Ralph Nader Back On The Florida Ballot

Makoto916 writes "It's official. The Florida State Supreme court has ruled in favor of 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader. He is now back on the ballot, and just in time since absentee ballots were to be mailed out tomorrow (Saturday). This is certainly a victory for those of us who believe that the country is better off when alternative political voices aren't suppressed."

Comments

Alternative political voices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lemme guess, you're Republican and want Bush to win Florida?

Re:Alternative political voices?

[aelbric]

Strange that it was the Democrats that tried to have him removed from the ballot....

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0904/173778.html

Re:Alternative political voices?

[Sancho]

I think that's the point. Nader takes votes away from the Democratic candidate, so Democrats want him to be removed because it gives more votes to Kerry. On the other hand, a Republican would be more likely to want Nader on the ballot since it makes it more likely that Bush will win re-election. So the AC's post indicated that the original poster was Republican because they think that third party candidates are important, despite (my thoughts) the fact that no third party candidate stands a chance in our system.

Re:Alternative political voices?

[genrader]

I'm a Republican, and I am very close to voting for Nader over Bush. Bush & Nader > Kerry.

Re:Alternative political voices?

[Anonymous Coward]

That proves it then. Nader is obviously hurting Bush.

Re: Alternative political voices?

[Black Parrot]

> I think that's the point. Nader takes votes away from the Democratic candidate, so Democrats want him to be removed because it gives more votes to Kerry.

Unless of course they just stay home in disgust. It's hard to imagine a Naderite voting Democratic after the Democrats forced their man off the ballot.

Re: Alternative political voices?

[aelbric]

Parrot hit it on the head. That's what I meant.

See what happens when you post before you think? :)

Re:Alternative political voices?

[resourcefulidiot]

ding-dong, here comes the SHlT Mobile!

if you knew what you were saying, besides restating the obvious, you would know that over half of Nader voters in 2000 said that if they hadn't voted for Nader, they wouldn't have voted at all. Besides, Gore still won Florida in 2000 despite the 2.5% nader vote, it was the supreme court and Jeb Bush.

Also, it's not as if Nader and his supporters think he can actually garner the majority of the electoral votes, it's more of an act of rejection in trying to get the Democrats to realize it's in their own interest to push for election reform(i.e. run-off elections, etc) when dealing with a candidate like Nader. This is so they can play together in the political arena without splitting the vote

Re:Alternative political voices?

[emotionus]

Ugh...When will people realize that third party votes don't count only when people think only the two parties are the only possible "winnners".

Re:Alternative political voices?

[bladernr]

Gore still won Florida in 2000 despite the 2.5% nader vote

Actually, all but one of the total media recounts showed that Bush, in fact, won. The one media recount method that showed Gore winning was very suspicious and required awarding Gore many suspect ballots.

I didn't vote Bush in 2000, and I'm not voting Bush in 2004, but saying he didn't win shows ignorance of both the system and the facts. The media recount (that took place well after the election) shows that Bush would have won even if an entire state-wide recount was allowed to proceed.

Also, the Supreme Court DID NOT award Bush the election, as so many claim. They narrowly ruled on a particular issue, and the result was the count stopping, and Bush winning. I know it is hard to see the difference, but there is an important difference. The Supreme Court ruled on a matter of law, they did appoint the President.

I know many undecides who are leaning toward Bush (ick). Why? They see dishonesty elsewhere. Even if you think Bush is dishonest, that means that everyone is being dishonest, so why not go with the known evil? The opposition (including myself) must hold ourselves to a higher standard unless we admit we are no better.

Re:Alternative political voices?

[resourcefulidiot]

Quote:

Also, it's not as if Nader and his supporters think he can actually garner the majority of the electoral votes, it's more of an act of rejection in trying to get the Democrats to realize it's in their own interest to push for election reform(i.e. run-off elections, etc) when dealing with a candidate like Nader. This is so they can play together in the political arena without splitting the vote

Ugh...When will people realize that third party votes aren't about winning ;)

Re:Alternative political voices?

[Anonymous Coward]

you know why doest florida also have a libertarian party candidate non the ballot?

Re:Alternative political voices?

[emotionus]

touché

Re:Alternative political voices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'd love to see you back these claims up, since they run counter to all the evidence I've seen so far. No Fox or NewsMax articles allowed.

Re:Alternative political voices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't waste your vote.

Vote for who you think would be the best choice even if it is an altenative party candidate.

A wasted vote is one for the lesser of two evils.

As alternative parties begin to get more and more votes their points of view will get more attention from the politicians and the media.

Look what happened when Ross Perot ran for president. We need to keep that sort of momentem going instead of letting it fizzel after one campaign.

Re:Alternative political voices?

[Minna Kirai]

Actually, all but one of the total media recounts showed that Bush, in fact, won.

False. So many people repeat these flat-out lies... just go to the actual data and see for yourself.

The New York Times (working alongside allied papers like the WSJ) used 24 separate counting styles. (24 = 2 * 2 * 6) Bush won 12 of them, and Gore won 12 also. (The paper also selected 4 of those styles to highly more prominently, so some readers might've thought there were only 4 options, not 24. Even so, those 4 were still split in half)

Of course, the newspapers were complicit in suppressing the actual ambiguity of the findings... considering that their recount completed on Sep 9th, and publication would've been Sep 13th, they didn't want to attack the President's legitimacy just then.

The one media recount method that showed Gore winning was very suspicious and required awarding Gore many suspect ballots.

And it happened to be the method employed by the Floridian recounters... until the Supreme Court told them to stop. If the Court had not halted the already-ongoing recount, Gore would've won.

Doesn't make much of a difference

[mind21_98]

It doesn't make much of a difference in any case. It's looking like Bush will win Florida with or without Nader on the ballot. The only difference is possibly by how much. Still, we have a month and a half until the election, so anything goes.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[GigsVT]

You are right about that. Nader is a political outcast now, the Green party won't even have him anymore. I doubt he will have much support now that he has been exposed as a fraud.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[Nasarius]

Nader is a political outcast now, the Green party won't even have him anymore.

Not true. Nader ditched the Green Party, not the other way around. He was almost endorsed by them this year, but eventually they decided to run Cobb instead.
Personally (as a registered Green in New York who's voting for Cobb), I think Nader is an ass for getting on the ballot in swing states.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

I tend to agree about Nader. I don't think he's serious about campaigning for president, only feeding his own ego and perhaps his wallet.

A couple of elections ago, when (as usual) the "third parties" were shut out of the presidential debates, C-SPAN organized a "third party" debate so the candidates would at least have some chance of airing and comparing their views where people could evaluate them all together. Harry Browne (Libertarian) was there, of course, as was Howard Philip of the rather creepy[1] "U.S. Taxpayers Party" (as far as I can tell, they are also called the "Independent" party and I think the "Constitution" party.) and I THINK they had someone from the "Peace and Freedom" (hardcore socialist/borderline communist[2]) party there, and of course at the time the Greens had Nader....oh, wait, no, Nader didn't show up. He was, according to the announcer on the show, too busy promoting his new book to bother.

That kind of tells me everything I need to know about Nader...

[1]- Disturbingly extremist (in my own opinion) bible-pounding, God-bothering rightists. As far as I could tell from the debate, that party's entire platform is composed of two claims:

1. Abortion is Murder(tm)
2. Sex Education causes Homosexuality

.

[2]- Disturbingly extremist (in my on opinion) wealth-hating, welfare-legislating leftists. Kinda helped balance with the other extreme party mentioned above. I'm guessing a lot of European people living in small countries where socialism won't necessarily become Stalinism[3] would tend to like these people

[3]- I still maintain that the degree to which a government can be "socialist" without being oppressive is inversely proportional to the size of the governed population. If California seceded from the US, I think they'd just BARELY be small enough to get away with a socialist government. If the entire US tried to do it on a national level, we'd end up with USSR II. Or so I maintain. I think this is why USAians - even Democrats - often seem "extreme right-wing" to Europeans.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[RWerp]

I still maintain that the degree to which a government can be "socialist" without being oppressive is inversely proportional to the size of the governed population. If California seceded from the US, I think they'd just BARELY be small enough to get away with a socialist government. If the entire US tried to do it on a national level, we'd end up with USSR II. Or so I maintain. I think this is why USAians - even Democrats - often seem "extreme right-wing" to Europeans.

What do you mean by 'socialist'? Also, there are some 3 world big countries which ran socialist governments but did not become stalinist. Like Brasil.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[BoomerSooner]

People tend to confuse communism and fascism for socialism.

We are closer to fascism than most people think. Apparently some crazy leader shouting about the evils of the world (could be Hitler, could be Bush) gets people's nationalism at a high, at the same time they erode the rights of citizens. Then all it takes is candidates sponsored by the pharmaceutical/oil/(insert big business here) industry. Remember during WWII Italy was the Fascist Business Republic. Here is a good write up of where we are apparently heading.

Oh yeah and Sweden is socalist as well. They have their problems as well.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[Micah]

> # Abortion is Murder(tm)

That's a big part of the Constitution Party platform, yes. Probably too big. I certainly agree with them on that, but America isn't ready to elect someone as rabidly anti-abortion as they are, so they're pretty much screwing themselves over.

They're also big on eliminating the rampant Constitution violations that the big parties continue to commit without thinking.

They also want to get America out of most foreign "problems" such as Iraq. They believe that America should be a "friend of liberty everywhere, defender only of her own." Makes sense to me.

Personally, I'd love to vote for Peroutka (their candidate this year) -- he matches my values much more closely than Bush does. But realities of the two party system will force me to vote Bush. :(

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[the quick brown fox]

According to what little I remember from American Poli-Sci 101 (and you may already know this, but I find it fascinating and worth reiterating):

The purpose of these candidates on the far edges of the spectrum is not to get elected or indeed even have a whisper of a chance; the system from top to bottom is designed to favor the (two?) most moderate candidates. (For example, the electoral college: The fact that winner-takes-all in each state is a moderating influence.)

