Nader Off Virginia Ballot

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by michael on Tuesday September 7, 2004 @09:52AM from the keep-on-plugging dept.

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?"

6 of 261 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not really. by aeinome · 2004-09-07 09:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
When you don't have a leg to stand on, don't even get up.
1. Re:Not really. by blate · 2004-09-07 11:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
2. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-07 13:30 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  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."
3. Re:Not really. by zCyl · 2004-09-07 20:35 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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:Well i for one by QuantumRiff · 2004-09-07 10:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

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...

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Fair my butt... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-07 10:00 · Score: 1, Interesting

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."