The electoral college system was a novel solution to the political landscape of the late 18th century. Today, the United States is not 13 mini-kingdoms but is rather 50 geographic divisions with seamless borders. There is no longer a reason to have any system other than a direct popular vote.

Re:Not really.

[Prior Restraint]

You don't hear much about Kerry campaigning in, say, Georgia, even though it carries 15 electoral votes, more than twice that of, say Idaho (7 votes). That's because Georgia is going to vote for Bush.

Now, if the election were decided on percentage of the total vote or, say, by obtaining a majority (>50%) of the vote, then it might be worth it for Kerry to campaign in urban Georgia areas, such as Atlanta, where he might be able to pick up thousands of votes.

A fairly reasonable compromise would be keeping the electoral college, but eliminating the winner-take-all aspects of it. To go with your example of Georgia: There are 13 voting districts in that state. Make the system "one district, one electoral vote." You'd need to figure out a reasonably fair way to distribute the last two votes, but you'd find that there were suddenly a lot more "battleground" states, because (for example) Ohio's votes would be nearly evenly split between the candidates. This might also have the benefit of getting third-party candidates some more exposure, because you'd find an occasional electoral vote going to Nader or whoever.

Re:Not really.

[Detritus]

Tyranny of the majority is a real problem. It can already be seen at the state level, thanks to the Supreme Court's "one man - one vote" ruling that forced the reorganization of state legislatures. Try living in a state that has one large city and a bunch of rural counties. It easily degenerates to a situation where the only interests that have an effective voice in the legislature are those from the big city and (maybe) its suburbs. Anyone from a rural county can just pound sand.

It's this sort of thing that leads to situations like a bunch of animal rights nuts in London setting the policy on hunting for the countryside.

Re:Not really.

[octover]

You also have all the little or low-population states who, perhaps, get more than their fair share of electoral votes. The minimum number of electoral votes allocated to a state is 3. So, states such as Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, DC, North and South Dakota, and Vermont each gets three votes, regardless of population. Is that fair? In a sense, each voter in such small states has control over a larger fraction of an electoral vote than does a voter in a large state, such as California.

Yes, smaller states residents have control over a larger fraction of the electoral votes. However it is still so small that it isn't like a small state resident has a big advantage over a large state resident. Plus if the electoral college was disbanded and just a simple majority were instituted we would have campaigns centered around small population centers. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles combined population out weighs Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North and South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah combined. See Shape of Days about some reasons to keep the electoral college. Basically it strikes a balance between equal representation for all people and equal representation for all states.

Re:Not really.

[edbarbar]

Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.

It depends on your perspective. The idea was to collect a loose coalition of states that could act together, not to create a huge and powerful federal government.

Personally, I like the idea of a bunch of semi-autonomous states competing for me, working together with a weak federal government. I mean, after all the end of a strong federal government is Soviet Russia.

I think whenever there is a huge monopoly on power, be it in a corporation or in a government, the end result is stagnation.

Re:Not really.

[AuMatar]

I lived in Chicago. Guess what- votes usually ran pretty close between Chicago and Southern Illinois. Southern had plenty of power.

As for hunting policies- won't win any points there. ANyone who enjoys going out and killing animals for sport is a sick fucker.

Re:Not really.

[kwoff]

If we implement direct election, then you campaign in New York, Los Angeles, DC, Detroit and Chicago, and you're done; write your speeches.

The electoral college system exists to protect those states with smaller populations from being forgotten. But with the electoral college, as backwards as it may seem, we're campaigning (of all places), in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida,

I'd just like to ask rhetorically: Where is Detroit? How many cities have Major League Baseball teams in Ohio? In terms of population, how are the states of Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and DC ranked?

(Answers: Michigan; 2; 7th, 8th, 4th, and 50th)

Re:Not really.

[zCyl]

On the other hand, getting rid of the electoral college would be a hit to the third party camp

Getting rid of the electoral college system would require a constitutional amendment. And if you're going to fix it, fix it right, and put in an Approval Voting system. That would put third party candidates in the same boat as candidates from any other party. It would eliminate the concepts of the wasted vote and the spoiler.

Re:Not really.

[zCyl]

There is no longer a reason to have any system other than a direct popular vote.

A direct pluralistic vote solves very few problems intrinsic to our current voting system. By comparison, Approval Voting resolves many of the problems. It would permit multiple political parties with realistic chances of winning, giving voters greater diversity of choice. It would reduce negative campaigning, and force candidates to present themselves and their issues rather than spend the majority of their time debasing their opponents.

Re:Not really.

[chaoaretasty]

Perhaps another way would be to have a runner up college. Like in the Olympics where the best runners up get to go through, thus helping to adjust for any uneven heats.

If this runner up EC had maybe 10% of the votes, the leftover votes from each state get added together and the EC votes are shared out proportionally.

This way states that are strong for either candidate don't have the position where opposition voters don't bother, you still don't have particular populations outbalancing the smaller areas and third parties who wouldn't win in a particular state could still get an EC vote if they have enough support.

Re:Not really.

[(trb001)]

I don't understand it either. The problem, as I see it, came in the Democratic primaries. They spent the entire primary season throwing fluff at each other, not campaigning on any issues. I started having a serious dislike for Kerry when the primaries began and he could talk about nothing but his war record. Anyone who remembers the primary debates I assume would agree here...that's all he campaigned on.

I liked Edwards and Dean, but the electorate apparently didn't think either of them had the political clout to go up against Bush. In the end, Kerry's war record will probably lead to him losing to Bush. It's difficult, next to impossible really, to go up against an incumbent, war time president based on your war record if you're not named Eisenhower or MacArthur. In other words, you need to be a godammed hero.

Kerry ought to be talking social issues...healthcare, reduced senior med costs, education, social security...generally, issues that are more touchy feely. That's where the democrats power lies. I'm a friggin Republican, but I'd listen to someone talk intelligently about that.

--trb

Re:Not really.

[Umrick]

Maine, since 1972, and Nebraska, since 1996, both give EC votes based on proportionate popular vote in the state.

Maine could go 3 EC Votes for Kerry, 1 for Bush etc.

I would rather see a proportionate system like this for EC reform than going to straight popular vote. It would also have the effect of giving those who live in states with a bias a vote. Why would I vote in Maryland? It has always gone Democrat. If my vote could swing a few otherwise lockstep EC votes to my candidate of choice, it might get me out. All theory of course, I vote in any case.

Re:Not really.

[ZeLonewolf]

I didn't preclude that... approval voting IMO is a form of direct popular vote. In any case, it solves the problem whereby someone can get more than 50% of the vote and be elected president... not that this has happened yet, but it's come close.

Re:Not really.

[Petey_Alchemist]

Oh, no doubt. Popular vote is the most logical, although it still has some issues with the definitive nature of the results.

The way I originally understood you, you were arguing for a revised electoral college system. My apologies.

--Petey

Re:Not really.

[danharan]

I'm sure he'll still have his little 2% taking away from the Democrats come Election Day.

Take a look at Nader's pitch to republicans- here's an interview with Pat Buchanan. The biggest myth out there is that Nader is a bleeding heart liberal. Also check out exit polls. It's just not clear cut.

Re:Not really.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Excpet they wouldn't. The populations aren't nearly high enough, your FUD not withstanding.

It's a slight exageration, at worst. It is safe to assume that any Democrat or Republican will get 45% of the vote, even if he doesn't campaign at all.

A Presidential candidate, in a direct election, would need to sway no more than 6% of the vote to win. Since New York, Los Angeles and Chicago represent more than 10% of the American population (and are all highly polarized - they are overwhelmingly Democratic right now), a Republican candidate could, with just the right message, campaign in those three cities and ONLY, and carry a direct election.

It is easier to campaign effectively if you can restrict your campigning to the smallest possible pool of voters (hard to get caught in contradictions if you only talk to three audiences). So a direct election would be characterized by Candidates each campaigning in small, select parts of the country, where a decent swing can be decisive. Which means a few big cities for the Republicans, a somewhat larger number for the Deomcrats (who already have strong support in big cites, thus less swing vote to gain there).

Re:Not really.

[idsofmarch]

Furthermore, the EC system has the inherent flaw of a 'rogue' electorate, wherein a representative can vote in opposition to the popular vote. Lastly, the system creats a winner-take-all system wherein the votes of a minority in a locked-down state, say Democrats in Arizona, are discounted even though they create a significant plurality if counted. If Bush wins by 1 vote in Arizona he gets the entire EC votes. Lastly, most states are still ignored under our system because if you're able to secure California, New York, etc. you can win the election while ignoring Oregon, Washington, and all the other Pacific NW states because they have less votes overall than a single win in California. The EC system was set-up because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the electorate, the same reason for the Senate.

Re:Not really.

[Zeinfeld]

Getting rid of the electoral college system would require a constitutional amendment. And if you're going to fix it, fix it right, and put in an Approval Voting system. That would put third party candidates in the same boat as candidates from any other party. It would eliminate the concepts of the wasted vote and the spoiler.

That would be a good move, it would certainly be good for the Democrats. I suspect that most green and more than half the libertarian votes would move to them on second preferences. At least until the Republicans jettionsed the Religious Reich and Ashcroftism.

But there would still have to be some ballot qualification if the ballot was not going to look even more idiotic as the California gubnatorial one.

I doubt that Nader would run in that scheme. The only reason he gets attention is as a spoiler. The greens would not want him, he does not support their agenda.

Re:Not really.

[blate]

It almost seems like this should be a national policy rather than state-by-state. I guess that gets into states' rights issuesm, a topic on which one could expound for volumes.

I think the whole problem is compounded by the two-party system. I'm at the point where I think it would be wise to disband political parties all together. Candidates should run on their own platforms and not be forced to shoehorn themselves into a particular party's view of the world. Coalitions (say, in Congress) should be formed around individual issues, not along party lines. This might make the system slower, but it also breeds consensus and allows representatives to actually *represent* their constituencies (sp?).

Re:Not really.

[Uberbah]

Something is seriously wrong with a system that comes up with Bush vs. Kerry (or Bush vs. Gore, etc...) as the "best" candidates for president.

People keep saying this, and stuff like "why oh why are we stuck with two choices". It's called democracy. Its called the primaries. How many Republicans ran for president in 2000? How many Democrats ran in 2004? Answer to both: plenty.

Well i for one

[huber]

.... am getting sick of haveing two choices for the person who runs this entire country. i have historically voted for third parties so that perhaps some day we WILL have more than two lousy choices. Seeing how i live in NY i will probably again be voting for a third party. last time i checked, one reason the US was so great was choice.

Re:Well i for one

[QuantumRiff]

I agree, a two party system is a deadlocked system.. How many times have good ideas been shot down, becuase the "other party" came up with it, only to have a similar bill voted in by the other party.. at least 3 partys could make it very difficult for a single party to hold the majority in congress, and laws will have to be passed that are good..

In local and state elections, I always vote for a candidate (if there is one) that is independant, or some other party...

Re:Well i for one

[metrazol]

What you're proposing is a good ol' fashioned consensus government. I can tell you, many countries have tried these and well...

They've all worked beautifully!
Germany, England, Ireland, Spain, Israel, France, Sweden, South Africa, Canada, Australia, and dozes of other democracies actually have people vote for a set of ideas along with, or in place of, individual candidates. Only a few of these nations have absolute majority governments, most have a ruling coalition.

Now, why can't the US have one? Well, that's easy! As the first major democracy we're also the most stubborn. People like the mano a mano Dem vs. Rethuglican debate much more than the actual governance. They'd rather have ads and slurs than progress. Go figure.

Ask anyone you know what "Checks and balances" means in this country and you won't hear "The three branches have distinct powers and interactions so as to moderate the application of authority." What you will hear will probably make you cry. Try it.