The purpose of these fringe candidates is, instead, to drum up enough of a base that the moderate candidate that's closer will want to drift over in that direction in order to pick up those votes. In other words, they should judge success not by how many votes they get, but by how much they ultimately move the definition of "moderate".

So don't feel too bad for having to vote for Bush, as long as you answer Peroutka in the polls. The fact that you are being forced to vote for the more moderate candidate means the system is working exactly as it is intended to, for the greater good of the overall population.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[AuMatar]

Mussilini said that a better name for facism was corpratism- facism was the ultimate marriage of buisness and government.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[the gnat]

That's one of the most insightful comments regarding politics that I've read anywhere, let alone on Slashdot. As someone pretty close to the exact center of the American political spectrum (I'd call my beliefs "neoliberal", e.g. somewhere to the right Clinton; I've also referred to myself as a "McCain Democrat"), I couldn't agree more about the fringe parties. If someone really did offer an alternative party that wasn't a bunch of nutjobs, I'd vote for them in a second. Unfortunately, we're stuck with the pinkos, theocrats, and Ayn Rand fanboys running our third parties.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[Micah]

Sure, there's truth to that, but at some point there needs to be some real competition for the Republicrats.

Certainly, however, a Presidential candidate is NOT the place to start. Third parties, maybe even moderate ones, need a few House seats, then they can go for more interesting targets.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Communism and Fascism are natural political enemies. It was Communists that went off to the gas chambers along with the Jews, Gypsies and Gays systematically. Communists in the US during the rise of Hitler wrote that American Fascism, if it were to rise, would have a theocratic form of nationalism. The GOP certainly has been running for the theocratic vote.

Remember that the fascists tried to get General Butler to execute a coup d'etat against Roosevelt in the 30's. The also campaigned to leave Hitler alone. Many wealthy people, including Edward VIII of England, were personal friends of Hitler. These were the people who believed in things like Social Darwinism.

Most of the descendents of these people are now in the GOP. They tend to trend more libertarian except for Corporate Welfare, they believe that by vitue of their wealth, they are better people than the rest of us slobs. They see the theocrats as a tool to be used for their rise to power.

Anyway, here are some articles:

Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis
Neo-fascism and the religious right
The Danger of American Fascism
Facts and Fascism by George Seldes

As wrong as communists are, they're right about one thing, Fascists.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

I'm intentionally leaving the term "socialist" vague here, and admittedly it's probably not the best term. By it, I just mean a tendency towards government control (both in terms of regulation and in terms of how many services the government insists on running directly itself) centrally, at a nationwide level. Suggestions for a better "neutral" (e.g. not "fascist" or other emotionally-charged terms, since the word I'm looking for would not inherently imply injustice or oppression) are welcome, since by my working definition here, imposition of a state-mandated religion would be "socialist", and to my knowlege no modern nations who are generally tagged with the word "Socialist" (as opposed to being thought of as an outright "theocracy" or "dictatorship") really do that. At least not for the last couple-hundred years - the Church of England would once have qualified, but not in modern times.

In order to be more "socialist" (by my almost-certainly-non-canonical definition here) Government needs to have more power over its citizens in order to maintain its control, both through "overt" and obvious means (e.g. police and "internal" military) and less obvious (controlling access to and distribution of information and goods. The larger the population of the governed, the more force the government needs to keep everyone in line.

Obviously, it's a little more complicated than that in the real world - population density plays a role, too, as does availability of natural resources and technological capability. And, of course, the wealth that pays for it all. In the US, our approximately 300,000,000[1] people are spread out over a fairly huge area here. The entire state of Idaho has about as much population as the Sacramento area in California (including suburbs)...if that much. The amount of "power" required to spread control over that broad of an area is in addition to the amount required to just "control 300,000,000 people". The amount of "power" available, should our government be given any more access to use it, in the US due to our still rich natural resources and still very strong technology is somewhat frightening, hence our seeming-right-wing-nutjob attitude that we should try to avoid letting the government have that much power. Resistance to taxation serves a good purpose too - if the US Federal Government doubled its tax rate, that means it'd have that much more money to, say, pay CIA agents abroad, buy another fleet of aircraft-carriers, battleships, "Stealth" bombers and ICBM's, or just spread around the world to mess with the global economy in the US's favor (or at least, the US Federal Government's favor - say, as payback for domestic support for the government's policies by a struggling US industry?...)

Brazil, on the other hand, has a population of only around 175,000,000[2] people, and most of that is concentrated into a small (by comparison) area, and I suspect if you compared, say, US military technology and technological research with Brazil's, the difference would be very noticeable.

If the government of Brazil woke up one day and decided "Screw you guys, I say you're a threat to our national security and we're takin' you down!"....who would be frightened? Certainly they could probably put up a good fight against nearby countries, but do they really have the sheer power to wage an effective fight against a well-armed nation quite some distance away? Or even a not-so-well-armed nation, for that matter. If it had been the Brazilian government bouncing up and down excitedly over the prospect of invading Iraq and "Getting Saddam Hussein(tm)", would they have done as well[3] as the US has?

Now, back to the US - even now, there is still a lot of sentiment in the US that the government (or at least, specifically, the FEDERAL government) should keep its metaphorical hands out of various issues. The fact that we tend not to want, for example, a Federal Government Health Care system makes us seem like radical right-wing nutjobs to people in smaller (les

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[resourcefulidiot]

If you're a "neoliberal" then you're certainly not in the center of the American political spectrum, do matter how conservative it is economically. Neoliberal[Wikipedia] should be equated with libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism, in which case you should love Ayn Rand. Maybe Republican would be a better classification

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[RWerp]

I'm intentionally leaving the term "socialist" vague here, and admittedly it's probably not the best term. By it, I just mean a tendency towards government control (both in terms of regulation and in terms of how many services the government insists on running directly itself) centrally, at a nationwide level. Suggestions for a better "neutral" (e.g. not "fascist" or other emotionally-charged terms, since the word I'm looking for would not inherently imply injustice or oppression) are welcome, since by my working definition here, imposition of a state-mandated religion would be "socialist", and to my knowlege no modern nations who are generally tagged with the word "Socialist" (as opposed to being thought of as an outright "theocracy" or "dictatorship") really do that. At least not for the last couple-hundred years - the Church of England would once have qualified, but not in modern times.

One has to distinguish between two issues here: one is how much the state centralizes power in its hands (we call such states which do it on a large scale 'centralized') and another, how much the state takes care of its citizens' needs, instead of letting them do it on their own (we call such states 'welfare states'. These are two different issues. For example, France is very centralized and also has quite a lot of welfare (but you have to pay each time you see a doctor in France, though), and Germany is a welfare state, too, but is not centralized. W/r to religion, Sweden has a state church, priests are paid by the government and bishops have to be members of political parties in order to be ordained. And it would be called by you a 'Socialist' country!
I would say, that the better word would be 'socialdemocratic': welfare state, but with private enterpreneurship and democracy.

In order to be more "socialist" (by my almost-certainly-non-canonical definition here) Government needs to have more power over its citizens in order to maintain its control, both through "overt" and obvious means (e.g. police and "internal" military) and less obvious (controlling access to and distribution of information and goods. The larger the population of the governed, the more force the government needs to keep everyone in line.

You're ignoring the possibility that the government builds the welfare state because the people want it (and vote accordingly). If people in Europe were forced to accept welfare, would they oppose any cuts so strongly as they do?

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it is, two posts in a row, one comparing Bush to Hitler and another quoting Mussilini as insightful both on their way to a +5.

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[AceGopher]

The greater good of the overall population is to not have power concentrated in the hands of a few. Because of the concentration of money at the Federal level, that is why there is so much riding on this, and each election. I would rather live in a voluntary society, where each individual was free to vote with each dollar they spend, saved, or gave. The American people are a generous people (look at how much they gave after 9/11). It is ashame that so much is wasted on bureaucracy. Money is power. Power corrupts. And 2 TRILLION dollars corrupts a lot. Our federal bureaucracy has misplaced BILLIONS, made Bernie Ebbers look like Mother Teresa, and yet we tolerate it because we have no choice. We do have a choice! Libertarian Michael Badnarik is the only anti-war, pro-America, eliminate the deficit and reduce the waste of government candidate. And he is on the ballot in all but 1 or 2 states...far more than any other third party. Let Badnarik debate! -Ace

Re:Doesn't make much of a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a point on this word "anarcho-capitalism"... it is an oxymoron. One cannot support both anarchism and capitalism. They are logical opposites.

Suppressing voices?

[echeslack]

This is certainly a victory for those of us who believe that the country is better off when alternative political voices aren't suppressed.

I don't think that not being on the ballot means your political voice is being suppressed. Plenty of people don't make it onto the ballot, but they are still free to express their ideas.

Re:Suppressing voices?

[MindStalker]

But he did make it onto the ballot by the laws of Florida. Simply put one judge decided that he didn't believe his party was organized well enough, even though there is no standard saying how your party has to be organized.

Re:Suppressing voices?

[slughead]

Plenty of people aren't forced off the ballot by idiots who want to force people to vote for someone they don't want to.

In Arizona, Nader got several thousand more petition signatures than was needed to get on the ballot.

The Democrats in the state analyzed every single petitioner until they finally found one or two who were from out of state.

Without those one or two petitioners, Nader would still have had way more signatures than was necessary.

They conveniently waited until shortly before or after the signatures were due in order to file their lawsuit, and they were successful.

Re:Suppressing voices?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it changes nothing either way. The people who were voting for Nader were never voting for Kerry, they'd write something stupid in, or what have you. But their identity is partially predicated on being an outsider who's either too hip or too wise for the status quo.

