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

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.

Quits?

[addaon]

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

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!

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: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.

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: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.

[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)

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: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.