Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nader Off Virginia Ballot

Posted by michael on 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?"

9 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Missing Option: by identity0 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  2. Not really. by aeinome · · 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 Phillup · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Not really. by blate · · 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.

  3. Quits? by addaon · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --

    I've had this sig for three days.
  4. After 4 years of Bush.. by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  5. Why is he still running? by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. democrats by syrinx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Correction: Nader is on MI ballot by mooredav · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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%.