Of course the truth is more mundane. They don't count, never did, and likely never will as people, and they're convinced this should extend to their vote as well. They don't really believe in a third party, and neither do people in them (the occasional libertarian excepted) because they don't run for the city counsel, the school superintendent, and amass political power that way. No they want to gamble and lose, knowing the outcome well in advance, every four years. With the commitment, is it really a surprise they're not part of the larger discussion. They're on the fringe, they like it.

Re:Suppressing voices?

[fmaxwell]

The people who were voting for Nader were never voting for Kerry, they'd write something stupid in, or what have you.

That's the most uninformed comment that I've read on Slashdot in quite a while -- and that's saying something. Every political pundit, analyst, and reporter accepts for fact that Nader takes votes from Kerry -- based on scientific polls. Bush supporters have launched massive campaigns to get Nader on the ballot in many states for just that reason.

Re:Suppressing voices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and they're all idiots.

Have you ever talked to people who are voting for Nader? They're not voting for him for no reason. They're voting for him for a stupid reason, which to them is very important. As many current democrats are voting against Bush, many of these people are voting against Kerry. Some wishing somehow the Republicans and Democrats would return to the parties of old. Or that Muma and weed will both be free. They would not vote Kerry without Nader, and that's likely a fault in the polling in the form of a selection bias.

Want a poll without a selection bias? Don't ask people a curiously worded question. Build out mobile voting stations of whatever quality your budget allows, put up a big Gallup or Pew banner in mall parking lots, busy intersections (their well honed normalization skills can likely fill out the target list). Ask people if they're likely and or registered voters, and let those willing vote at a voting machine that presents the options in exactly the same manner as an official ballot. Though the only real choice is Bush or Kerry there are other options, even in the case where the only names printed are theirs. No poll accounts for this. It is a fundemental flaw, but they don't care if the results of their polls are accurate, they get paid more frequently if their results are believable and create conflict. Dramatic, but not hyperbole.

Re:Suppressing voices?

[Guppy06]

"but they are still free to express their ideas."

Only so long as those politicial views are categorized as "Republican" or "Democrat." "We've got both kinds of music..." Ever wonder why voter turn-out sucks?

Nader is a natural-born citizen older than 35. IMO, that's all he should ultimately need to be on the ballot.

Re:Suppressing voices?

[fmaxwell]

Right, and they're all idiots.

So I'm supposed to take the word of an anonymous poster on Slashdot about that? Ignore the statisticians and psychologists that are involved in modern polling?

Have you ever talked to people who are voting for Nader? They're not voting for him for no reason. They're voting for him for a stupid reason, which to them is very important. As many current democrats are voting against Bush, many of these people are voting against Kerry.

Since you asked, I have talked to people who voted for Nader last time and one who said that he was considering it this time. In every case, they said that Nader best represented their views. When asked who they would vote for were he not on the ticket, every one of them said Gore (in 2000) or Kerry (this election). But that's meaningless. That's me talking a a few friends/colleagues. It's not a valid poll because it was not controlled (e.g. same exact questions phrased the same way every time) nor is it statistically significant sample set. Nor are the participants in any way randomized for age, income, geographic area, etc.

Want a poll without a selection bias? Don't ask people a curiously worded question. Build out mobile voting stations of whatever quality your budget allows, put up a big Gallup or Pew banner in mall parking lots, busy intersections (their well honed normalization skills can likely fill out the target list).

It's obvious that you've never been involved with polling. You don't let your sample self-select. You don't give precedence to those who want to play with some gadget that you erect. You don't let political groups organize to vote many times in your poll in order to skew the poll.

Re:Suppressing voices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, smoke much crack? 1. It's called normalization. With many samples and demographic data, you can do it.
2. A "gadget" that mimics a vote is going to be more accurate than a poorly worded question over a phone. Once more, you might sample other groups that are difficult to sample by phone. And ones that are difficult to sample by an in-place device, like some segments of the elderly, can be filled in with a more careful phone survey.

Unlike you, I've appearently taken statistics. The fact that the people involved with polling are incompitent is self evident. You don't need to take my word for it.

1234, i'll start a flame war!

[real_smiff]

ok, i don't know shit about American politics apart from my half-arsed following of newspapers but isn't this going to take votes away from Kerry? i.e. it's a move to hurt democrats not help democracy. this is bad, i want Kerry to win and save the world see. i could well be talking from my rear here, as i'm sure i'll soon find out. (ignore my sig, it's out of place on this thread).

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it was the Democrats (Kerry's party) who brought the court challenge. Nader's followers are pretty left wing while Kerry and Bush are moderate (although Bush has to talk like a fundamentalist Christian loon once in a while to keep his base support). In the last election, Nader was offset by a genuine right-wing nut, Pat Buchanan, but he isn't running this time. Here's a handy scorecard:

War-mongering: Kerry & Bush
Anti-abortion: Bush
Pro death penalty: Kerry & Bush
Deficit spending: Kerry & Bush
Raiding Social Security: Kerry & Bush
Pro civil rights: Kerry

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[genrader]

Thing about Nader thought is he is more of a small-government left winger. Most democrats are left wing big government.

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[N3WBI3]

it's a move to hurt democrats not help democracy

Ok so more choices are bad for democracy because it hurts the guy you agree with.. Great way to start a flame war

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no. We'd be paying 80% income taxes if Nader was ever elected.

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[jafuser]

1) Why do people like you try to polarize things, when it's well known that bell curves are much more naturally occurring? Most democrats are moderates, just as most Republicans are.

2) The current administration is a fine example of how the right-wing can also grow "big government", so you make no point here either.

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[Veridium]

i want Kerry to win and save the world

IMO, this is what is wrong with the 2 parties. They offer us messiahs, not presidents. The republicans tell us we should vote for Bush so he can save us from the terrorists. Pardon me, but if a terrorist was aiming a weapon at the president, Bush would hide behind an innocent person and shout "bring it on" from behind them, just like he's done internationally. His mouth writes checks that the lives of braver men than him have to cash. Then the democrats tell us that we should vote for Kerry so he can save us from Bush and save the world. Pardon me, but Kerry is a professional career politician. He isn't going to save the world, and while he might "save" us from Bush, who will save us from him?

The point I'm getting at is, neither one of these guys offer substance. They offer us hyperbole and fantasy. Let's look at 9/11 and why it happened honestly for a second. Did it happen because Bush got elected into office? Hardly. It happened because of shoddy foreign policy for decades. Foreign policy which was carried out by both republicans and democrats. If Kerry gets elected, is he suddenly going to say "gee, maybe we shouldn't be forcing our will on people on the other side of the globe" and just stop doing what makes people around the world hate us to the point where they will give their own lives to kill some of us? Not a chance in hell. He's going to carry on business as usual and America will continue to be targeted. The difference will be in some domestic policies and the image and type of hyperbole used to justify international intervention.

Please my fellow Americans, you need to shake yourselves out of this stupor. You are not going to save the world. We aren't a nation of supermen. God did not rise us up to benevolently rule the world through violence and economic sanctions. Get over yourselves before it is too late. Please. Come to your senses.

I refuse to vote democrat or republican in this or any election. I encourage everyone who knows that both parties are wrong to research the third parties and decide for themselves who best represents them.

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[Anonymous Coward]

no, because kerry didnt earn those votes.

if i find xyz product better than abc product, did i take away profits from the crappier product's company?

also, you make the assumption (wrongly) that every nader vote WOULD have been a vote for kerry. which i personally know is not true. i am voting for nader, and if nader werent available, i would still not vote for kerry.

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[4of12]

The point I'm getting at is, neither one of these guys offer substance.

Not quite. Both Bush and Kerry offer a substantive policy for government.

It's just that neither of them will tell you straight out exactly what that policy is.

If either one of them strayed from their handlers' advice on what to say and how to say it, then they'd lose the election.

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[LoveLiberty2004]

"Pardon me, but if a terrorist was aiming a weapon at the president, Bush would hide behind an innocent person and shout "bring it on" from behind them, just like he's done internationally."

Thanks for that, I really needed a good laugh today! It's so true!!! The National Guard today is a completely different animal than it was when Bush joined. Regardless of papers then or now, the facts are that we are sending the National Guard to Iraq in droves... George *never* would have joined the Guard had he thought for a single second he'd still have to go to Vietnam.

As for voting for a third party, I would love to. The question is, how can we make alternative parties viable options? I will not vote for an alternative party when what it means in the reality of this election, is that my vote will help Bush. I simply can't. I also have no idea how we could make a multi-party system more of a reality in this country.

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[Veridium]

The question is, how can we make alternative parties viable options?

They won't be a viable option until you recognize that they are.

I will not vote for an alternative party when what it means in the reality of this election, is that my vote will help Bush. I simply can't. I also have no idea how we could make a multi-party system more of a reality in this country.

This is a good example of what's wrong in this country. In every election you will be filled with a sense of urgency to defeat the "other" side. That is what they will indoctrinate you with and that is what you always come to believe right before an election. Your vote will never represent what you truly stand for, unless you honestly stand for the things that one of the parties stand for. I've found that few people can honestly say that. Maybe you can, but I doubt it, else why would you say "As for voting for a third party, I would love to."?

I do not know how old you are, but I suspect you are on the younger side. Watch as time goes on, watch yourself and how you react. Watch how they play you and pull your strings. Watch how they instill in you a sense of urgency through fear. It is a cycle and it will repeat in you every election year, until you decide you will not be part of it anymore.

I myself do not like Bush and find his diehard supporters tend to be little more than parrots. But they do have a point. The best argument for voting for Kerry is that he is not Bush. I am sorry, but Hitler is not Bush, should I vote for him? Saddam Hussein is not Bush, should I vote for him?

Many of the third party candidates have good arguments as to why you should vote for them. These are people who ask you to vote for them based on your ability to think and consider their positions. Not because "they aren't Bush". I can't vote for a candidate whose most appealing thing is he isn't someone else. That is an irresponsible use of my vote. You are free to see things as otherwise.