Re:Well i for one

[fiannaFailMan]

Well you can forget about actually electing any third party candidate until you change the electoral system. You could start by getting a measure on the ballot in some local or state election to change the electoral system to Single Transferable Voting (aka Proportional Representation) where votes for small parties or independants are not wasted. If it gets adopted and is a success then word of this wonderful system will spread, more places might adopt it, and politics in the US would possibly become a lot less polarised than it is.

Presidential elections will always be a problem though, STV is pretty much useless for elections where there is only one position up for grabs. Only really works for the likes of Parliamentary or Congressional & Senate elections. As long as you have a system where you have one leader elected by popular vote, you're gonna have problems getting that person to represent a good spread of people in the country.

Re:Well i for one

[thefirelane]

How many times have good ideas been ... voted in by the other party..

So, wait.. you are saying this system is broken because good ideas don't get voted in by those who originally posted them? As a citizen, I don't care who votes in good ideas, as long as they get in.

Re:Well i for one

[david.given]

What you're proposing is a good ol' fashioned consensus government. I can tell you, many countries have tried these ... Germany, England, Ireland...

Actually, Britain has a majority government and has had for years; I believe the last time there was a consensus government (not the right term, can't remember what it is right now) was during World War II. But you're right, consensus governments are very popular in a lot of mainland Europe and work really well. I wish we had one.

Currently Britain has two major parties, Labour (in power) and Conservative, and a number of minor parties, the largest of which is the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems are big enough to scare the two big parties. In the 2001 election, Labour got 413 seats, the Conservatives 166 and the Lib Dems 52. (The next biggest party, the Scottish National Party, got 6.)

This means that while the bulk of our political process is, like yours, simply a matter of the two big parties trading voters, they also run the risk of losing voters to the Lib Dems if they do anything unpopular. While they're unlikely to ever get into power any time soon, they make an excellent watchdog for the two major parties, and specialise in things like bringing unpopular topics to the government's attention --- they don't have anything to lose, you see.

If you look at the full results for 2001, you can see that the Lib Dems had the biggest gain. I expect to see a similar large gain in the next general election; Labour has made itself exceedingly unpopular in the Iraq affair, and while alienated Labour voters are unlikely to vote Conservative, the Lib Dems are a much more acceptable alternative.

Personally, I think it's a shame the US doesn't have a similar viable third party. They're great for keeping the big parties on their toes. Alas, I don't think you're ever likely to get one; the two-party system is too heavily ingrained. Of course, you don't go in for party politics the same way we do.

Re:Well i for one

[AuMatar]

Actually, the US in many way does have coalitions- the problem is that they have two utterly static coalitions. They have the Republican coalition- the libertarians, religious right, facists, and rich on one side, and the Democrat coalition- greens, minorities, socialists, communisits, and a few other groups on the other.

The problem is with our coalition parties, they are unable to change alliances or split alliances along issue lines. In a pure coalition system, If parties B and A ally against C, B can be wooed to C's side by comprimises. Or B can agree with C on issue 1 and A on issue 2. With the US version, we don't get either of those- you're stuck with the current arrangement of alliances and you better follow the alliance's lead on all issues or your alliance will screw you over for breaking party lines.

Re:Well i for one

[Jagungal]

I totally agree with the above post, more people in the US should be thinking like this.

The problem is not that Nader is running. The problem is the antiquated, undemocratic voting system in the US that does not allow people to eventually elect the most popular candidate. The candidate that gets in when there is more than two people is the one that splits the vote the least.

In Australia - every election is preferential and it would be hard to imagine anything else. Personally I always give the candidates with leanings like Nader my first vote - but my second and third preferences will then go to my next preferences .. usually more popular candidates. My vote is never wasted by voting for a lesser candidate. The good thing is that occasionally many people think the same and candidates like Nader sometimes get in.

Re:Well i for one

[k_187]

You're right for the most part, but the party system in the US is very weak compared with the rest of the world. Party leadership has some control over its members, but the party will never be able to trump any given member's constituency. Just won't happen. The desire to be reelected will always be forefront in a politician's mind.

I think part of this perception of strong parties is that the US has been coalescing closer to each party's ideological means. The poles of the electorate are shifting, away from a single humped bell curve, toward 2, one slightly left of center, and another right of center. So, while it might seem that the party's are running things, constituency effects are pulling pols closer to the party positions. Now where this shift in the electorate is coming from is debatable. I haven't seen conclusive evidence of any one source. It could be that the party's are shifting and voters are then moving their preferences toward the parties. The converse could be true, the parties following the people. it'd be interesting to know though.

Re:Well i for one

[node 3]

.... am getting sick of haveing two choices for the person who runs this entire country. i have historically voted for third parties so that perhaps some day we WILL have more than two lousy choices. Seeing how i live in NY i will probably again be voting for a third party. last time i checked, one reason the US was so great was choice.

I too want choice very much. However, Nader is not, and never has been (and the way things are going, never will be) a choice. Yes, his name will be on the ballot for yet another presidential election, and probably will be in future elections, but he is not a option. In 2004, Kerry might win the election and Bush might win the election, but Nader will not, no matter how many alternate universes you imagine between now and November, win the election.

Nader is not a choice. He's a false choice. If you think Bush and Kerry are so alike that you don't care which you get, then vote Nader as a protest vote (in that case, he's just a human equivalent of voting for Mickey Mouse). However, if you prefer Kerry over Bush, or Bush over Kerry, don't waste your vote on Nader.

Put another way, a vote for Nader is a vote against whoever you would have voted for between the R and D sides of the ballot.

Re:Well i for one

[Anonymous Coward]

People like the mano a mano Dem vs. Rethuglican debate much more than the actual governance. They'd rather have ads and slurs than progress.

Well done, Jamison! Discrediting your own argument in only two sentences -- truly a remarkable accomplishment.

Re:Well i for one

[xelah]

You could start by getting a measure on the ballot in some local or state election to change the electoral system to Single Transferable Voting (aka Proportional Representation) where votes for small parties or independants are not wasted.

Actually, STV and PR are not the same thing. PR applies mostly to groups of electees (legislatures, say) and refers to the practice of choosing those elected in proportion to the votes cast. So, for example, if 20% of people vote for party one then 20% of those elected are from party one. I imagine that if you Americans abolished your rather silly electoral college system for a simple vote tally you could reasonably call that PR, too.

STV is the system where your vote is transferred to your second (or lower) preference candidate if your first preference is eliminated. This is good for new or small parties because electors no longer have to worry that by voting for such a candidate (Ralph Nader, say) they are making it more likely that their last preference candidate (George Bush, say) will win than if they voted for their second preference candidate (John Kerry, say).

Who cares?

[MoOsEb0y]

I mean, it's not like Nader ever gets a significant part of the people to vote for him. Besides, the vast majority of votes are bought into by special interest groups anyways.

Re:Who cares?

[fiannaFailMan]

When you lose an election by a couple of hundred votes (like Al Gore supposedly did in 2000), every vote counts.

Re:Who cares?

[Lars T.]

If just one percent of those Floridians who voted Nader had voted for Gore instead, Bush would have been the one to demand a recount.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's such a pity that people see it like that.

The theoretical point of a democracy is that everyone votes for who they want and whichever party best represents the majority gets in.

In practice, you end up with a two-party system and those two parties are powerful enough that you're more voting against a party than for it. There needs to be a system (such as preferential voting) which allows the voting to happen as per theory.

Re:Who cares?

[Brandybuck]

Nader decided the last election. Okay, considering the difference in votes, it could have been Brown or Buchanan instead, but I'm assuming it was because of Nader. Now think about this for just a tiny bit. The Democrats lost the election because there was a significant number of liberal voters disillusioned with the Democrat Party bullshit. But did the Democrat Party learn anything from this? Of course not! It's business as usual this time, only in double helpings. Their only outreach towards their disaffected members seems to be "hey, at least we're not Bush!"

But the Democrats aren't the only stupid party. The Republicans still act like Perot was a one-shot coincidence. The people are getting fed up with the two major parties, and if they don't start realizing it, they'll go the way of the Whigs and Federalists.

Slashdot: Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters.

[2TecTom]

No, no it doesn't. Just ask Diebold.

Has /. gone soft? Aren't most geeks actually "unpolitical"?

Fair my butt...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure if Perot were running the question "Should Perot just call it quits?" wouldn't even have been asked. It'd be "The system is so screwed! Why are the Republicans trying to stamp out competition! Don't they realize this is necessary to a free society!"

But no, it affects Kerry, so it's "Nader should just give up."

Re:Fair my butt...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're presenting a straw man argument.

At this point, I don't think the Democratic argument against Nader is that he's trying to mess with the long-established two-party system.

The progressives feel that this election is too important to be lost "just to take a stand." I believe it was Howard Dean, in his debate with Nader, that said "You don't fix the curtains while the house is on fire."

The Democrats are going for a pragmatic argument at the moment, while Nader is remaining an idealist. I can see both sides.

Re:Fair my butt...

[jackspenn]

Fact is a liberal pol-sci friend of mind, Matt in PA volunteered to work with the Kerry campaign and the DNC to invalidate over 20,000 signatures out of 40,000, just so they could push Nader of the ballot in PA. There is no way that half of the signatures were invalid. There is something wrong about the Democrats snuffing out the voice of independents and 3rd party candidates to force a marshmallow of a candidate down our thoughts. I am a Libertarian and I am voting for Bush this time, but I would have voted for Lieberman (D-CT) if he was nominated. The reason is simple, I believe the War or Terrorism is the most important issue in this election and I trust Bush to win it, while I don't trust Kerry. Lieberman would be strong in fighting the War on Terrorism and would have pushed back against the huge Congressional spending bills in a Republican Congress. From where I am standing the DNC is more closed minded then the RNC right now. I watched how the Democrats blasted one of there own, when they resorted to calling Zell Miller a racist after he endorsed Bush. Moderates like Miller and Lieberman are the guys on the Democrat bench that could win national elections, but the Extreme-Left refuses to consider them and the result is going to be a huge Bush win. Mark my words, it isn't even going to be close. The question big government liberals should ask themselves is "Would they prefer a moderate Democrat or a Republican?", the majority of Americans like myself will never vote for a big government candidate like Dean or a puppet/marshmallow like Kerry.

Re:Fair my butt...

[commodoresloat]

I believe the War or Terrorism is the most important issue in this election and I trust Bush to win it

Where do these people come from? I don't like Kerry one bit either, but Bush has done nothing to show that he deserves any American's trust in the war on terrorism. News flash -- his unprovoked war in Iraq has actually increased terrorism. And while his actions in Afghanistan have helped destroy some of al-Qaeda's leadership, the organization has gotten more resilient as new leaders have emerged, and bin Laden has inspired hosts of other terrorist groups, and his ideology has gotten stronger. And don't forget that Bush gave al Qaeda a month to regroup and abandon bases and training camps that US officials knew the locations of because he wanted to invade Iraq first! These are just some basic military realities; never mind the long series of scandals and embarassments this administration has led us through. How is it, after 3 years of miserable failure, people still trust George W. Bush to win the war on terrorism?

Re:Fair my butt...

[cryptochrome]

Perot came from a populist-centrist approach with a slight-right bias. He was an active philanthropist and has been especially praised for his attention to education. He researched and offered refreshingly new solutions for many domestic issues. He was breathtakingly energetic - part of his downfall but also his appeal. I knew many democrats that were very interested in Perot. Of course it didn't help that he was so eccentric that he actually dropped out and rejoined the race. It seemed flaky and ruined his chances. He probably should have started out by running for Lt. Governor of Texas instead of president, but I guess he thought to big for that.

While the Republicans may have lost more votes to him than the Democrats in his first campaign, they both lost votes. He received not a single electoral vote. But he really did give them both a run for their money.

