Slashdot Mirror
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?"
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
He's not running to win. He's running to make a point.
I've had this sig for three days.
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!
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.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
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.
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.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
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.
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
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/
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.
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.
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.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
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?
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
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>
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
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?"
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.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
is a preferential voting system.
.. 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.
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
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.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
This is no different than Perot and the Bush vs Clinton election. Clinton would have easily lost had it not been for him.
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)
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.
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
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.
I'm you from the future! We have to finish our time machine before the Angels of Destruction find the portal!