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[LoveLiberty2004]

I like your sig... I don't actually have TV myself. :)

As for voting for Kerry because he's not Bush... I don't feel that way. I've actually gone out of my way to find out some information about him, and have listened to him speak on Cspan a few times...I *like* Kerry. But if I did not, I would definitely feel that I had no alternative. Regardless of how I feel about Kerry specifically, it would make me happy to see us have more realistic choices in the elections. I apologize for not wording that post better... I was in a hurry. I should've said "I'd love there to be more realistic, viable options."

The bottom line is, it won't make a bit of difference if I vote for Nader (I don't like Nader anyways) or any of the other people running... it will only make a difference pragmatically if LOTS of people do. You are absolutely right, Bush has gotten me scared. I do not always feel scared, actually as an American I have always felt ridiculously not scared. I'm your typical cocky American without question! Or at least, used to be. Pre- 9/11, and pre-Abu Ghraib.

I did not feel scared a bit in 2000. I felt scared after watching W "win" that election. I do absolutely feel our nation is in currently in a state of crisis.

BTW if any party is making use of fear tactics, it is the Republican party. That is why most Americans believe that Bush is tougher on terrorism, and it's why we have such long lines at airport security. It doesn't matter if airport security really accomplishes anything by making us throw out our nail clippers, it's the illusion of security for the people they are scaring half to death. It doesn't matter a bit if the Patriot Act robs us of our freedoms, if it provides them the *illusion* of safety. It doesn't matter if Al Qaeda is not in fact in Iraq if it gives some people the *illusion* that we are there fighting terrorism.

My question for you was really how to make alternative parties more visible and viable in our election system as it stands. Sure, it takes people voting for what they believe in, I thought that went without saying. But it also takes getting their messages out and putting them on more of an even playing field with traditional candidates. The only answer I can see there is $$$$, which is probably why Ross Perot did so well.

Re:1234, i'll start a flame war!

[Veridium]

As for voting for Kerry because he's not Bush... I don't feel that way. I've actually gone out of my way to find out some information about him, and have listened to him speak on Cspan a few times...I *like* Kerry.

Well my point here is not to get people who like a candidate to not vote for them, just to get people who feel trapped to wake up and stop feeling trapped. If you like him and think he is the best person for the job, then I say vote for him. It is not my place to tell you who to like and who not to.

The bottom line is, it won't make a bit of difference if I vote for Nader (I don't like Nader anyways) or any of the other people running...

I'm not a nader guy, for the record, and wouldn't vote for him myself.

it will only make a difference pragmatically if LOTS of people do.

This is what I call the viscious cycle. How will lots of people ever vote for a different party, if we as individuals won't?

You are absolutely right, Bush has gotten me scared. I do not always feel scared, actually as an American I have always felt ridiculously not scared. I'm your typical cocky American without question! Or at least, used to be. Pre- 9/11, and pre-Abu Ghraib.

Bush has not gotten you scared. Bush has done things, and other things have happened, and your reaction was to be scared. You have a choice in this. You are not a victim. Neither bush, nor anyone else, has the power to make you afraid, unless you choose to give them that power.

I felt scared after watching W "win" that election.

Your choice.

I do absolutely feel our nation is in currently in a state of crisis.

Oh we've been in a state of crisis. The crisis started many years ago, perhaps decades ago. The crisis is, our people choose to be scared. They choose to be scared and they choose to look at things outside of themselves, like politicians, to alleviate that fear. Politicians are no longer chosen on the basis who will best represent them in a logical rational government, but now we choose who seems most likely to save us from our fears.

BTW if any party is making use of fear tactics, it is the Republican party.

I don't go for that blame game, the democrats and the republicans alike are world class fearmongers.

It doesn't matter if airport security really accomplishes anything by making us throw out our nail clippers, it's the illusion of security for the people they are scaring half to death

Right and it doesn't matter if Kerry was behind the invasion of Iraq, supported Bush in most of his anti-terrorism agenda, it's the illusion that he is somehow different, that even though he supported all these things as a senator, he would somehow not as president.

It doesn't matter a bit if the Patriot Act robs us of our freedoms

Nor does it seem to matter a bit to Kerry supporters that he voted for it.

It doesn't matter if Al Qaeda is not in fact in Iraq

It doesn't matter to Kerry supporters that Kerry supported Bush going into Iraq.

My question for you was really how to make alternative parties more visible and viable in our election system as it stands.

We can go two ways. We can go the sheep way, looking for shephards, which means $$$$ is going to matter. Or we can go the human way, and look for representatives, in which case, when we change ourselves, others around us will change. When that happens, then the $$$ will come, and we won't need a rich guy to be our shephard.

It's a good thing the great civil rights movements in history didn't wait around for someone with $$$ to come along to save them. It's just too bad that so many people had to wait for someone with the balls, someone who had conquered their fear, to stand up and do something. That's it all it takes. Conquer your fear, subdue it. This is your life, this is your reality, live it on your terms, not on the terms of your fear.

Certainty doesnt mean what it used to

[rigau]

This is certainly a victory for those of us who believe that the country is better off when alternative political voices aren't suppressed.

Are you fucking kidding me? Sure cause Nader (a.k.a. republican henchman for hire) getting on the ballot means only that this is good for third party options. Please, be real. This is good if you like invading other countries and killing tons of arabs. Other than that i dont see the great benefit.

the truth is that the US has a presidential system that given the size of the US makes it extremely dificult to have more than two parties. It just takes too much money to run an effective campaign. If this were a parliamentary system there would be more parties representing more interests, but with a winner take all presidential system the third party will prety much be relegated to be a spoiler and not much else.

Re:Certainty doesnt mean what it used to

[ADRA]

As a Canadian in a parlimentatary system, I'll tell you its not all roses.

There have been several minority governments; this happens when the winner doesn't garner 50% of the available seats.

In that case, the leading party usually teams up with another party to reach a majority standing in the house.

Anyways, the main point i'm trying to make is that out of all the monority governments none of them have lasted the four years. Every single one collapsed and forced a re-election.

Right now there's a minority government, so here's hoping everyone gets along!

Re:Certainty doesnt mean what it used to

[amorsen]

Here in Denmark pretty much all governments are minority governments. It forces the government to compromise, much like the typical split between president and congress does in the US. Unfortunately the current distribution of seats makes for a strong government with no need (and no intent, for sure) to compromise.

Re:Certainty doesnt mean what it used to

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada a Liberal minority gov't means that the NDP gets a disproportionate voice and conservative viewpoints get shut out. (This time it's a bit different because the Liberal Party plus the NDP (New Democratic Party - a party that has never and will never so much as take the leadership position in a minority gov't) don't have enough to form a majority, and the third non-conservative party is a seperatist party in Quebec that basically no party can be seen to cooperate with. Now instead of having more of a left lean to it our government is simply impotent.)

I know most of /. thinks that's a good thing... but that's not democracy.

(I hope that's readable...)

Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[Jagungal]

Again as a gladly non-US voter this discussion amazes me.

If you really want a victory for alternative policical voices then push hard and jump and down for a democratic preferential voting system. This way you could have 10 or more candidates and the person that was ultimately most popular would win - not the person that splits the least number of votes.

If you had a preferential voting system then you might be discussing the merits of a first vote for Nader instead of worrying about loosing a vote by voting for him. Your second and third votes may be the ones that ultimately count.

As an Australian voter, where everything is Preferential, I cannot imagine having to use such an archaic "First Past the Post" system as they use in the US. I am also amazed there is not a major movement for change there.

If you don't know what a preferential voting system is .. have a read ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting/

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[Paladin128]

Some of us are pushing for this, particularly those who've studied game theory. I'd personally be happy with either instant runoff or condorcet's method replacing the current plurality voting system.

I personally hate both Kerry and Bush equally, and have pretty much decided that my vote will go to Michael A. Peroutka of the Constitution party.

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[goon america]

The link in the above post should be

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting

John McCain, Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean support instant-runoff voting (a kind of preferential voting). Of course, they're principled so they're always going to lose to the shill-driven jokers we're so used to in this country (not to say that some shill-driven jokers aren't strikingly worse than others).

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[Will_Malverson]

Do you think that the people who couldn't figure out the infamous 'butterfly ballot' would be able to understand a preferential voting system?

Re: Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[Black Parrot]

> Some of us are pushing for this, particularly those who've studied game theory.

I'm not an expert on this, but it's my understanding that if you list the six or seven properties that everyone agrees a voting system should have, then there's a theorem that proves no voting system can satisfy all those properties together.

Re: Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[goon america]

The theorem you are thinking of is Arrow's theorem.

While it is true that no voting system is perfect, that certainly does not mean that all voting systems are equally imperfect. It's hard to see what advantages our current system has over a runoff system.

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was sitting in a class (Logic and Reasoning) in a reasonably good school (Boston University) with a class comprised of mostly US citizens. (Oddly enough)

The Prof. decided to discuss voting systems, and various pros and cons related to them all.

When the confused looks finally past - after he explained how the US (presidential) system does work - they returned when he told some loyal patriots it didn't have to be that way.

Can you imagine the US using our system now?

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[True Grit]

If the ballot were designed and printed out correctly, yes.

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[Guppy06]

Preferential voting?

I don't like Kerry. I don't like Ashcroft, which means I don't like Bush. I'm not all that keen on Nader here, the Green Party is just... no, I've got some big philosophical differences with Badnarik, and I don't thump a Bible enough for the so-called Constitution Party. What the hell is preferential voting going to do for me when I don't like any of the options? "This candidate doesn't suck ass as much as that candidate?"

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[TykeClone]

Write yourself in then.

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[jsebrech]

If you really want a victory for alternative policical voices then push hard and jump and down for a democratic preferential voting system.

I don't think that would particularly help, because the underlying problems of a president representing only a single party would still be there. Even if the largest party under instant-runoff has only 30 percent of the vote (or the equivalent thereof), they get 100 percent of the executive power.