Nader, on the other hand, seems like just a grouch, and comes from a way-left angle. Not a whole lot of republican votes swinging his way. Any third candidate is by definition a challenge to the two party-system, but Perot is the only one in recent times to really stood a chance. For sure Nader never will.

He's off in MA too...

[jrpascucci]

Reports are that NECN (New England Cable News) has reported that Nader has been disqualified in MA. Another source.

Nothing on NECN's website, which is affiliated with that Bastion of Truth, the Boston Globe, so it's not a surprise.

Re:He's off in MA too...

[kalidasa]

Well, since the Globe carried this story, maybe you should just give it some time.

Quits?

[addaon]

He's not running to win. He's running to make a point.

Political Topic

[Plake]

Okay, politics is fine but what's with the American theme, there are readers from other countries who read /. that most likely do care about politics.

Just my 0.02.

Re:Political Topic

[joranbelar]

Quoth CmdrTaco:
With the US Presidential Election coming up, we've had a lot of story submissions that we would like to post, but they don't fit very well on the Slashdot main page. To address this, we'll be running special political coverage between now and the election in our new Politics subsection of Slashdot.

The whole purpose of this section is to cover the upcoming US election. A red-white-and-blue theme is not particularly controversial in this case.

Re:Political Topic

[beaverbrother]

This is on American politics. I guess they could expand it to world politics, but it would be hard to keep track of.

Re:Political Topic

[idsofmarch]

Bbecause Americans (and the average slashdotter) barely understand our own politics, there's not a chance in hell we could follow anyone else's.

Debates Format

[parvenu74]

I totally agree that two options are not enough. Furthermore, why, when several of the "third party options" are on the ballots in all 50 states, or at least enough to theoretically carry the election (for example, if everyone decides to vote Libertarian in November then we'll be calling a guy named Badnarik the President), why are they not allowed to be in the "official" presidential debates? When Ross Perot got into the debates in 1992 he succeeded in getting the other two parties to focus on trade issues (NAFTA) more than foreign policy (Iraq). I don't think there will ever be a President from the Green, Libertarian, or Reform parties, but they should have the opportunity to have their voices heard in the debates!

Re:Debates Format

[RobertB-DC]

Furthermore, why, when several of the "third party options" are on the ballots in all 50 states ... why are they not allowed to be in the "official" presidential debates?

Just FYI, the first Presidential debate occurred this past weekend, between the Green Party candidate David Cobb and the Libertarians' Michael Badnarik. C-Span covered it -- there's still an audio/video link from their homepage.

Not that the current duopoly will ever allow a third-party player in the debates again. But they're very handy on the local level. A friend of mine, Gary Page, ran as a Green against a shoe-in Republican, a placeholder Democrat, and a lost-in-the-clouds Libertarian. A local group (Realtors, I think) held a debate with all four. Though the Republican won, Gary's performance was so strong that the Democrats recruited him to run for Congress on their behalf this year.

Keep an eye on the grass roots... they're coming up Green.

Re:Debates Format

[welshsocialist]

The debates are managed by a group called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). To get into the debates, a candidate needs at least 15% to get in. (To put that in perspective, Ralph Nader has been polling 3%-5% in most polls i've seen; he got 2.7% in 2000).

The grandparent post notes correctly that Ross Perot got in the debates in 1992. The reason he got in was that he was invited by GHW Bush & Clinton.

There had been lawsuits against the CPD to overturn this rule. Perot sued after the 1996 election. Pat Buchanan, John Hagelin, and Nader have sued as well. I believe that Harry Browne and Howard Philips have sued as well.

AFAIK, most of these suits are still being decided.

(In the interest to help non-USA slashdotters, Pat Buchanan was the 2000 candidate of the Reform Party. John Hagelin ran for the Natural Law Party, Harry Browne was the Libertarian candidate; Howard Philips ran for the Constitution Party. Ralph Nader ran for the Green Party.)

More than two choices?

[Jerph]

It will never happen.

Re:More than two choices?

[huber]

that link assumes that i care about politcal parties in the first place. i don't, and i know a lot of other people that dont either. I would like to vote for the best person reguardless of political party. Political parties were actually discouraged by the founding fathers becuase they knew that it would create the system that we are in now. perhaps you should think for yourself for once.

Re:Slashdot: Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters

[Usquebaugh]

Welcome to the new red neck /.

After 4 years of Bush..

[NanoGator]

.. I'm leary of anybody whose name rhymes with Vader.

Re:After 4 years of Bush..

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Except that the entire "I am your father" thing applies better to Bush.

Why is he still running?

[Quinn_Inuit]

Nader ran in 2000 largely on the theory that there was no serious difference between the two parties. 4 years, 2 wars, and 1 Atty. General Ashcroft later, I think his theory has been proved stunningly innacurate to all but his most ardent supporters.

Personally, I wish he'd just go back to making the world safer for consumers and workers again. He was pretty good at that. Not perfect, but good.

Re:Why is he still running?

[Anonymous Coward]

its law of averages:

one president was afraid to do jack shit because of a great economy. once that steam ran out at the end of his term, someone had to actually take action. (for right or wrong)

yep we had two wars. two wars clinton had a lot to do with in the first place.

why is it that democrats hold clinton to god like status (when he wasnt that great of a president) but blame bush for making any actual decision.

guess making no decisions is better than actually doing something

Re:Why is he still running?

[Guppy06]

"2 wars"

The Iraq war is the big one on people's minds right now. Kerry voted in favor of it, and last month he said he would have voted in favor of it again had he knew then what he knows now. Not much difference there.

"1 Atty. General Ashcroft later,"

Kerry has also voiced support for a sequel to and/or continuation of the USA PATRIOT Act, not to mention the fact he voted for the act to begin with.

"I think his theory has been proved stunningly innacurate to all but his most ardent supporters."

By whose standards?

Re:Why is he still running?

[Uberbah]

The Iraq war is the big one on people's minds right now. Kerry voted in favor of it, and last month he said he would have voted in favor of it again had he knew then what he knows now. Not much difference there.

Why and how to go to war are decisions that are just as important as wether or not you declare war in the first place.

Kerry has also voiced support for a sequel to and/or continuation of the USA PATRIOT Act, not to mention the fact he voted for the act to begin with.

As if that law was the only reason to be wary of Ashcroft.

By whose standards?

By anyone who's not a complete moron that's been in a coma for the last 4 years?

Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best choice

[reporter]

Like all other American citizens, Ralph is entitled to run for president. Anyone who demands that he quit is un-American and simply refuses to accept the great Western tradition of democracy.

By the way, none of the current candidates are worth a hoot.

I recommend that you write the following protest vote.

president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce

Though they cannot win because they have not registered for candidacy by the rules of most states, if enough people vote for O'Reilly and Bruce, they will have a profound "Perot Effect". Though Ross Perot did not win, he did force the Republicans to adopt most of his ideas in the "Contract with America".

If you support the ideas that O'Reilly and Bruce espouse, then please write them on the ballot.

Feel free to pass this message to as many people as possible.

Real Third Party

[tail.man]

There is one party that will be on all the ballots and is the oldest, largest third party in the country. The Libertarian party. They actually have folks in office.

Don't waste your vote, vote Libertarian.

http://www.lp.org/

Re:Real Third Party

[Bastian]

I hear liberitarians' fortunes are among the oldest and largest in the country, too.

Maybe when I, too, can cast my ballot while dining on caviar and fine wine from within my ivory tower, far from the plebian masses and the need to care about them.

But, like most Americans, I live close to the social safety net. Close enough to be glad it's there. Especially with the economy in the shakes it's been in.

I think I'll 'waste my vote' on a party that agrees that I shouldn't have to live in a cardboard box.

Re:Real Third Party

[tail.man]

OK. The economy would not be in a mess if the gov was small.

There is no difference between the republicrats, it is a good cop bad cop game and only idiots don't see that the right left paradigm is an illusion.

Go ahead and vote for the party that wants you in guantanimo.

W and K are cousins, members of the same elite club (skull and bones) and agree on everything.

When they start the next war and draft you or your kiddies, remember what you said...

Gov is good, my loving government will take care of me! They wouldn't take advantage of me or lie to me!

Re:Real Third Party

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, if they've so much money, why are we leading one of the biggest grass-roots campaigns? And why is our presidential candidate touring the country in a cramped sedan? And why are we scraping money together for tv ads in select cities because we cant afford national advertising? Even if your completely unfounded Republocrat FUD was justified. Id rather live in a cardboard box than a pine box in the ground. Theres only one anti-war anti-draft Candidate and its Michael Badnarik Dont let the biased, bi-partisan news system tell you otherwise.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hey Kids

[captnitro]

I had a debate about this today, actually.

He was so insistent that everybody who didn't vote Green was ignorant and controlled by the corporations. He used the word ignorant. Nader will save us, he said. Vote Green. Nader for President.

"Nader isn't running as the Green party candidate this year, man. He hasn't been the endorsed candidate for more than a year."

Decisions are made by those who show up.

To do my daily part of that, I read the news. You can be informed and Republican, informed and Democrat, informed and Green, Brown, Libertarian, whatever. Just be informed.

http://www.votecobb.org/

Re:Hey Kids

[RobertB-DC]

He was so insistent that everybody who didn't vote Green was ignorant and controlled by the corporations. He used the word ignorant. Nader will save us, he said. Vote Green. Nader for President.

It's painful for me, as an occasional Green activist, when people still associate Nader with the Green ticket. He was very helpful to the party for the last two elections, primarily because of his name recognition.

But somewhere along the way (or possibly all the way along), he forgot that this isn't a Perot-style one-man show. Nader has an agenda that somewhat matches ours, but we have highly divergent ideas of how that agenda should be promulgated. He thinks it's all about the next election. We (or at least, I) believe it's all about the next generation.

The Green Party grew up this year at their national convention. It was no Repo-Demo style coronation, but a raucous exercise in true grass-roots democracy. In the end, one-time Texan David Cobb and his message of "build the party from the bottom up" won out.

I'm looking forward to the next election cycle... not the next Presidential election, but the next local election. Now that people know who we are, and we have leadership that's visibly dedicated to building the party, we can keep electing Greens to the local school board, city council, state legislature... and on up to the national level.

It's a great time to be Green!

Re: Running to make a point

[parvenu74]

That's a perfectly valid reason to run! If all the /.'ers joined up get a candidate whose platform is centered on open source software and technology at all levels of government as a means of saving money, while that candidate won't win she might convince the two big parties to pay more attention to open source issues, which is a win in it's own right. It's all about free speech and free exchange of ideas. I would think a bunch of linux nerds would understand that concept!

Always was

[Anonymous Coward]

Ralph's big reason for running this time is to get attention. The 'creating a third party' argument is moot because the Green Party wouldn't run him again so he's running on his own.

Only problem is, this publicity stunt is only getting him negative attention. He's not making any points; he's not making anybody more likely to pay attention to his ideas and put time into considering his opinions.

But I honestly believe that, although he can be a bit fanatical at times, Ralph Nader is (at least in theory) smart enough to realize that he is nearing the acme of counter-productivity. Still, he stays in the race.

Why?

The only answer I can think of is that he has become a sort of political Marilyn Manson - an attention whore. He doesn't really care what people think of him as long as people are thinking about him.

Finally a non-offensive new color scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OT, but so what? I like the blue. I think the Politics section should be permanent, and more than the US should be covered.

Re:Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best cho

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't want anybody to adopt the ideas of the worst of the Faux News host.

Nader is also not going to be on the MA ballot...

[PapaBoojum]

...unless his campaign sues and is successful.

Nadar is an egomaniac

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no explanation except pride and egomania, and of course anger, to explain why Nadar would accept Most of his money and Most of his signatures from Republicans, accross the board.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why?

