Slashdot Mirror
Third-Party and Independent Ballot Status
jsrjsr writes "Ballot Access News reports on the number of states where various candidates will be on the ballot. The site also contains a wealth of news about ballot access and other election-related issues."
The Democrats have been harrasing Ralph Nader pretty bad. What they've done is they've formed a separate group called the United Progressives for Victory, and they are suing him everywhere that they can. They sue him in battleground states in order to keep him off the ballot, and they'll sue him in non-battleground states simply to harass him and deplete his resources. By forming a separate group, the United Progressives for Victory can be counter-attacked and sued out of exisxtence without putting the Democratic Party, itself, on the line.
You must be new here. All subsite stories always show up on the main page by default. If you wish hide such stories, you can configure the site to do that for you in the preferences section.
This site is updated daily to give the predicted electoral vote counts - more informative than the overall popular vote totals. He also covers the Senate races and issues related to polling ingeneral. The site does have a somewhat pro-Kerry viewpoint, but it seems like the poll data is non-partisan ...
I really doubt if you do, but let's evaluate the validity of your claim that FOX news doesn't cover the other, less popular candidates.
Google search for nader on fox news: 292 Results
Google search for bush on fox news: 15000 Results.
Fox's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.0915
Google search for nader on cnn: 2,290 Results
Google search for bush on cnn: 211,000 Results.
Cnn's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.0517
Google search for nader on msn: 4,660 Results
Google search for bush on msn: 126,000 Results.
Msn's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.037
Google search for nader on cbs: 527 Results
Google search for bush on cbs: 58,900 Results.
CBS's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.00895
Google search for nader on abc: 37 Results
Google search for bush on abc: 1,190 Results.
ABC's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.0311
I'm not really sure why the numbers for abc are so low, but in any case it's quite obvious that your claim was flat out wrong, and that you didn't bother to do a little research before you made it. I'm so sick of this situation whereby any sort of kook theory or idea that says the republicans/foxnews/haliburton are all up to no good is instantly beleived by the leftists in this country, without regard to any evidence or fact. Yet when someone tries to cliam that al-qaeda was in cahoots with iraq, suddenly you guys get interested in the scientific method again and demand some evidence.
Unless you're now going to jump to another kook theory that foxnews is covering nader so much more than the other guys because they want nader to win, you're going to have to retract your statement and admit you were wrong, or at least that fox news isn't as biased as MSNBC or CBS.
My blog
The real reason third parties don't work in the US is our first past the post (FPTP) voting system, otherwise known as Plurality voting. Duverger's Law posits that FPTP naturally leads to a two-party system. If we had ranked choice voting (RCV, also known as instant runoff voting, or IRV), those who prefer a libertarian candidate would be able to safely vote for this candidate and also choose a major party candidate to whom their vote could go if the libertarian candidate wasn't going to win. This would allow everyone to vote for the person they would most like to win.
g
I have heard there are tactical voting issues with RCV/IRV that are only solved with a true Condorcet method. If this is the case, then perhaps we should consider a different method - but IRV is certainly a huge step up from FPTP in terms of elimination of tactical voting.
For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPTP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_votin
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
It doesn't work, which people have commented on in previous threads.
Go Whigs!
Don't throw away your vote by voting Republican!
Note to moderators -- the above comment is not a troll but a way of wryly pointing out that in the past, the system *has* in fact changed, and the entrenched parties of the time would likely have used the same "don't throw your vote away" argument against the rising power that we hear from the entrenched parties of today.
Now as for what this mismoderation says about the Republicans who were offended by the comment, I'll leave that to the real trolls...
Kill, Tux, kill!
If the LP dropped the pot angle they would no longer be Libertarian!
Many people say that the LP would win them over if it wasn't for x or y part of the platform, well, the LP considers itself "The Party of Principle". It is a fairly consistent political ideology, it does not pander to polls, and we like it that way.
This election, vote Badnarik for President.
Since I didn't see it explicitly mentioned on the linked story: http://www.badnarik.org
So why not block any stories labeled as "Politics" from your home page? That's what that feature is there for. Some of us like a more well-balanced homepage, and the default is the most inclusive. From there you can edit the page down until you get your own individual view.
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
Not really. IRV could do lasting damage if initiated, because most people would be fooled into believing the problems have actually been fixed. IRV is deceptive like that. Nothing less than true Condorcet will solve the problem.
Constitutionally Correct
That judge should be impeached
It was the full NJ Supreme Court--a 7-0 decision--and not a single judge. I weep for our future when elections aren't decided by voters, but by the courts. Bush v. Gore was the start of a long slide down the slipery slope, I think.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?