Most countries have systems which allow coalition governments, which represent a true majority of voters, in addition to allowing small 3rd parties to become part of government without having to win in absolute numbers from the big entrenched parties.

Now, what might happen is that with preferential voting, 3rd party candidates would start getting seats in congress, and then they would be able to cut coalition deals in congress with whichever of the big two wanted to become a true majority. But that would be unlikely, and would still not solve a lot of the structural problems with the way the executive branch in the US is formed.

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I have serious doubts about IRV (in that it can clearly allow a winner who really isn't the most popular or "best" choice) and find Condorcet too confusing. Approval voting is likely to work as well as Condorcet in terms of selecting the candidate that is truly favored by the most voters and is much simpler to explain and process.

Re:Push for a truly democratic voting system.

[tsg]

The butterfly ballot was designed poorly.

I'm willing to bet most Americans can figure out "rate these candidates from 1 to 10 in order of preference."

Nader has lost it

[moof1138]

I once sort of respected Nader (pre 2000), even though I didn't agree with him. Now I am shocked at how low he has sunk. Not only is he taking in tons of money from the Republican Party, and letting them run ads for him, knowing full well that they are using him to as a tool against the Dems., but now he is running on the freaking Reform platform to get on the ticket after the Greens dropped him. How anyone can imagine Nader to be a progressive while he is cozying up with a the party of a racist neanderthal like Pat Buchanan is beyond me.

I don't see how he could get any votes now - he has spit in the face of anyone on the left by courting the worst on the right, but nobody but those on the left could stomach like his views.

Re:Nader has lost it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Ehhh, I don't think the fact that Nader is on the Reform Party ticket means he's cozying up to Buchanan*. Look at the people who have run under their banner over the last few years: Perot, Ventura, Buchanan, now Nader. You see any common thread between these guys? Nope, neither do I. For whatever reason (probably Perot's money) the RP became a kind of refuge for disaffected politicians who weren't happy with either of the Big 2 or with any of the existing, more coherent third parties. (The Greens or the Libertarians or the Socialists or the Prohibitionists may be loons, but at least you know in what direction their looniness lies.) Honestly, I expect this election to be the RP's last hurrah; I just don't see how they'll keep going after this.

* Who, BTW, is becoming less Neanderthal by the day, or maybe it's just that the current Republicans make him look reasonable by comparison -- I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with anything the guy said, and now I agree with him about half the time.

Re:Nader has lost it

[TykeClone]

* Who, BTW, is becoming less Neanderthal by the day, or maybe it's just that the current Republicans make him look reasonable by comparison -- I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with anything the guy said, and now I agree with him about half the time.

I don't think that he's really changed much about what he's been saying since the last election. He's always been an isolationist kind of guy.

Who needs third parties?

[sybert]

It is good to have two parties with two center seeking candidates that appear indistinguishable from each other, and split the vote evenly between them. It is good if everything congress can agree on has already been passed into law, and everything else before congress is gridlocked. Agreement on a quantity (taxes, spending, etc.) is when exactly half think the quantity is to high, and the other half thinks it is too low. Some people see our two party winner take all system as dysfunctional, when it is really mature democracy near equilibrium. 3rd parties, bipartisan agreement, and a widely varied candidate positions is really disequilibrium.

It looked like we were close to equilibrium in 2000. The problem was that both candidates and the center were all disastrously wrong on counter-terrorism policy before 9/11. And when congress was unanimous after 9/11, it was only because we were disastrously wrong before, not that there was any new sense of cooperation after.

Of course, everyone would like it if the "center" was closer to their own views. But that is what contributions, lobbying, and political action is for. Everyone can be a special interest, all you have to do is open your checkbook or write your representatives.

3rd parties would be more effective as lobbies or think tanks. CATO is more effective at moving the center than the libertarian party, and environmental lobbies are more effective than the green party.

Re:Who needs third parties?

[Josh Booth]

I don't think so because I've head it said that if two people are in total agreement only one is making the decisions, or something like that. That seems true enough, so applied to the U.S., that means that probably the media and corperations are making all the decisions for the public and they don't care. I just think that we are slowly becoming more and more like ancient rome, with a love of spectacle and little care for anything that really means something. I hope that we are merely at the bottom of a cycle and not on a "slipery slope".

Re:Who needs third parties?

[j1m 5n0w]

Agreement on a quantity (taxes, spending, etc.) is when exactly half think the quantity is to high, and the other half thinks it is too low. Some people see our two party winner take all system as dysfunctional, when it is really mature democracy near equilibrium.

That's an interesting point. However,

• a) Many issues are not simply a matter of agreeing on a quantity, and there are often more options available than "more of x" or "less of x" (where x usually equals "money for some program" or "taxes").
• b) Moral issues usually have discrete values, and compromise is not always a reasonable option.
• c) Politics is not one dimensional. Mapping everyone's ideas onto a line is a convenient way to discard someone's ideas without understanding them. It's easy to say "I don't have to understand that guy's arguments, he's a [right wing extremist / commie / wishy-washy centrist]."

-jim

Re:Who needs third parties?

[sybert]

For discreet issues, the majority position should have already been legislated. Discreet issues should only be legislated when the majority shifts to the other side and when new legislation can just barely pass. More complex issues will usually have amendments added to sweeten or sour the legislation so that is will just barely pass. A mature democracy should never have any new legislation pass with a large majority.

Politics is many dimensional but should eventually settle to two parties that split between the best fit line through multi-dimensional opinion space. Third party tools like approval voting are very relevant to new democracies like Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries that will be liberated in the future. It takes a long time to converge to a two party democratic equilibrium.

Nadar more believable than /dev/null?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember California's vote distribution analysis by nerds? How it uncovered criminal migration of Democratic votes to third parties?

With Nadar on the ballot it will be easier to redirect Kerry votes after the polls close in the boiler room state.

It must be a great personal burden, being the worst pResident ever.

There will be crooks and rumors of crooks.

This is certainly a victory

[sabNetwork]

...for the Republican party.

--

...like a whore's drawers!

[FFFish]

Jebus! It's like a whore's drawers... first he's on, then he's off, then he's on again.

The US electoral system is teh funnys.

Evil Republicans?

[kajoob]

I'll go ahead and burn some karma here...

Isn't it a little peculiar that the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep somebody off the ballot, but yet this gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media? However, can you imagine the shock and revolt the Democrats would spew out if the Republicans were trying to keep a candidate off the ballot?

Now I'm sure the Republicans would indeed do the same thing under similar circumstances, my point here is about the coverage. If Republicans do it, it's evil and it needs to be on the front page. If the Democrats do it, then it's just good ol' fashion politics, nothing to see here folks.

Flame away.

Re:Evil Republicans?

[sabNetwork]

I don't disagree with your point; Democrats are definitely creating a double-standard.

Regardless of what they say, Democrats and Republicans are eager to pull any dirty trick they can get away with. They are also eager to catch the other side doing the same.

Democrats revert to the "angel act" when they notice GOP succeeding in its attacks.
--

Re:Evil Republicans?

[jafuser]

I agree this is all quite snafu.

But just like the obvious motives of the democrats, I also point out the motives of Jeb Bush and his appointed staff who are all suddenly eagar advocates for getting the Reform Party on the ballot in Florida.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/14/Decision2004/Ple a_puts_Nader_back_.shtml

Basically the rule is all politicians suck. Don't try to single out one side or the other.

Re: Evil Republicans?

[Black Parrot]

> But just like the obvious motives of the democrats, I also point out the motives of Jeb Bush and his appointed staff who are all suddenly eagar advocates for getting the Reform Party on the ballot in Florida.

I think it's despicable for the Democrats to try to keep Nader off the ballot in various states. And though I wouldn't call the Republicans' attempts to get him on the ballot 'despicable', it's clearly a case of gaming the system, and a symptom that something is wrong with that system.

Re: Evil Republicans?

[XO]

Nader doesn't have enough support to get ON the ballot in MOST states, and the Republicans have been petitioning those states FOR him.

They know that his presence on the ballot only helps the Republicans.

And, his support is waning so badly, that he doesn't even have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting on the ballot in more than 2 or 3 states without their help.

The Democrats aren't specifically trying to keep him off -- if he had a legitimate amount of support to be ON the ballot, then I don't think they'd blow a nut about it. But, in MI and CA and several other states, the Republicans have specifically put Nader on the ballot, though he wouldn't have qualified on his own.

I agree both parties suck, but it's not a case of the Dems are TRYING to get him off the ballot in a shady fashion, as that the Repubs are trying to get him ON the ballot in a shady fashion

Re:Evil Republicans?

[TVC15]

> but yet this gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media?

actually, it is covered by mainstream media. this has been covered on all of the main news outlets. news, talking head pundit shows, etc. however, perhaps they are not covering it with the fervor that you and others might like. there are 2 reasons i can think of for this....

1) it's not news that'll get the ratings up. when Pat Buchanan 'spoiled' the Clinton/Bush election, it was news then as well, but people just didn't care that much. so they report on it out of what little sense of duty they have left and perhaps to hedge their bets that this becomes a hot story. since the US has undergone massive media consolidation (nearly a la Italy), ratings are a major driving force. thats why almost anything but the biggest political stories are still overshadowed by the Peterson murder trial and the Jackson molestation trial. (at least the latter involves someone famous, the first obsession completely escapes me).

2) it's too much work to write a real story and do 'investigation'. news is much more of a competetive business for the same reason noted above. a huge number of stories are written in part or in full by interest groups and then shopped around to outlets to be placed. the only thing that doesnt seem to be happening is outright payola to place stories. but the net effect is that newspapers can become more efficient by accepting these articles and start firing journalists. it's alot more profitable to have a a few guys sit around and read prewritten stories from interest groups that are willing to provide content free of charge.

(btw once the tv news industry started firing journalists as anchorpeople and started filling those positions with pseudo models/actors we pretty much shoulda known we were in trouble. they are starting to do it with field reporters now as well.)