[Tony]

I believe Nader stays in the race because he believes the US government does not represent the US citizens. Basically, we're given the choice between two more-or-less similar candidates that seem to cater to special interest groups.

I admire Mr. Nader. I voted for him last time. I'd vote for him this time, as AK is definitely voting for Bush (AKA "Destroying America's Future") and my vote is not going to count anyway; but I am voting for Kerry just in case a good portion of the citizens of Alaska come to their collective senses.

Hope springs eternal.

Nader mathematically eliminated?

[chongo]

Since Nader is off the ballots in:

AZ, CA, GA, ID, IN, IL, MD, MI, MO, OK, OR, PA, NC, SC, TX, VA

Nader cannot win 259 of the Electoral Votes.

There are 538 total Electoral Votes and you need 270 to win the Presidency.

If the NECN (New England Cable News) report that Nader has been disqualified in MA is correct, then Nader cannot win 271 votes. This would mean that even if Nader won every state in which he was on the ballot, Nader would still fail to win the Presidency.

Re:Nader mathematically eliminated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if he caused a 3-way-tie. If no candidate gets 270 votes it'll end up in the house. It's unlikely that Nader would win there, but possible.

Also, another unlikely event is that delegates the states send cast their vote for nader (not likely, but it could happen at least from a few states where it is still legal).

Re:Nader mathematically eliminated?

[ComputerSlicer23]

I only point this out, because you are making the preposterious assumption that Nader could carry all those states. If you are willing to accept that, it's just as plausible, that there will not be a majority for a single candidate for President at the end of the electoral college.

In the case of a non-majority after the electoral college vote, the House of Representatives votes as per the rules in the XII Amendment. I'm not sure I understand the rules properly, but it looks like each state gets a single vote (so how a state with two representatives who disagree picks, I don't know).

The same set of votes takes place on Vice President, and is independent of the vote for the President. If the President fails to get a majority, but the Vice President gets a majority, the VP will become the acting President until such time as a President is qualified (this is a conglomeration of my reading of Amendments XII and XX). If neither a Vice President or a President qualifies, then Congress is empowered to enact a law to handle this case. As far as I know the 20th Amendment is the only way in which a person could become president who was never actually part of an election. It's happened once in our history. Gerald Ford was never elected President, but was chose as a replacement VP when Spirrow Agnew resigned. Then Nixon resigned, and Ford became President for the rest of the term, never having faced a vote for the term. (I'm fairly sure I got all that in history correct).

Kirby

Does Every Vote Count The Same?

[4of12]

does every vote count?

Due to the electoral college system, votes in swing states are much more valuable. Hence, note how swing states are getting a monotonous pounding from the big campaigns.

The knife edge balance in the swing states that is affected by Ralph's fly-weight is the reason he's of such interest.

Democrats and Republicans alike believe Ralph will bleed more voters away from Kerry than from Bush.

Hence, you get Democrats angry at Nader, despite his left-friendly agenda that many Dems like, and trying to keep him off the ballot.

And you get Republicans trying to help Nader get on the ballot, despite their utter disgust at Nader's policies.

If we didn't have the electoral system, maybe Ralph could run on his own merits instead of being an artificial swing piece.

Every vote for Nader counts...

[ConceptJunkie]

... as a vote for Bush. We learned the rules of that game in 1992.

There are many better ways to count votes than by the simple plurality defined by the U.S. Constitution. As it exists, I think the system pretty much guarantees a two-party system. Perot got something like a fifth of the popular vote, but no electoral votes. Of course in a single winner-take-all election with no runoffs, that was fair, but it would be nice if your vote for a third party candidate didn't automatically translate into an effective vote for one of the two big party candidates. People likely to vote for Kerry, but would prefer Nader are effectively voting for Bush (just as people likely to vote for Bush 41 but voted for Perot helped Clinton win in '92).

Re:Every vote for Nader counts...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Go Nader!

Re: Running to make a point

[rscrawford]

Nope, she probably wouldn't win. But she might pull enough votes away from the candidate who might care about such issues to swing the election toward the candidate who doesn't give a damn about them.

2000 redux, anyone?

democrats

[syrinx]

I find this whole "keep Nader off the ballot" thing by the Democrats despicable... how can anyone justify specifically trying to silence a political view?

If they could get away with it, they'd be trying to take Republicans off the ballot too.

<sarcasm type='liberal arrogance'> After all, all *intelligent* people vote Democrat anyway, so we shouldn't need all these confusing choices. </sarcasm>

Re:democrats

[blate]

Hey, all Nader had to do was get enough petitions signed in each state. He didn't. Regardless of what the Democrats think, say, or do, if enough people were in favor of Nader, he'd be on the ballot in 50 states, hands down.

It's easy to blame things on parties or liberals or conservatives, but sometimes a rose is just a rose. Nader didn't get enough signatures. He loses. That's it.

Re:democrats

[Wubby]

While I'm voting for brand Y in this election (as opposed to the incumbent. brand X), I would agree. It's NOT right for one side to tell another that they can't be on the ballot.

Now for the expected counter arguement...

It's just as despicable and also unethical for republicans to falsely assert their choice for Nader just to have votes subtracted from their primary opponent.

But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.

Re:democrats

[base3]

But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.

A Bush reelection then would have been interesting. I figured that had to have at least promised him a cabinet post (Commerce?) or the ambassadorship to the Court of St. James to withdraw "for family reasons."

Re:democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

how can anyone justify specifically trying to silence a political view?

Have you read the Patriot Act lately?

Re:democrats

[deanj]

Well, considering that there were people getting into "collection" activities for Nader, only to later find out these same jokers were PURPOSELY "collecting" bogus signatures....yeah, I'd say that there were people actively trying to keep him off the ballot.

Re:democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. The Republicans fought to keep Perot out of the 92 and 96 elections. In 96 they even threatened the Democrats that they'd get Nader into the debates if the dems didn't help them keep Perot out (personally I would've liked to see a 4-way debate). So both parties collaborated to keep all 3rd party condidates out of the debates.

This year Republicans are fighting to get Nader on the ballots! (even gathering signatures supporting him) If there's one thing slimier than trying to keep an opponent out, it's actively supporting a candidate that you don't intend to vote for in an attempt to sandbag another candidate that you don't like.

I say get rid of the two party system and have all the debates feature the top 4 or 5 candidates. Let's get some people up there that will say what they actually think.

Re:democrats

[Politburo]

FWIW, it's been discovered that many groups working to get Nader on the ballot are funded by the GOP. Both sides are playing dirty here.

Re:democrats

[deanj]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that "playing dirty".

Getting someone on a ballot isn't playing dirty. Forcing them off a ballot is. Perot, Nader, LaRouche, whoever... doesn't matter. If these same groups could keep Bush off the ballot the same way, they would.

If conservatives were doing this to a liberal candidate, people would be screaming bloody murder. Same old far-left tactic.... Supress the voice of the people you don't agree with.

Re:democrats

[Politburo]

A policital party working to get another party's candidate on the ballot, simply to weaken their main opposition, is playing dirty. Trying to take someone off the ballot because they will weaken your position is equally dirty.

If conservatives were doing this to a liberal candidate, people would be screaming bloody murder. Same old far-left tactic.... Supress the voice of the people you don't agree with.

Swap liberal and conservative, change left to right. It's simple to make baseless attacks, isn't it?

If these same groups could keep Bush off the ballot the same way, they would.

As I understand, Nader does not meet the satutory requirements to appear on the ballot in many states. If Bush didn't meet the requirements, I wouldn't expect him on the ballot either. If Nader can get state courts to overrule the respective state legislatures, then by all means, he should be allowed on, just as Lautenberg replaced Torricelli after the statutory deadline in 2002 by order of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Re:Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best cho

[HebrewToYou]

Bill O'Reilly is an analyst, not a reporter.

His show is merely a forum for his opinions and that of his guests. He has never claimed to report the news. He provides a point of view. If you don't like it, fine, don't watch. But to claim his show is Faux News is to laud The Daily Show as Real News.

He's a brilliant guy with some excellent insight into the modern world.
He's not always right, but at least he's vocal.

The more parties, the less democratic

[Gary Destruction]

Suppose that there were five parties on the ballot.

Party A gets 15% of the vote
Party B gets 20% of the vote
Party C gets 15% of the vote
Party D gets 20% of the vote
Party E gets 30% of the vote

Combined, Parties A through D have 70% of the total vote. But it's party E who wins because it has 30% of the total vote.

Re:The more parties, the less democratic

[HebrewToYou]

A very good point, Gary Destruction.

I truly enjoy our two-party republic here in the good ol' United States of America. You do not have to vote for one of the two major candidates, but they are the ones who will most likely take office. I am a bit worried, however, that we have people calling for a change to a coalition-based government...

Coalition governments have a hard time ruling since they require a great deal of consensus between very different people. Such a situation usually results in stagnation and impotency. Look at Israel for an example of that. They are constantly holding elections due to a coalition government falling out of favor.

As many Curb Your Enthusiasm fans know, a compromise is considered the situation whereby both parties are equally dissatisfied. This is why I'm such a big fan of this country! It allows me to be thoroughly appaled at the actions, legislature, and judicial rulings set down by liberals while still accepting their right to hold power. It is this system of compromise that allows our government to work, despite what many /.ers believe.

It will be a country of red and blue states forever.
Or at least until Democrats stop preventing Nader from being on the ballot.

Re:The more parties, the less democratic

[AuMatar]

Only if you have majoirty rules voting. The US is the only one who does. Which is unfortunate- its mathematicly provable the worst system.

A simple replacement would be a runoff- if no party gets 51%, then the top two candidates have an election between them- in this case E and the higher of B or D. Since there's only 2, one of these must get the majority of votes, and we end up with a more accurate choice for the winner. There's even better systems, such as concordiat, but those are harder to explain quickly.

Re:The more parties, the less democratic

[Madcapjack]

Yes. That's right. And so what? Right now if Party A (the Republicans) get 49% of the vote in a state, and Party B (the Democrats) gets 45% of the vote in a state, and Party C (say, the Greens) gets 6% of the vote, party A wins, despite that Party C and Party B have a combined vote of 51%. Please tell me how this is different from your scenario, except that other parties have more than "no chance in hell" to win an election?

Re:The more parties, the less democratic

[atomicdragon]

So beforehand, parties A and B can predict they have no chance of winning against party E and then join forces by compromise on issues to form party AB with roughly 35% of the vote. This is because it is better to win and get some of the issues your way instead of losing and getting nothing. Party E doesn't want to lose completely either, so they join forces with party D, and end up with roughly 50% of the votes in another compromise. Then the party AB will start moving towards party C's views to gain more votes. The result: a two party system.

If you have an election where the single party/person with the most votes wins, it will tend to a two party system as parties start joining or adopting views from another party in order to get more votes. It is considered a "law" (a bit strong of a description in my opinion) of political science, unfortunately the name escapes me at the moment.

It is also why I think third party votes aren't necessarily wasted even if the independent person doesn't ever win. In an effort to get a few more votes, one of the two parties will start shifting a tiny bit to better cover the views of significant third parties.

Re:The more parties, the less democratic

[Anonymous Coward]

E only wins a minority government and has to work with, say, B or D (for 50%), or A and C (for 60%), to retain its position as government (its bills being supported by a majority). That makes it *more* democratic -- there more parties representing more segments of the population, and despite having far less than a majority of seats, still holding some real power, because E can't risk losing its coalition/allies by tabling bills they don't all agree on.

Electoral

[kenp2002]

With those missing states Nader cannot win the electoral vote as far as I can tell. His staff will do the count and if he can't win he'll still stay in to draw votes from the Dems. The republicans cannot afford Nader to drop out if the race is as close as it looks. This puts Nader in a position to get F'ed by either party but if he wants to garner favor with the left he'll drop, if he wants conservatives he'll stay in.

