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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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!

After 4 years of Bush..

[NanoGator]

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

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.

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.

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%.

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.