Re:Evil Republicans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it a little peculiar that the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep somebody off the ballot, but yet this gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media?

I find it peculiar you believe this. Every article I've read states that it's Democrats suing.

Re:Evil Republicans?

[Lars T.]

I'm much more surprised that this didn't get any mainstream media coverage (and little non-mainstream).

Re:Evil Republicans?

[jsebrech]

Isn't it a little peculiar that the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep somebody off the ballot, but yet this gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media? However, can you imagine the shock and revolt the Democrats would spew out if the Republicans were trying to keep a candidate off the ballot?

If you want to really see underreported stories, read project censored.

This story doesn't qualify, because clearly there is a different angle to it, which is that instead of democrats trying to get nader OFF the ballot contrary to the law, it is republicans trying to get nader ON the ballot contrary to the law. So if they weren't reporting this story you'd hear accusations of pro-republican bias.

Re:Evil Republicans?

[rpillala]

Not a flame, but it's not a valid comparison to use mainstream media coverage versus what the Democratic party would do. Besides, both parties are working together to limit influence of other candidates. Witness the effort keep other candidates out of presidential candidate debates. They're not criticizing each other for that. I'm not certain which major party is the one for a "free and open debate" but it looks like really neither.

This is also old news like the parent post.

Ravi

Vote for what you want -- but consider pairing

[mec]

Good for democracy.

The votes belong to the voters, not the candidates.

Anybody who wants to vote for Ralph Nader can damn well vote for Ralph Nader, and anybody who doesn't want to, doesn't have to. I think all the prospective Nader voters have been exposed to enough advertising and history by now to make up their own minds whether they prefer "vote for what you really want" or "vote for lesser evil".

Regarding that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" meme goes -- that sounds uncomfortably similar to President Bush's statement: "if you're not with us you're against us."

One thing that Nader voters can do is pair up. In the last election, Nader Traders paired up Nader voters in swing states with Gore voters in non-swing states. The Nader Traders are back in action this election.

There's another kind of pairing: if you really want to vote for Nader, but don't want Bush to win, go find somebody who really hates Bush but doesn't want Kerry to win. Make a deal: "I won't vote for Kerry if you won't vote for Bush." Then you go vote for Nader or Cobb, and your buddy votes for Badnarik or Peroutka. The major party outcome is unaffected, and you both vote for the candidate you really wanted -- which helps build the party you really want.

Re:Vote for what you want -- but consider pairing

[epcraig]

Not a chance, both have alienated me. That I hate Kerry's potential only a little less than Bush's demonstrated incompetence is no incentive for me to vote for Kerry, even by proxy.

Re:Vote for what you want -- but consider pairing

[mec]

I suggest you re-read the last paragraph of my proposal.

I'm suggesting an informal system where more people can securely vote for candidates who are not Bush or Kerry.

Re:Vote for what you want -- but consider pairing

[CosmeticLobotamy]

A vote for Nader may not be a vote for Bush, but a vote for not-Kerry is a vote for not-not-Bush.

The game is pick the winner, and it only allows one winner, so if you only count people playing, you really are either with someone or against them. Bush's idiotic threats and posturing are entirely different.

Unfortunately, you're right about all the other stuff.

Media-government gridlock

[mec]

I like it when Congress and the President are of different parties.

And I like it even more when the media and the President are of different parties.

Democratic president? Gimme talk radio and bloggers.

Republican president? nytimes.com will yell "emperor has no clothes!" every day for four years.

"This basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decided whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." -- Thomas Jefferson

duopoly troubles

[slothman32]

Here is a question I am wondering about. Right now in the US there is a duopoly. The Repub. and Demo. have like 95% of the votes total. Even the most "lopsided" states might only give them 80%.
Because of past elections and the way people work enough people will still vote Republicrat to render the chance of an independent win zero. Through positive reinforcement that makes people vote for Republicrats.
As has been determined this year third party candidates and even primary opponents won't affect the views of Bush and Kerry. Kerry, and Bush for that matter, went even more to the right since the primary and are now quite similar. That makes a third party chance even smaller. People always say that it isn't really throwing your vote away but it won't change anything. Third parties still won't get matching funds or enough to get a chance of winning even years down the line. They won't win nor change the opinions of the ones who do. It sounds good as a protest vote but since voting is hidden it does very little. It would be better to write a letter to a candidate who might win rather than vote for a pointless person.
Especially with swing states they really do take votes away from the 2 main people. Can someone tell me what the difference is between voting "none of the above", i.e. not voting, and voting for a third party who won't do anything? In an extremely biased state like NY it's even less important that a swing state. Nothing I do here will change the outcome or the future except for the added value of 1 to the vote tally.
If there was a different system like approval or even less people per rep then it might matter but with 10 million people to compete against, 9 million who will vote for Bush/Kerry in NY a third party seems pointless.
Now before I get flamed for saying I won't vote, for the reason above, I want a reason that refutes my points above. I think of my non voting as a protest vote but easier since there is no real way to do that. I am registered and voted before but in a president election it doesn't seem to do anything.
You can think of it with this analogy. Let's say there is a park with 100 pieces of litter. But if 49 or less pieces are picked up it will act like none were. If 51 or more then all would seem to be. Unlike real litter picking voting acts more like this warped version. In real enviromentalism "even a little bit helps." But in this warped version if it is gauranteed that 70% still won't get picked up then it doesn't help at all, different than the way it really and should work.
A site here: http://www.strange-loops.com/politicsvoting.html helps explain it.
P.S. Remember in president election 49% of the people might not be represented at all.

Re:duopoly troubles

[NegativeOneUserID]

In a state like New York, there is no difference. You are simply outnumbered. Either move to a swing state, or convince enough people to all move to a state together so that it will become a swing state. That's the only way to make your vote matter. http://freeme.org/

Re:duopoly troubles

[abb3w]

Can someone tell me what the difference is between voting "none of the above", i.e. not voting, and voting for a third party who won't do anything?

Third parties in the United states serve as a source of direction for the larger parties. When the little guys start growing, the big guys know it's time to shift their policies to get back the votes-- or fade into obscurity.

The exceptions have been few. In a few cases, a figure of sufficient charisma and political clout has been disatisfied, and sparked a flare for a few years-- such as Teddy Roosevelt and Perot did. The end result isn't much different than other third parties. The other exception is the Republicans themselves; the issue that rose them to prominence so polarized the country that civil war resulted. Let's hope they don't go back that far to their roots. =)

Of course, the unity of the big two is now, and has always been, an illusion. The "Dixiecrat" faction is noted in the Democrats, and while all Republicans seem to be either Religious Right or Fiscal Conservative, the majority are not both.

Try to see this in a different perspective

[Makoto916]

I don't think that not being on the ballot means your political voice is being suppressed. Plenty of people don't make it onto the ballot, but they are still free to express their ideas.

It's very simple. Being on the ballot in a state provides you with the ability to receive officially tallied votes which in turn may qualify you for state and/or federal funding in future elections. It's critically important for any candidate to receive official ballot status for this, and many other reasons.

People, it's not an issue of electability. Everyone knows full well that Nader isn't going to win. Even I know that, and I'm still voting for him. You are NOT throwing away a vote by giving it to a 3rd party candidate. You are validating that candidate's platform, and providing them with the ability to influence government with their policy.

A perfect example is Ross Perot in '96 who garnered something like 19% of the US popular vote. If you don't think that influenced policy of the Clinton administration then I've got a harsh reality check for you.

Please understand that 3rd parties are just as much a vital part of this countries political process as the two primary parties are. You don't have to believe their message, but you should still support free political speed no matter what. Any candidate (such as Kerry) that seeks to suppress the political process by surreptitiously removing other qualified candidates through legal technicalities is nothing more than a totalitarian prick who obviously doesn't understand or believe in the freeness of our system. I don't think there can be anything more un-American than this kind of back-stabbing, vote-robbing action.

Re:Try to see this in a different perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Perot only got like 8% of the popular vote in '96. He did get around 19% in '92 though.

Re:Try to see this in a different perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I want run off votes. I could vote for Nader in the first portion of the election. Nader could gain vote, but even if Nader doesn't win, it'd still safely allow people to get their other choice out (if say, they wanted not Bush).

Who's the fraud?

[jagapen]

Nader often says, half-seriously, that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same, corporate party. Before you dismiss him as glib, or an idiot, think about it. The two parties have what seems to be a gentleman's agreement to watch each other's back. Together, they run the debate commission and keep third parties out. They both oppose instant run-off voting, or fusion.
And how about this? Bush might have missed the deadline to get on the Florida ballot! Read it yourself: http://sptimes.com/2004/09/11/Decision2004/Did_Bus h_camp_err_on_.shtml Here they're trying to keep Nader off the Florida ballot because they fear he'll swing the state to Bush, but the Democrats here have a chance to try to get Bush himself off the ballot, and they won't take it...

Vote Third Party Dammit

[stealth.c]

Americans:
I'm voting third party, and you should too if you care one whit for the democratic process or the future of this country.

"A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!"
"Vote for the lesser evil."
"Don't throw your vote away."
and the even more misleading: "It isn't throwing your vote away, but it won't change anything."

are all memes I've grown to hate. They all completely miss the point. Vote for the man you want for the job. PERIOD. Because one day, a non-Republicrat WILL WIN.

I'm voting third party, at the encouragement of I.F. Stone, who tells me:
"The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing--for the sheer fun and joy of it--to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it."

I'm voting third party because Bush and Kerry are exactly the same damned thing. And I am not going to let either head of the Republicrat media hydra turn me, or anyone who will listen to me, into some marionette to be tugged about by the memory of 9/11/01.

I'm voting third party because it's the only way I can leave that booth this November without the guilty weight of a near-decade of gratuitous bloodshed heaped upon my heart.