Every vote counts...

[dtfinch]

...for Bush, as usual with the left wing minority parties.

Re:Every vote counts...

[finkployd]

This is no different than Perot and the Bush vs Clinton election. Clinton would have easily lost had it not been for him.

Re:Every vote counts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and thank god term limits eventually put an end to our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity.

Just imagine how much more war and poverty we could have had if we had given Bush Sr. a second term, then voted in Bush Jr. 4 years early. But noooooo, some people had to vote for Perot. Traitors.

Re:Every vote counts...

[finkployd]

Prosperity I'll give you, but what on earth did Clinton have to do with that? Are you one of those people who thinks the president has even moderate influence over the economy? If so why did Clinton cause it to tank before he even left office?

Peace? Well we weren't in a bloody war with Iraq true. But we did bomb the hell out of random countries and lose quite a few men in failed "peacekeeping operations", many of which did not have UN support.

We also passed that great DMCA law and tried like hell to destroy the US technology industry with the Clipper Chip (which frightens me even more than the Patroit Act, at least citizens have the ability to get around some of that).

So yeah, Bush sucks, we agree there. But come on, Clinton wasn't some hero president who saved the country. He fucked it up just as much as they all do. His primary redeeming quality is at least he had fun doing it.

Finkployd

Re:Moot point

[Bastian]

Nader is running independent. The Green Party wouldn't support him this year.

So even if he does get 5% of the vote, that isn't going to do anything for anybody, unless that somebody is Ralph Nader's ego.

So yeah, find someone else to vote for if you're interested in a third party.

The last time we had a viable third party option

[jgardn]

The last time we had a viable third party we elected Abraham Lincoln. The third party was the Republican Party. The result was Civil War.

I really wish we had a no-party system as that would be the best. We should judge each candidate individually, not based on their party. They should go to Washington DC representing us, not their party.

Like he had a chance in Idaho

[omibus]

Idaho has to be one of the most republican states in the union. What would he get there anyway? 3 votes?

Re:Like he had a chance in Idaho

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a funny man. according to the polls, nader has 6% of the vote in idaho, it's one of his most popular states by percentage. republican != coporate whore, many despise bush for that reason (yet they'll vote for him anyways) see http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Correction: Nader is on MI ballot

[mooredav]

"This means he's off the ballot in 16 states: AZ, CA, GA, ID, IN, IL, MD, MI, MO, OK, OR, PA, NC, SC, TX and VA."

Nader failed to get on the Michigan ballot as a Reform candidate, but he succeeded as an independent.

In 2000, Al Gore won 51.3% of the Michigan vote, Bush won 46.1%, and Nader won 2%.

What the US really needs ..

[Jagungal]

is a preferential voting system.

Then every vote would count.

I still can't believe people are not pushing for this, although I also understand that the major parties would not like it.

The current un-democratic system ensures that it is always going to be a two party race. Sad really.

Would it not be better to be able to vote for say Nader first .. then your choice of candidate second. That way the person that people most want is the person that gets in - not the person who splits the votes the least.

Re:What the US really needs ..

[Guppy06]

"is a preferential voting system. Then every vote would count."

Do you still beat your wife?

• Yes
• Mostly Yes, a little bit No
• Yes and No equally
• Mostly No, a little bit Yes
• No

Preferential voting only gives you the ability to voice your preferences relative to the other options. Listing an absolute preference, like "They all suck," still isn't an option.

Re:What the US really needs ..

[Jagungal]

You are obviously struggling with the difference between a survey and a vote. Voting is pretty straight forward, you don't have to try to quantify things.

If you don't want to vote for anyone .. then just don't tick anything. Let someone else make the decision for you.

Got nothing to do with preferential voting though.

Go do some reading on preferential voting and come back when your a touch more educated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting/

Re:What the US really needs ..

[Guppy06]

"Voting is pretty straight forward, you don't have to try to quantify things."

Yeah, issues smissues.

"If you don't want to vote for anyone .. then just don't tick anything. Let someone else make the decision for you."

Why bother with democracy, then?

Why is my opinion of "I don't want any of these candidates in my government" somehow worth less than yours?

How do you get government by consent of the governed when only those people who give their consent to the ballot are able to have any influence in it? You can't be said to give your consent if you are unable to withold it, and the people who don't vote because they can't stand any of the candidates are just as bound by results of the election as that minority that votes.

And I do mean "minority."

"Got nothing to do with preferential voting though."

From your link (when corrected):

A ranked ballot or preferential voting system is a type of voting system in which each voter casts their vote by ranking candidates in order of preference.

As I said in my post and tried to show in my analogy, preferential voting is flawed in the way that it only allows voters to state their preference with respect to the other options given. If the voter doesn't want any of the options given (their preference in absolute terms), they are still left with no true voice in their government by your mechanism.

and Clinton had a few wars and Reno

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes Reno better than Ashcroft?

What point?

[roystgnr]

Is the point "Nader doesn't understand game theory or plurality voting"? Because if so, message received!

Re:What point?

[MindStalker]

He has stated several times that he doesn't care if he makes Kerry lose. He sees Kerry as equal to Bush, so it doesn't matter to him.

Re:What point?

[finkployd]

Funny I know a lot of people who voted for Bush and a lot of people who voted for Gore in the last election who feel the same this time around. I know I do. I'm sorry I just cannot delude myself into thinking that either is really going to be any better than the other. Let's face it, so far the campaign has been as follows:

Kerry: "I was a war hero"
Bush: "well, maybe you weren't but I am an anti-terrorism hero now, and I oppose gay marriage"
Kerry: "I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other, but I can say that I would do things mighty differently with the economy and the iraq war"
Bush: "like what?"
Kerry: "errr.....I won't say until I'm elected"

And so on. Real inspiring.

every vote counts

[cadelor]

In the US you need to win states, then each state has a number of votes in the electoral college right? So how can Nader ever hope to get anywhere if he has to top the poll everywhere? Yes ok hes making a point by standing, but is he not damaging Kerry in the process, someone who from what I have read about him he has more in common with?

If the system was based purely on the number of votes cast all over the country, none of this electoral college, and if PR/transferable voting was used then I could understand his candidacy, and there would probably be plenty of other candidates too. But with the current system if you are not the GOP or Democrat candidate you don't stand a chance. And with the system set up in their favour I can't see electoral reform coming.

The other thing that I don't get with the electoral college system is that it is possible for a candidate to get more votes than the other guy but still loose due to what states the votes came from and how they get allocated. (please dont mention the Al Gore case again!). Do those of you in the US think the electoral college is a fair system?

Re:every vote counts

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes ok hes making a point by standing, but is he not damaging Kerry in the process,
Considering 500 votes in FL gave Bush the last election I think you are very mistaken. Also, considering if Nader hadn't run in 2000 Gore would have won. And in 1992 if Ross hadn't run then Bush would have won. So your entire arguement about the electoral college is completely wrong. I don't think the electoral college is fair, but if it wasn't in place, people in rural areas would never see a campaign, so it cuts both ways.

Re:every vote counts

[Stalky]

It doesn't matter whether the Electoral College is fair or not. The EC, of course, was based on the same compromise that populated the Senate with an equal number of senators from each state. That same Senate has the power to defeat any attempt to reform the EC -- quite easily, in fact, as a two-thirds majority is required to amend the Constitution. Therefore, any reform of the presidential electoral process will have to take place at the state level.

There is one reform that the courts could institute, I suppose; they could rule that each member of the House of Representatives must represent something much closer to the 30,000 people the Constitution established as a lower bound. That would bump the number of representatives by as much as a factor of 20 and effectively eliminate the effect of the extra two electors per state. If the states all then switched to choosing electors at the congressional district level, the electoral college would pretty much be guaranteed to match the popular vote.

Re:every vote counts

[cynic pi]

Yes, I'm not entirely sure why the electoral college was set up in the first place, but I like it. It represents state's rights. I am a citizen of Arizona first, and america second. So I vote for who I want my state to pick. What I don't agree with is the delegates not always being bound to abide by the state's decisions. That is just a time bomb waiting to blow.

Re:every vote counts

[jnicholson]

So are the states allowed to decide the method they'll use for vote counting? Could invidual states switch to run-off or stv or some other counting method than plurality?

Re:every vote counts

[Stalky]

The Constitution specifies that a state's Electors are to be appointed "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", so yes, it is entirely up to the state to specify the method that will used to count votes. The Constitution, however, imposes no requirement that anyone need actually vote!

Bill O'Reilly is a Bigger Moron than George W.

[spiedrazer]

How could anyone be so stupid as to reccomend Bill O'Reily as a candidate for President??? He is nothing but a blowhard mouthpiece for the conservative right. As a 'journalist' he has never worried about somethings as mundane as actually getting his facts correct, even about his own career. He says exactly what he thinks needs to be said to get people to believe his point, even if it's an out and out lie. This pretty much makes him exactly like George W., who you claim is not 'worth a hoot'.

Why is Bill better than George? They are both lying sacks of s*%!.

2-party system?

[wayne606]

We don't really have a 2-party system the way other countries have N-party systems. Each party has many (informal) subgroups and we get to elect our representatives in two stages - first we get to select the Democratic and Republican nominees (where there is usually plenty of choice, at least for the not-in-power party) and then select between those two.

Is that better than a system like the UK where each party internally (i.e. not by open vote) selects candidates to run for specific offices (e.g. seats in the House of Commons) and then the party with the majority gets to internally select the PM, etc?

Maybe it is, because in a Parliamentary system you get only one vote, whereas in our system you get to vote twice.

Conservatives! Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this down quick! before too many people see it and realize that Dubya really was just a CHICKEN HAWK who never had the balls to fight for his country.

Re:Conservatives! Quick!

[AHumbleOpinion]

Mod this down quick! before too many people see it and realize that Dubya really was just a CHICKEN HAWK who never had the balls to fight for his country.

And I bet your posting that from Iraq right now ...

And I bet you have several hundred hours in high performance jet aircraft where the time between "small mistake" and "death" is a fraction of a second.

And I'm sure you are aware that (Air) National Guard units did serve in combat in Vietnam and Korea.

Anyone who served even one day in combat deserves respect. How many guys got killed on their first day? Anyone who served one day in the military without combat also deserves respect. Training is dangerous. My father served in the regular Army in the early 1960s, Cuban Missile Crisis, and in the Guard in the mid 1960s. He saw guys get killed in both during routine training. You are free to hate dubya, but find a legitimate reason.

Re:Conservatives! Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Having his father the Senator pull strings to keep his pansy ass safe in a National Guard unit here in the states IS a legitamate reason!

Re:Conservatives! Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush's father was never a Senator, so disregard this post.

Color scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

I move we swap the POLITICS color scheme with the IT color scheme.

Do I hear a second?

Read the book...

[spiedrazer]

Lies and the Lying Liers who Tell them!

I'm sure, based on your praise for Bill, that you won't even pick it up and try to learn something, but in Al Franken's book, a team of 14 Harvard types spent months pouring over political and media claims trying to find the true source of info. O'Reilly is one of the worst offenders! Unlike Bill's role as a 'Forum for his views' Al's book actually reports the facts as best as they can be documented. It's one thing to have a forum to spout off about your views. It's another thing to make up and distort facts in support of your views with the sole intent of influencing the masses. This is why Bill is the worst type of 'analyst'.

Bill as President??? I don't think so.

Re:Read the book...

[HebrewToYou]

Al Franken is himself a liar.

Bill O'Reilly has proven it.

So unless you require liars to tell you about other liars, I'd suggest you find another, more accurate source for your claims. Bill O'Reilly is not perfect but at least he has paid his dues. Al Franken is a comedic writer who is now trying to dabble in politics. He is the Dennis Miller of the left.

Who do you think you're kidding?
Stuary Smally is not a credible source for calling someone a liar.
And Bill O'Reilly is a great analyst -- you just don't care for his analysis.

Re:Read the book...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Al Franken has proven that Bill O'Reilly is a liar. He demonstrates quite clearly that O'Reilly claimed that Inside Edition received a Peabody while he was the anchor - when in fact it did not, though it did receive a Polk award AFTER he had left the show. The transcripts of the show where he made that claim are widely available.

So, what has O'Reilly proven Al Franken to have lied about?

Re:Read the book...

[HebrewToYou]

http://www.frankenlies.com/

Here you go, Anonymous Coward.
Should make for some interesting reading.

Bill O'Reilly made an error about the name of an award -- Franken has done much, much more.
Shoe is now inserted in your mouth -- proceed to chew vigorously.

Re:Read the book...

[(trb001)]

Lying Liar

Do some research, something Al Franken is apparently weary of. Essentially, in his years of television and radio, all Al has on Bill is that he mislabeled a Peabody a Polk, in a side comment off of his show. He later apologized, on the show and his radio show, for the mistake. Franken's point about Bill not living in Levittown as a kid can be discredited by looking at the deed to his parents' house.

Franken's just trying to find crap to discredit O'Reilly with, and it's not working! Well, apparently it is because people like you believe him, but that doesn't make it true.

--trb

Mays Gilliam, the first black president

[CrazyJim1]

Also known as the republican's GO FUCK YOURSELF WE WIN campaign. If a third party candidate were to be black and run for office, democrats have no chance at all. Hell, Nader is running a pro-reparations campaign, thats about as black as a white guy can get. Check out my website, I know my shit. www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Re:Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best cho

[HebrewToYou]

A monkey flinging poo and screaming may be vocal, but it is certainly not clear, concise, pithy nor comprehendible.
Whether you like him or not, Bill O'Reilly certainly is.

your vote may count

[josepha48]

.. depending on what state you are in .. LOL ...

Also depends on weather they use buggy electronic ballot boxes that work questionably...

why the election system sucks

[kavau]

I'd vote for Nader anytime if it wouldn't indirectly benefit the Republicans. This is where the American election system is simply flawed - vote for a small party, and your vote is effectively lost for the presidential elections. I'd much prefer a coalition system like Canada and many European countries have. But I'm not counting on anything changing during my lifetime, since the two big parties obviously benefit from the current system.

Re:why the election system sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

that only works if it implies every single person that votes for nader would have voted for kerry. which just isnt the case, because a lot of people dont like kerry.
(shocking i know, but nondemocrats vote for nader too)

story incorrect

[XO]

The MI supreme court has forced the ballot people to include Nader. This was on CNN yesterday, though I'm not about to waste my time going looking for it.

assumtion

[Anonymous Coward]

arent most geeks fat?
arent most geeks rich?

no. if you want any kind of change, you have to get involved in politics. only the geeks get that

Re:assumtion

[2TecTom]

Please, excuse my complete cynicism, however I believe the major political parties and the entire political process to be absolutely corrupt. If you expect me to believe that anything good will come from such gross self interest, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. In fact, personally, I think those who believe in the current political process are either biased or terribly naive. However, I realize this is entirely my opinion based upon my perspective and I fully expect others, especially those with a vested interest in the political process, to vehemently disagree with my position.

INCORRECT

[inKubus]

Actually, there's this little thing called a write-in vote which could get him popular votes. Of course, you're right in that because the electoral college picks where the state's Electoral votes go, they would never send them as Nader even if he won.

There are a few states that are doing "split" electoral voting this year (Oregon I think), wherin the electoral votes are split based on the proportion of popular vote candidates recieve statewide.

I'm becoming very disillusioned with the voting system in this country now, however. It seems as though a few powerful families control the direction of the country. Sure, it's always been that way, but finally there are a lot of people our age who care (much like the sixties).

If there's a draft in the next year (as rumors have stated), they already have draconian laws in place to prevent/stop protests of the scale of the 60's.

I think what we really need is some leadership. The problem is that all the great leaders of the 60's are dead, and the echo boomers just want to get a BMW and a chick with fake tits.

I call hippies hippocrites now because they don't do anything. They say "We already did enough back then, let me relax with my money."

Put your money where your mouth WAS.

Re:Masculine bovine waste.

[Bastian]

I'm tired of everyone assuming that the only people who could possibly consider supporting Nader would vote Democrat were Nader not around.

In 2000, exit polls showed his consituency being a little over one quarter people who would have voted for Gore, a little under one quarter people who would have voted for Bush, and half people who wouldn't have voted.

Fudge the numbers to account for the fudge factor all you want, that still doesn't show Nader's constituency as being nothing but leftists and Democrats. But then again, "every fifteenth vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" just doesn't have the same bite.

And then you throw in the electoral college. A lot of people (myself included) lived in partisan states and voted for Nader with complete confidence in the knowledge that our lack of a vote for {insert name of other canditate we would (or would not) have voted for's name here} wasn't going to change who got the votes from our state.

Of course, "Every fifteenth vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, but only if you come from one of 10 states. Otherwise, it's really not such a big deal." really doesn't have the same bite.

It's true, Perot probably did swing the 1992 election. But as close as the 2000 election was, it's still a lot harder to say that about Nader.

Re:The last time we had a viable third party optio

[k_187]

Yes and significantly raise the cost of information to make an informed choice. I don't know currently where the policy initiative comes from, the pols or the public, but party affiliation has certain advantages that are nigh on necessary for representative democracy to function.

For example, if I point out a candidate, who is Republican, the majority of people have a general sense of where that candidate stands on a variety of issues. The same stands for democrats, and for the better informed the third parties. If Bob Johnson came up and said he was running for congress, where does Bob stand? And if you were standing in the ballot booth in November, and saw his name and a list of others, how would you differentiate? yes, if you knew about him before hand, but what about the minor parties? (who currently have this problem) I personally think this is the most important role of parties.

Of course, in the US, party affiliation is a very loosely binding label. There are many on either party that ideologically fall closer to the opposing party than their own. This number has been shrinking over the last decade or so, but some holdouts remain. So really, unless you're totally uninformed, you're forced to decide on each candidate on their merits anyway.

Oh, and party isn't on the ballot everywhere, this would have the same effect as your system without eliminating the easy access to information the parties represent.

Re:Masculine bovine waste.

[ConceptJunkie]

I'm tired of everyone assuming that the only people who could possibly consider supporting Nader would vote Democrat were Nader not around.

You're right... I assume he'd also draw from the Deaniacs, the LaRouchites, the Greens, the McGovernites who just came down, confused Canadians, the Communists, the Unabomber Party, the Socialists, lost Belgians, the Reform Party, the Boy Sprouts, the Fred Birch Society, the Orbital Mind Control Lasers, and, yes, sometimes even Republicans.

The problem I have with Nader is that his whole platform seems to boil down to "Look at me, I'm Ralph Nader."

You're also right about Nader not necessarily throwing the election to Bush by siphoning votes from Gore. It seems Pat Buchanan did that.

Re:The last time we had a viable third party optio

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time we had a viable third party we elected Abraham Lincoln. The third party was the Republican Party. The result was Civil War.

The Republican Party was no longer a "third party" by the 1860 election; it was one of the two major parties. At the time, the Whig party had already fractured significantly. Of course, you might be referring to the Southern Democrats and their candidate Stephen Douglas (that Stephen Douglas), but I doubt it.

speaking as another person in NC for 2000...

[pb]

I was planning on voting for Nader back then, but due to NC's bizarre election laws, he couldn't manage to get on the ballot, *and* any write-in votes for him weren't counted! In retrospect (based on what I know now) I wish I had voted for Gore, but ultimately it wouldn't have made a difference either way.

So, yeah, the voting system is totally messed up, on several levels. I'd like to see it reformed (a) so that *every* vote for *any* candidate counts, no matter who it is, and (b) so that third parties have a chance. Even approval voting would be way preferable to the mess that we have now.

party's over

[Doc Ruby]

It's time for Ralph to return his attention to upsetting the "winner take all" apple carts of the Demopublican parties, without spoiling all the apples in the barrel. With the weaker Democratic Party running the White House on top of a Congress split six ways from Sunday, he'd best focus on getting the public to care about the 2-3, or even 4 new Supreme Justices the next 4 years will see selected. If he can find some real libertarians to promote, we might actually free ourselves from the Party parasites that have reduced American republican democracy to a cash machine since Washington retired.

Re:party's over

[Petey_Alchemist]

The Supreme Court issue is the most important one at hand, methinks. Slashdot poll, anyone? What is the most important political issue at stake? War
Draft
Taxes
Personal Liberty/Civil Rights
Supreme Court Justices


etc
p.s. sure you know of it, but the Free State Project is always fun. Go home state!
--Petey

brownshirt

[Doc Ruby]

You're so contemptuous of democracy, and the people, that you'll root for Nader, who opposes Bush more extremely than Kerry, if he helps your boy to game another election. Of course you're a Republican - and of course you're proud - you people have no shame.

Re:brownshirt

[TRIEventHorizon]

and the Democrats have plenty of shame to spread around

Misery is spread equaly, those who succeed must feed the mouths of those who don't in the eyes of those socialist dogs.

I want Nader to stay in the race to take Democrat votes. In these times, we can't afford a tax raising Kerry to stifle the economic increase that is happening right now. That and I've never seen someone flip flop so much, fish probably envy him :D

And i'm only 17 years of age too, so i cant vote anyway, but I like to get involved with this stuff!

Re:brownshirt

[Doc Ruby]

Make the best use of your next 4 years until your first presidential election, so you'll understand the consequences of the means to your ends. You wind up getting stuck with the means, whether you achieve your ends or not. If you listen carefully, you will learn, regardless of what they try to teach you.

Re:brownshirt

[aftk2]

they are registered Democraps (yes, demo-craps, because the democrat party is a bunch of CRAP!)

Aah, political discourse in 2004.

You'd better be careful. Right now you're a far more effective and damning indictment of our educational system than a Kerry campaign commercial could ever hope to be. (Yes, indictment, because I'm saying u r teh SHEEP!)

Re:brownshirt

[Rei]

1) Name a flip-flop. Go on.

2) Are you accusing Kerry of being socialist? He's a bloody free trade advocate, and took a lot of slack for it in the democratic primary!

3) A "tax raising Kerry" - hopefully you're aware that his only proposed increases are repealing the Bush tax cuts on the top several percent. Bush's tax cuts have left us with a 4-5 hundred billion dollar defecit. Is this fiscal responsibility? It's like putting huge amounts of money on your credit cards - and don't try and claim that Democrats are derailing associated budget cuts, since the Republicans control all branches of government. Also, don't pretend it's short term - even Bush's budgets don't hold that out, let alone the GAO, and he's pushing for even more tax cuts.

Re:brownshirt

[Doc Ruby]

As you consider both presidential politics, and the job markets they manage, you might be interested in the job growth under the past 10 US presidents. Unless you're some kind of Republican martyr, or corporate welfare candidate, your parents' Democrat alliance will start to make a lot more sense when you finally free yourself from the tyranny of their allowance.

Re:brownshirt

[gfxguy]

1) He was a war hero before he was an anti-war hero before deciding that being a war hero would help him get elected. "I voted for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it!" How about: "...Christmas in Cambodia is SEARED into my memory." Well, maybe it was just near Cambodia after all. Do I really need to continue?

2) He may be less of a socialist than some of his European pals rooting for him, but by U.S. standards he is, in fact, a socialist.