I have suspicions about what things will be like with four more years of these country club politicians. But getting to say "I told you so" is just not worth it this time.

Re: Vote Third Party Dammit

[Black Parrot]

> Vote for the man you want for the job. PERIOD.

No, vote for whatever is best for the country. Sometimes that involves a difficult trade-off between short term best and long term best.

Re:Vote Third Party Dammit

[Makoto916]

Well said. It makes me feel better that someone else out there is actually thinking of the broader picture. Keep fighting the good fight, no matter how much you're ridiculed over your view.

IMHO, the only "wasted vote" is the one cast out of ignorance. All too often people vote for a candidate simply because their friend, parent, or - God forbid - the TV told them to.

I can only hope that organizations like Open Debates will actually succeed and once and for all provide this country with a meaningful alternative to the duopoly that has grown so far out of touch with mainstream America.

Re:Vote Third Party Dammit

[tsg]

"A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!"

This is based on the assumption that most people who vote for Nader would prefer Kerry over Bush. It is not an unreasonable assumption and the main reason the Republicans are so anxious to see Nader on the ballot.

"Vote for the lesser evil."

Given our current "only indicate your first preference" system of voting where it is known beforehand that two candidates will get over 90% of the vote, it is, in fact, the correct choice. Given three candidates A, B, and C, a vote for A says nothing about the voter's preference between B and C. If the voter knows beforehand that only B or C can win, he should choose between those two.

"Don't throw your vote away."
and the even more misleading: "It isn't throwing your vote away, but it won't change anything."

90,000 people voted for Nader in Florida in 2000. If those 90,000 people instead decide not to vote, nothing changes. He got 3 million votes in the country and didn't win a single state. If those 3 million people stay home instead, nothing changes. Monica Moorehead got 1800 votes in Florida. She was only on the ballot in four other states for a total of 51 electoral votes. She could not win (unless she gets a huge number if write-ins, but if that were the case, she'd be on the ballot). If one third of those people vote for Gore instead, Gore wins the election. If they stay home, nothing changes. I fail to see how voting third party changes anything.

Vote for the man you want for the job. PERIOD. Because one day, a non-Republicrat WILL WIN.

The problem is that unless enough people are going to, few people will want to. The risk that voting third party carries is not indicating your preference between the two most likely (by far) to win. The benefit, unless enough people do, is nothing. The only way to convince enough people to do it is to convince them enough people are already doing it and if enough people are already doing it they don't need convincing.

You can vote third party if you like, but don't fool yourself into believing it will change anything. If you want to change the system, you have to start with the system.

Suggestion to slashdot poll

[Isomorph]

What is most important in a voting system ?
1. That the result satisfy most of the voters.
2. That it is easy to understand the counting procedure.

Lets face it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush WILL win.

Again.

Not cause people want him, but cause of BS stuff like this.

Which, will in turn start a social riot, which in turn will make the gov take MORE of our freedoms away.

Watch.

It will happen.

I think its written in some old book called the b!bl3 or something.

Illinois state Dems chummy with state Republicans

[jbn-o]

In Illinois, the Democrats control the state government and recently changed the law to allow Bush on the ballot. According to state law, the Republican convention must be held before Sept. 1. The Republican convention was on Sept. 3rd, so it was later than it needed to be to legally allow President Bush to appear on the ballot in Illinois. The Illinois Democratic Party response: Change the law by altering the deadline so that the Republican convention would be within the new deadline (Senate Bill 2123). The Pantagraph published an article about this on June 29, 2004, the first few sentences of which you can find online. State Rep. Bill Mitchell (R-Forsyth) was quoted as saying "The bottom line is people should be able to vote on the President of the United States and voice their opinion on him." and Democratic Party Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich concurs. But what goes unmentioned is how this need to vote for a candidate does not extend to third parties or independents.

Nationally, the two major corporate parties know when to get along as well. Some readers may recall that the official-sounding (but privately-owned) "Commission on Public Debates" which hosts the presidential debates (taking that away from the League of Women Voters) is owned by the RNC, the DLC, and a few of their mutual corporate friends. These debates excluded Nader and Buchanan in 2000 despite a majority of the country wanting to see them in the debates. They were excluded by setting the barrier to entry high (15% interest level in pre-debate polls) and (as Nader points out in his book "Crashing the Party") gathering poll data from corporate-run news agencies friendly to the cause of third-party exclusion. This year, there is a movement to provide a more reasonable set of debates but Sen. Kerry and Pres. Bush are contractually bound to their CPD debates and will probably not appear in any Open Debate-run debate.

If the Democrats spent as much time opposing the Republicans as they spend opposing competitive third parties (like the Greens) and independents (such as Ralph Nader this election year), the Democrats would probably be a different party. Illinois is not a contested state, it is a "safe seat" for Kerry.

Nader has hard row to hoe but he's doing the work.

[jbn-o]

Not only is he taking in tons of money from the Republican Party, and letting them run ads for him, knowing full well that they are using him to as a tool against the Dems., but now he is running on the freaking Reform platform to get on the ticket after the Greens dropped him.

Read Counterpunch articles on Ralph Nader. They've recently published articles on these issues and frame the debate in a more balanced way by examining where the Democrats and Republicans are getting their money from (as well as differentiating between what individual citizens do versus what political parties do, and looking at how much money was collected from various sources for Nader and the two dominant parties), and recognizing that you can't control who runs ads criticizing you or your opponents, as well as examining how the Greens came to arrive at their nomination of David Cobb and Pat LaMarche over Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo.

How anyone can imagine Nader to be a progressive while he is cozying up with a the party of a racist neanderthal like Pat Buchanan is beyond me.

Not that I'm saying you're an Anyone But Bush supporter (which I don't know if you are), but I would think this is something the ABB crowd could appreciate (and this is taking your critique at face value) -- swallowing something bad for a greater good. I don't think most Democratic Party voters actually like Kerry; the delegates disagree with him on some major points of policy, but they plan to vote for him to get Bush out of office. Similarly, if you believe Reform Party endorsement to be bad, consider that Reform Party endorsement gets Nader/Camejo on the ballot in some states and that means a lot when one is trying to push for democratic (small-d) electoral reforms as Nader/Camejo clearly are. I'm sure Nader realizes more than anyone posting to this website what immense barriers his campaign faces and how slim his chances are of winning. He wrote a book about the need for structural electoral reform a few years ago called "Crashing the Party" when he was endorsed by the Green Party. But we shouldn't push out people who have such a fight ahead of them. Not only would that have denied some victories (like Jesse Ventura's in Minnesota) but it would say that democracy is only for the two parties who already have a lock on the system.

Nadir

[Doc Ruby]

Nader thinks forcing the Democrats to the left is more important than letting them gain centrist control of the government. That's why he claims that Republican and Democrat candidates are the same: they both represent corporations. He's wrong, and he's taking us with him. He'd have the influence he seeks if he just concentrated his campaign on winning even a handful of electoral votes somewhere in the country, and then instructing those electors to vote for Kerry after the polls closed. If he put Kerry over the top, they'd have to deal with him. Especially as those electors would represent some people who voted for Bush, but scored for Kerry. Instead he's destroying the village in order to save it - good policy when you're helping Bush win.

Simulation of Elections

[Isomorph]

Another interesting thing to read is this essay by Brian Olson.

Simulation Of Various Voting Models for Close Elections

Here is the conclusion, I would like to have included the graphs but it don't seem to be possible.

Conclusions

Traditional One Vote was reliably the worst performer, and it should be sacked.

IRV is only barely better than present methods. I believe that the flaw is in that it is still based initially on the present method of only counting one vote from every person. Although it can solve some fractured electorate problems it is still very limited and unexpressive.

Acceptance Voting, while collecting less data then IRV, processes all that data at once to better match the will of the people. It is also simpler to implement and explain to a real electorate.

Condorcet voting, while not the top performer, had a uniquely better response to error in the voters. For this it deserves further study.

Ranked Voting collects the same data as IRV but uses it to better effect because the overall will of the voters is considered at once. The variant where no points are awarded to disliked candidates does not actually aid the voter. That variant is just throwing away data, and if a voter doesn't get a desired candidate they have no influence to get a lesser evil.

The various Rated Voting systems reliably got the highest happiness results. Unfortunately it would require relatively complicated or expensive, almost necessarily computerized, voting equipment. I'm imagining a GUI with a slider next to each candidate's name and image.

Fortunately, ``Rated 1..N'' and 1..10 don't have that problem and get results often identical to and always at least very close to pure Rated Voting.

Based on these findings Acceptance Voting or Rated Voting should be put into practice immediately. Acceptance Voting may be the easiest to implement with present equipment. The IRV advocacy sites I saw claimed that more and more voting equipment was capable of collecting IRV-type candidate rankings, but if such rankings can be collected, Rated Voting should be applied to the data.

An interesting trend in Max Happiness: it increases with more candidates. In a field of otherwise undifferentiated candidates, when there are more candidates there is a better chance that there will be one candidate that more people will agree on preferring. This may be the most important reason to break away from the One Vote system to a system that doesn't punish the voters for the existence of many choices.

No it is not.

[jotaeleemeese]

If the system is broken all what you do is also broken from the start.

There are several ways to fix this (in many countries you have a second round vote between the most popular candidates in case nobody obtains 50% + 1 votes). But as long as you have the archaic, undemocratic electoral college system of indiret election, the participants will have to do this and more in order to advance their cause.

Re:No it is not.

[Lars T.]

The Electoral College, while archaic, is not the problem here. It's how the Electors are elected themselves. Absolutely nothing forces the States to use the "guy with the most votes in one election gets all Electors" system.

Re:No it is not.

[TykeClone]

No, but it's in the states' (especially small states) best interests to award the electors in a winner-take-all fashion.

So what is your point exactly?

[jotaeleemeese]

People voting for 3rd parties clearly believe is on the best interest of their country.

Your political gymnastics are amusing but stupid.