3) "Repealing Tax Cuts" == "Raising Taxes". Perhaps we should switch to double-speak? Simplify the language?

Here's an idea for the winner of the next election: how about KEEPING the tax cuts and CUTTING spending?

Re:brownshirt

[hondo77]

Ah, I remember being an arrogant, know-it-all, idiotic 17-year-old. Enjoy it.

Re:brownshirt

[hondo77]

He was a war hero before he was an anti-war hero before deciding that being a war hero would help him get elected.

You can be both. Dubya is nothing...I mean "neither".

... but by U.S. standards he is, in fact, a socialist.

Your opinion is not a fact. Do not presume to speak for the U.S., thank you.

"Repealing Tax Cuts" == "Raising Taxes".

That's just like "Not pressing Congress to continue the assault weapons ban" == "Being in favor of letting it lapse despite statements to the contrary". Flippity flooppity doublespeak, anyone?

Re:brownshirt

[gfxguy]

Hey, you asked... Kerry is, for example, a proponent of socialized medicine. I never said Bush wasn't, I was answering your query.

Second, which part of "Repealing Tax Cuts" == "Raising Taxes" do you not understand? Or are you denying they are the same thing? So maybe we should never have called Bushes tax cuts "tax cuts", we should have said he repealed previous tax increases?

Again, I never said anything positive about Bush, I answered your questions... if you can't handle the truth, you shouldn't ask for it.

Re:brownshirt

[hondo77]

I don't think you're replying to who you think you're replying to.

Gee, how ignorant of him!

[theantix]

How can Nader think they are equal? I mean, Kerry isn't for the Iraq war... ah nevermind, I just remembered he said he would have gone into Iraq even knowing everything we do now. But Kerry isn't behind the PATRIOT Act and the retraction of US civil liberties... ah right, forgot about the "him helping to write it" part. Well, at least Kerry is going to roll back the tax cuts to roll back Bush's deficit... ah, he's going to spend that is he?

But seriously, there are huge differences between them. They are beholden to different megacorporate interests, and have a different way of speaking funny. How can *anyone* think such radically different candidates doesn't present adequate choice? Ignorant bastards.

Re:Gee, how ignorant of him!

[MindStalker]

Thats why I'm voting for Bush. Don't like the guy much, personally slighly more fearful of the Democrat party than I am of the Republian party. But mainly I pretty much have an idea of what Bush is going to do, good and bad. I have no idea just how bad Kerry might be, and seriously doubt his abilities to make serious decisions.

Re:Gee, how ignorant of him!

[Uberbah]

and seriously doubt his abilities to make serious decisions.

Based on what, may I ask? Are you afraid he'd read a children's book while the nation was under attack for 10 minutes rather than 7?

evolution

[Doc Ruby]

With proportional voting ("instant runoff"), the parties wouldn't have as much control over the candidate pool from which we choose. So more people could run, an opportunity for more diversity. Reducing political parties to a mere endorsement role, by permitting only the activities of any other private membership club, would make them even less disproportionately powerful. Prohibiting any bribes to candidates, either direct or soft-money through their party, by allowing donations only to a simple equally disbursed fund administered only by the government of the candidates' constituency, would clean up a lot more of the ripoff system.

Nader Underestimated

[bill_mcgonigle]

He's not running to win. He's running to make a point.

It's too bad he's not running to win. Actually, it's too bad so many people are willing to try to game the system rather than vote their consciences.

A recent poll showed nearly 90% of Democrats being against the war in Iraq. Yet the ticket is two guys who voted for it. What gives? They decided that Kerry has "electability" and Dean didn't. Yet Dean had spunk and conviction, exactly where Kerry is getting his lumps.

When you have that many people voting against their core beliefs to game the system something is amiss. In the voting booth, when it's time to be counted, people aren't going to be as willing to play the game. Nader might just do better than most people think.

Re:Nader Underestimated

[zCyl]

In the voting booth, when it's time to be counted, people aren't going to be as willing to play the game. Nader might just do better than most people think.

Making a point doesn't put food on the table. Playing the system does. After the close election of 2000, most voters are probably very conscious of the importance of their vote, and of the consequences of not playing the plurality game for as long as we have a plurality system.

College Dropouts

[Doc Ruby]

The Electoral College is the mechanism by which people in less populated states get more representation than people in more crowded states. That's one reason why rural states get more money back from the Fedaral government than they pay in taxes. Such a system had national benefits during the settlement of the country by immigrants and their descendants, as we subsidized the conversion of the continent to American culture and economics. It also worked in keeping the midwest socialist trend down during the Cold War, replacing socialists with missile silos.

We've outgrown all that. The original Electoral College allotment of ballots directly proportional to the state population (per Representative), plus one for each Senator, institutionalized the power of the State both in Congress (the Senate itself) and in elections. But that was as incomplete a revolution in democracy as the Constitution without the 14th Amendment, allowing distortions like "3/5 vote per slave". We debugged that loophole, and now the Electoral College has outlived its welcome, too.

The popular vote should determine the winner. It's simple, understandable by our hundreds of millions of citizens, and much more equitable. Applying it will straighten out much abuse, from state porkbarrel spending, to rigged campaigns. Our descendants will look on Florida 2000 like the Dred Scott decision: a historical anomaly embodying a Constitutional crisis, another lesson from our successful experiment in democracy. Or they'll see the Electoral College as a freakish anachronism, discrediting the process as much as powdered wigs.

What Nader should do

[kst]

Nader should drop out of the race and endorse Kerry as the best and only way to defeat George W. Bush.

Then he should work to reform the electoral system so that a vote for a third-party candidate isn't effectively a vote for whichever of the two major candidates you like least. Preferential voting would allow a Nader supporter to vote for Nader, but specify that he'd still prefer Kerry to Bush.

If Nader stays in the race, and Bush wins by a margin smaller than the number of votes Nader received, Ralph Nader's legacy will be that he helped put George W. Bush in the White House twice; everything else he's ever done will be forgotten. Unfortunately, I think his ego has grown too big to let him admit that to himself.

If Nader doesn't drop out, I wonder if Pat Buchanan would be interested in running again. 8-)}

Re:What Nader should do

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know Ralph Nader, his legacy will never be anything like that except in the small minds of the world. He's the real deal, he's changed this country more than either of the other 2 candidates could imagine.

What Kerry should do is drop out and endorse Nader, if he was a real patriot he would. Of course Kerry is just in it for money and power, he's in the pockets of big businesses just as much as Bush, if not more.

How do you see Nader reforming the system from outside? Shit Kerry isn't even saying what he'll do, he's got all these plans but what are they? Status quo?

In reality

[Petey_Alchemist]

Nader is running not as a third party candidate, but as an idealogical opponent to the "big, corporate parties" that are in power now.

Some people theorize that the Dean campaign lost steam because Dean ran on a platform of grassroots change yet, in order to prevail in the larger presidential race, had to sacrifice some of his principles in order to have a realistic chance of winning. For example, courting big labor was seen by some Deaniacs as being indistinguishable from courting big business. It was too difficult for Dean to appease both his base (who wanted a grassroots change of the political system) and the undecided majority (who wanted a good candidate).

Nader faces the same issue. He's running not against a candidate, but against an entrenched bipartisan system.

But those who choose to vote for Nader's ideals would, as a second choice, probably vote Kerry.

Nader faces an unpleasant decision:
Does he compromise his principles in order to give the greater good a better chance (by giving his votes, in effect, *back* to Kerry)? Or does he continue in a (probably futile) attempt at reworking the political system for the *greatest* good?

Me? I think he should drop out. If he actually believes he has a chance at winning--and is in it for practical purposes--than he is more crazed than I thought. He's almost selfish now--he wants his vision of the future at the expense of a better and more widespread vision of the future.

This is all from the liberal standpoint, of course.

--Petey

Nader

[Mark_MF-WN]

I think Nader's heart is in the right place, but he's starting too big. It's too soon to break the two-party system at the presidential level.

America's left leaning voters need to start by putting a few more members of the green party into congress, and into their state municipal governments. Once there's more of a tradition of voting outside the big two, voting for someone like Nader wont just be a wasted vote. It sucks, but that's the reality.

Re:Nader

[PhyrricVictory]

Perhaps the US is not ready for democracy just yet.

Re:Nader

[Halfhand]

I once thought that his heart was in the right place (I voted for him in 2000, in a state that was going for Gore, so don't call me a spoiler, I just want to see the Greens get their 5% for matching funds). But he has forsaken his morals and accepted signatures and $ from republicans that are helping him only to pull votes from Kerry. Soooo, this leads us to only believe one thing: Ralph is playing both sides and taking whatever he can get for Ralph, and not for any third party.

For the Greens to become relevant they need to focus on local elections and stop deluding themselves that they should soot for contests at a national level. Burlington, VT slected a Socialist mayor that wasn't afraid to use capitalist means for bettering the city. There are progressive office holders all over that state and work in coalition with the Democrats and republicans for the betterment of the state. At a local level, party doesn't matter as much as reputation. With reputation, those local polititans can go on to national levels. That socialist mayor was Bernie Sanders, and is now a House Rep. The only true independent in Congress.

Re:Nader

[Zeinfeld]

I think Nader's heart is in the right place

It's his head thats too big.

This is just one big ego trip for Ralph. He has made his millions and he is going to be alright even if Bush is elected or re-selected.

Re:Nader

[CrimsonAvenger]

The only true independent in Congress.

Just out of curiousity, how often does he vote with the Democrats, and how often with the Republicans? And how often with neither?

Re:Nader

[Uberbah]

Another problem with Nader's candidacy is that it is pure idiocy to try to split the left while the right is still 100% united. Until there is a split between finanical conservatives and religious conservatives, the left needs to stick together unless they want those financial and religious conservatives to have all the power.

Re:Nader

[Halfhand]

I have hunted around for some statistics and haven't found anything yet. He usually votes with Democrats, rarely with republicans. I don't think that there has been a case where 'neither' was an option since a vote for a bill is either one side or the other unless it is an abstention. It is easy to identify his voting when you do come across any data; He is an Independent and you can see the only 'I' listed there and where he lands. If you want to see what he is all about see his web site. He is progressive, much like Ralph, on the issues. But he talks about topics at many levels: from milk compacts to fix prices for small farmers in New England (the same was done in the mid-west) to be able to compete with larger producers, to sitting on the Banking Committee (second clip down). If you want to see him give his history go here. Note: His accent isn't Vermont; it's Brooklyn. I gave his autobiography to my father-in-law (a conservative) and he liked it. He still thinks Bernie is a nut, but he now respects him for it.

Re:Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best cho

[venomkid]

Nah, O'Reilly wouldn't do well as a candidate.

In a presidential debate, you can't just tell your opponent to shut up and then cut his mic.

Re:Masculine bovine waste.

[yoder]

The Dems have proven that they can be just as ruthless and undemocratic as the republicans. The republicans have turned gerrymandering into an electoral weapon of mass destruction. The democrats have unilaterally decided that if two parties are good enough for them then it's good enough for everyone. They have then proceded to alienate everyone who is not dead center on the political ruler.

If I am only allowed to vote against someone I hate more than I hate the other, rather than voting for someone, then this country is completely fucked.

I'm not ready to give up yet.

Color scheme.

[yoder]

This site is multinational. The politics on this site is multinational. Let's do a different color scheme.

What he's doing is good.

[evilchickenking]

what he's doing is good. he most definately wont win but he is changing things that so other people who want to run can. we have the right to run and he his helping us all by breaking down the barriers(laws) in our way that are put in place to keep people who aren't on a major ticket from running.

so, what he's doing is good for us all and i thank him for it.

Scalia for Chief Justice!

[Detritus]

I'd like to see more justices like Antonin Scalia appointed to the court.

Vote Whig!

[Detritus]

A vote for any other party is just throwing away your vote.

Proves that Democracy is a joke.

[elchavobeer]

When the Democrats go so out of their way to denounce Nader in his quixotic quest for President, it just shows that even they don't care about the concept of Democracy, which goes the same for the Republicans. Same thing happened to Perot, the right gave him a hard time for "taking votes". If our options are always going to be just two mediocre options, why even bother feeding this broken machine? I actively engage in political work but voting is really on the bottom rung in terms of effecting significant social change. EL CHAVO!

Re:What's the worst that could happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst has already happened.

whats wrong is the ballot access laws

[Anonymous Coward]

it is way too hard to get on the ballot in the 'democratic' usa.

Biggest failure of recent american presidents

[SmallFurryCreature]

The biggest failure of all the recent american presidents is that they have been totally unable to unite the country behind them. In those countries you mention the collation goverments where the active goverment is formed by multiple parties, Holland being the most extreme example, you get the effect that the all the parties involve adjust themselves to fit the choice of the people.

So in holland we have had goverments made up of socialists + liberals + slighly right wing. This meant that each of them had to accept that not all their policies would be accepted and to accept some policies that they don't like but that apparantly enough people do like.

Bush and Clinton and Bush and reagan etc etc have seen the election as something to be won and once you won you lay down your will on the defeated enemey.

Currently you have a republican goverment, you may get a democrat goverment next but if you really look at the way people vote then what you need is a democrat/republican or republican/democrat goverment. That is the way people voted. 50-50.

Don't however glorify consensus goverment to much. There is the very real danger that the voter loses contact with "his" party. This leaves the door wide open for a new party to spring up, say the right thing and sweep the elections as the old stuffy backroom deal parties that were doing what the people voted for get replaced. Read up on holland and pim fortuyn. The direct result of the "polder model".

Nader is a zealot, Nader-haters are in denial

[AHumbleOpinion]

Nader is a zealot, he will stick to his philosphy regardless of the cost. You would think open source/linux folks would be able to recognize this type of behavior.

I think your anti-W hatred is blinding you. I did not support Nader in 2000, I am not supporting him now, but you guys who are pissed off at Nader are so friggin stupid. Nader has uttered a lot of nonsense but he was right on the mark when he said (paraphrasing) that Gore/Kerry are not entitled to any Democrat's vote, that they have to earn it. If a Democrat chose/chooses to vote for someone other than Gore/Kerry then Gore/Kerry are entirely to blame for that. Gore/Kerry screwed up and lost a person that was predisposed to favor them.

Re:Nader is a zealot, Nader-haters are in denial

[CrimsonAvenger]

Nader is a zealot, he will stick to his philosphy regardless of the cost.

Not to invoke Godwin, but so was Hitler. I don't want a zealot of any stripe in the White House.

Nader still CAN make a difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

As I see it, Nader is not running to win. Realistically, he won't be President come 2005. That's not why you should vote for him.

If he gets 5% of the popular vote, he can get federal funds to run in the next election. That means that if your state is sure to go to Bush, but you aren't planning to vote for Bush, throw your vote to Nader, it is just as much a waste as voting for Kerry. It won't change the election outcome, and will get a third party funding, which is the start to actually becoming an established party.

or does every vote count?"

[MrWa]

or does every vote count?

Not if you use it to vote for Nader it doesn't.

Conspiracy Theory (Take it with a grain of salt)

[Loonacy]

Maybe the Republicrats want Nader out of the picture so that when Kerry takes a dive just before the elections, Lefties won't have anyone to vote for and Bush will win by a landslide.

Of course, this means that Demos and Repubs are working together. And if they were, then why would they care which got elected?

Maybe they're afraid if Kerry gets elected and starts appointing Right Wings to positions of power, people will get suspicious?

Food for thought. Pass the salt.

Nerds fail politics?

[commodoresloat]

That's unpossible!

Why are so many people so narrow minded?

[valrus348]

I guess, this whole new politics Slashdot section quickly becomes just one big place to wage useless flame wars... Oh, well. I will definitely get flamed, too.

After reading a lot of posts on this (and similar) topics, what really did strike me is how many people from each side of the debate (both of the so-called "liberals" and "conservatives") are really narrow-minded. Even within better-than-average educated Slashdot crowd.

A lot of arguments from both sides seem to revolve around several cliche statements which actually have ABSOLUTELY NO REAL MEANING:

*Democrats will raise taxes and, by doing so, will kill economic growth

*Republicans are for small Federal government

*Both R and D parties are the same

*George Bush is a very bad man (because he is stupid, or did not show up for his guard service, or insert your favorite argument here)

*I am voting Kerry because I am "pro-choice", or I am voting Bush because I am "pro-life"

*Etc, etc

It seems like most of these statements largely come directly from the disgusting propaganda that is being broadcast by both parties through various mass media outlets. I might be wrong here since I do not have a TV, but that is the impression I have got after visiting Bush's, Kerry's, and Nader's web sites. I think that the high emotional charge that usually accompanies those statements also speaks in favor of the propaganda hypothesis - people don't just repeat some stupid mantra unless they have been brainwashed (at least, I don't want to beleive otherwise, since I am an optimist).

Why don't people just THINK when they choose their political candidate? If people were simply thinking, politicians would not have been getting a "bounce" after the convention, and things like 30-year-old National Guard record disclosures or "swift boat vet" ads would have had zero influence on the vote distribution.

Yet all this propaganda stuff seems to work rather well - just look at the poll dynamics!

Another sign of narrow mindedness is the tendency of people to start expert discussions on politically charged subjects while they have absolutely no idea about these subjects. Like renewable energy. Or pollution. Or stem cell research. Or even economics. In this latter case, there usually is a cohort of people who hate paying taxes and are using various buzzwords to argue Republicans are good; and another cohort, that argues they are bad since they spend tax dollars on Halliburton. Yet not that many people from either group have a detailed understanding of the impact any particular policy can make on their personal lives (except for direct change in federal income tax they are paying). And nobody EVER wants to RTFA. All those discussions between uninformed people are fun to read on linux.slashdot.org, but they quickly become scary as soon as their results start to influence the public policymaking.

I think that voting for any third party candidate, no matter how admirable he/she is, is useless, unless the population as a whole will start thinking. All the votes for a third-party candidate are currently guaranteed just to benefit one of the existing two big parties. As I remember, when De Tocqueville had been talking about the tyranny of the majority, he had been talking about an unfair political system similar to the one we currently observe.

For the record: I am not voting for Nader (not only for the reasons outlined above, but also because he discredited himself in my eyes by accepting help from the R party in some states).

I am voting for Kerry since he is clearly the lesser of two evils, and he can realistically win. My vote for Kerry means that I disapprove

the "winner takes all" mentality of the current administration

Bush's careless over-the-budget spending I will be forced to pay off through my entire natural life

budget cuts for such vital agencies as NSF and NIH, yet increased spending on military and intelligence bureau

Instant Runoff or Condorcet Voting

[robla]

There's several popular alternatives for what you are talking about. I'm only going to list two because I'm lazy:

• Instant Runoff Voting - rather intuitive, but mathematically-flawed system. It's an improvement over what we've got, and has a lot of momentum these days (Krist Novoselic, formerly of Nirvana, is about to release a book advocating IRV.
  
• Condorcet's method - less momentum, solid system. The Debian project uses it to elect their project leader. 'Nuff said.
  

Rob

Re:Instant Runoff or Condorcet Voting

[Jagungal]

The funny thing is that both the methods you mention .. and several others that you left other all fall under the banner of preferential voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting/

The US is smart enough to pick the one that suits it best .... but it has to be better than the antiquated and undemocratic system they have now.

ralph please

[sakura the mc]

nader for president in 04

Re:Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best cho

[(trb001)]

In his years on the air, he's done this once, in a pretaped session that he later airred and apologized for. Turn off "Outfoxed" and do some research.

--trb

There is no Nader factor, vote Badnarik

[JohnnyX]

Michael Badnarik will be on the ballot in all of those states listed (except OK, where the issue is in court).

Badnarik opposes the war in Iraq.

Badnarik opposes the war on drugs.

Badnarik supports gay marriage.

Badnarik opposes the Patriot Act.

Don't waste your vote on Bush or Kerry, vote your hope, not your fear.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...beating the drum...

Want reform? Try IRV

[russeljns]

Forget about abolishing the electoral collage, what about Instant Runoff Voting? Though I am not a Democrat, so many Kerry "supporters" I have talked to admit that they really would prefer Nader, but they don't want to waste their vote. Why do we allow the party machines to control our choices for president? We have 2 Ivy League silver spoon-fed pro-war blue blooded candidates to choose from. It's a shame people like Nader and Badnarik aren't even considered an option by most voters, but that's what happens with our current voting system.

Re:Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best cho

[Politburo]

In a presidential debate, you can't just tell your opponent to shut up and then cut his mic.

You must have missed Reagan. During a primary debate with George Bush in 1980, it somehow ended up (supposedly) that his campaign footed the bill for a microphone rental. At one point, the moderator asked for Reagan's microphone to be shut off so that Bush could speak. Reagan angrily retorted, "I paid for this microphone!" It is considered one of the defining moments of Reagan's 1980 campaign.

Re:publicans

[Anonymous Coward]

If they could get away with it, they'd be trying to take Republicans off the ballot too.

Instead, the GOP is collecting signatures for Nader to keep him on the ballot. Guess it really is a Big Tent party after all!

Jebus

[theantix]

You remind me of quote from a simpsons episode: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos". Seriously dude, if the two leading candidates fucking suck this harshly, vote for someone else. Since you seem to be of a republican mindset, write in a vote for some reasonable candidate. Like John McCain, I know he's an upstanding dude even if I don't fully agree with everything he stands for.

There are two advantages to this: when the seriously bad decisions are made, you are not responsible because you didn't help that person into power. Secondly, you send the message that you are a republican but aren't satisfied with your choices -- hopefully they would nominate a better candidate next time. You don't *HAVE* to vote for Kang, or even for Nader.

Re:Jebus

[MindStalker]

Actually I was seriously considering voting for the Libertarian canidate as that is my general leaning.
(Even though the what quadrant are you in quiz said I'm a social totalarian, I swear the thing is screwed up)

But I figured being in Florida my vote counts a bit more than normal :)
Shrugs I am confused.
Hell while my idiology is so far from his I seriously considered voting for Nader, just because he atleast is honest enough to try and live up to his idiology.

Teh gay AIDS is the harm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best cho

[venomkid]

Yaknow, I don't 'remember' it but that scene got played a few times during the retrospectives on his death.

That was a pretty amazing moment.

Re:Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best cho

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? Bill O'Reilly. Really. The guy on Fox News? That guy. Mr. Shut Up! Shut Up! Shut Up! The guy who said he wouldn't mind if Michael Moore was taken care of. That guy.

Re: Federal funds

[mhollis]

OK, we used to have a third party. Perot funded it and willed it into existence. Ran one year and then turned into a kind of a nutcase the next time around.

Then Pat Buchannan took it over so that Republicans would not lose votes to it. And he lost by such a bad margin that the Reform Party no longer gets federal cash.

Nader doesn't have a party. He doesn't have a party apparatus. The Green Party was so villified after last Presidential election that they refused to support Nader this go-round. The only reason I can figure why he is running is because of ego. He wants attention.

Nader has some good things to say. His comments have become talking points for various candidates. But he lost his credibility when he didn't drop out of the race in 2000 and when he allowed Republicans in 2004 to fund and set up his operations in hopes that he would steal votes from Kerry.

So rather than allow him to have his say the entire Democratic Party, as well as many in niether party who want to re-defeat Bush this time, has taken specific action to keep him out of the running in as many of the so-called "battleground" states as possible.