It is not his fault...

[jotaeleemeese]

... if the US electoral system is completely and utterly broken.

Perhaps people will come to realize this thanks to his and other candidates efforts.

Re:It is not his fault...

[Doc Ruby]

At the cost of 4 more years of Bush? That's a pyrric victory.

Re:It is not his fault...

[tetranz]

It is not his fault if the US electoral system is completely and utterly broken.

Very true. Unfortunately the chance of it ever changing seems extremely slim. Its my observation that electoral reform is something most americans have never thought about and are really not interested. There is plenty of stuff on the net like FairVote.org, ElectionMethods.org but they don't seem to be having much success in bringing it into public debate.

As a foreigner in the US, my few attempts at discussing this with people who I know are intelligent and politically aware has been a dismal failure. The suggestion that they don't have the best system in the world is just not something they are willing to consider.

funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington Post made a kill today, they said that
"American voters aren't stupid", what were they thinking..

ugh

[XO]

After the SC rules that he must not be put on the ballot for at least two different reasons, Jeb goes and replaces people on his Court, so that they will fix the decision his way.

Good going, the good ole' boys still know how to rig it up!

Pat Buchanan is not a racist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pat Buchanan is not a racist. What evidence do you have to suggest that he is a racist?

On the other hand, the Hispanics in La Raza are indeed racists.

approval voting

[j1m 5n0w]

...and that's why we need approval voting, or some similar system. (Yeah, I know I'm being redundant)

-jim

The poster brings up a good point

[justkarl]

This is certainly a victory for those of us who believe that the country is better off when alternative political voices aren't suppressed.

This is true. Although I(and many) are certain that Nader dosen't have a snowman's chance in hell of winning, it's good to see that he will at least appear as an option on the ballot. Now if we could really get those "alternative ideas" into office, we might be getting somewhere.

What third party does Nader represent?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Greens don't want him any more, right? He's the Reform Party candidate in Florida. So supposedly we're to vote for him because for these last however many years he's been building some kind of coalition --between the Greens and the Reform Party???!!-- a powerful grassroots movement that the major parties will not be able to ignore.

What progress has he made?

Why not let him on the ballot?

[JimLynch]

Just to try to save Kerry's lame ass? That's absurd. Good for Nader. We need MORE third party participation and ballot placement.

We also need more third party inclusion in the "debates". Right now we don't have real debates, we have a "commission" run by the Republicrats that deliberately excludes third party candidates.

According to whom?

[abb3w]

It's looking like Bush will win Florida with or without Nader on the ballot.

That forcast, while possible, is not blindingly obvious one way or another to me, yet. Unless you're one of those assuming that George's brother figured out how to rig it last time, and will figure it out again?

"Nader hurt Gore/Kerry", a pathetic excuse

[AHumbleOpinion]

I am not a Nader supporter, Bush or Kerry are far better choices than Nader IMHO. However Nader should have his shot just like anyone else. The whole idea that Nader screwed Gore or will screw Kerry is bulls**t. Nader has said a lot of screwy things but one thing he has right is that Gore/Kerry are not entitled to any democratic party member's vote. They have to earn it. If Gore/Kerry can not get the vote of a person who is inherently inclined to favor them then that is their own damn fault. Blaming Nader is just a pathetic attempt to blame someone else for their own failures and shortcomings. Of course what else should we expect from career politicians.

Re:"Nader hurt Gore/Kerry", a pathetic excuse

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Of course what else should we expect from career politicians.

Good question. Let's see... how about them enslaving our grandchildren, and not even for the reward of being slavemaster (evil or not, you can at least respect that). They'll do it because some corporation donated just enough money to the campaign, in all the right, untraceable ways to guarantee them some key election victory. Or maybe because the real powers that be, who keep politicians as lapdogs, finally give the word that it's time for the final stage of the conspiracy. Or hell, they'll do it to protect us from ourselves... but their bureaucracy will be too big to let them have fun with the power.

I expect them to give themselves raises, when they still make (officially, I'm not even counting all the bribes) 4 times what it would take for me to live a life I consider luxurious.

I expect them to, when out of the spotlight, act like they're european nobility, and that I'm no better than livestock. Worse even, some do have pets, which they almost certainly value more than any of their constituents.

I expect them to have PR tools at their disposal the likes of which I can't even understand, and yet still do utterly retarded things to cause a scandal here and there.

I expect them to sell us out at every opportunity, for wholesale prices. Companies will donate $50,000 if they raise the H1B limits? Hot damn!

Shit, guess I should have formatted it as a list...

Re:"Nader hurt Gore/Kerry", a pathetic excuse

[ericspinder]

I agree that even Bush is better than Nadar,if only because Nader sticks his head further in the sand than Bush. Any statistical analysis will tell you that Nader gave Bush the election. Hell, the offical difference was 500 votes in Florida alone. Even if you say the 95% of the Nader voters would have stayed home and of those who did turn up at the polls, 95% voted for, say, Mickey Mouse rather than Gore, with only half those being punch clean though (no hanging chads!). Gore still would have won by a clear margin.

Stop digging your head in the sand, and see the clear reality. Anyone who believes that Nader didn't elect Bush, doesn't understand America's political process. That's Nader's spin, and for a guy who prides himself on 'strait talk', I think a lot less of him for it. He does have the right to be on the ballot, where the Republicans can get the signatures for him and where 'Bush' backing minor parties can list him, but I for one am glad to see any challenges to being on a ballot.

Re:"Nader hurt Gore/Kerry", a pathetic excuse

[mre5565]

> The whole idea that Nader screwed Gore [...]
> is bulls**t.

Right. Gore couldn't even win his home state. TN, which with 11 votes, would have given him 276 votes in the Electoral College, a majority, even without Florida. Gore couldn't win TN today, and that's likely why he didn't bother to run this time. Even with TN, since 2000 census has reallocated electoral votes, Gore would have a tough mountain to climb: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLE S/pe2000ev_chg.php

This is better for his enemies, worse for his pals

[rjamestaylor]

It is also better for those candidates who are quite removed in their platforms from Nader's positions as well as bad for those nearby his agenda -- for it is the latter's constituency that will be diluted by his entry in the race.

from the horses mouth

[another misanthrope]

this sums it up nicely from the candiate himself:

Nader said Democrats should blame themselves if they are unable to beat President Bush because they are not focusing on the real issues that people care about. He cited as examples universal health care, creating a living family wage and ending the war in Iraq.

``If the Democrats cannot landslide the worst Republican administration in the 20th century they better look at themselves,'' said Nader.

ABQjournal

Re:from the horses mouth

[geminidomino]

Although, technically, this is the 21st century[0]... beyond that, that's ane EXCEEDINGLY wise statement.

[0]King George II wasn't inaugerated until January, 2001, thus removing all those stupid 2000 vs 2001 arguments, too.

Re:from the horses mouth

[Rayonic]

> and ending the war in Iraq.

That's because they don't really want to "end" the war in Iraq -- not any faster than President Bush does anyway.

In fact, John Kerry said that he would have started it himself had he been in office. He just claims that he would have run the war better somehow.

So, you see, both major parties are essentially on the same side of this issue. But since it's the correct side, I'm willing to cut them some slack.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nader is Independent in WIsconsin

[Izaak]

Lemme guess, you're Republican and want Bush to win Florida?

Nader has made it onto the ballot here in Wisconsin also (where the polls indicate a very close race), but he is running as an independent here. Unfortunetly, many people seem to have missed that detail and will likely vote for him with the idea that they are voting for a third party candidate, trying to push the numbers up to the that all-important 5 percent needed to reach *real* party status. I've already personally talked to two people who were planning to vote Nader under that misconception.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for third party and independent candidates... I've often voted that way in the past. I just think it is important people really know what they are voting for.

Research is important!

[cyberzephyr]

http://www.vote-smart.org/

This is an extraordinary website. I admittedly worked for them at one point. But this site has absolutely NO SPIN!!

Check it out and see for yourselves voters.

Mod Parent UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

No Text

unsupported anti-Republican allegation

[Jodka]

"...Republicans would indeed do the same thing under similar circumstances"

That seems like an attempt to achieve political neutrality by conterbalancing your anti-Democrat statements. It is not an actual fact which you have supported with evidence; You gave none.

Republicans did not try to keep Ross Perot off the ballot in '92. Now, that is not proof that they would not attempt to block a third-party candidate in the future, under other circumstances. However, it is the most closely related historical parallel, and arguably the best evidence we have for predicting how Republicans would recieve competing third-party candidates in the future. Should we try to predict future actions on that basis of past behavior or just rely on proof by assertion?

"Flame away"

How cleverly impolite. Preemtively disparage comments critical of your own statements by implying that all subsequent discusssion is flamage.

Consider the actual consequences.

[Doc Ruby]

Bush's "if you're not with us you're against us" fearmongering is nonsense because the binary choice he promotes is purely imaginary. There are lots of nuances, with "with", "us", and "against" all much more complex than his playground bully talk. But unfortunately, this November there will be several false options on the ballot that will do little other than reduce the pool of people who are deciding between Bush and Kerry. Bush's campaign is run by the most brilliant evil rules geniuses ever. If you don't vote for Kerry, you're letting Bush win. Your vote doesn't oblige you to like Kerry, or anything else except acknowledge him as president when he wins. If you really support a third party, join the chorus of Democrats working within their party to change the Electoral College system, and really take a stand by contributing time and/or money to a third party in local elections where they can actually win. Otherwise your idealistic gesture is just a token gesture, and dooms you to live under the most antidemocratic president we've ever had.

Staying on the "realism" note, I'd say that anyone still voting for Bush after all the evidence of his catastrophic reign has drunk the koolaid. Any Bushie who'd take me up on a "pairing" offer, I'd trust them only to vote for Bush at the polls anyway, turning neutralization of their vote into two votes for Bush.

An Editoral on This

[ZackSchil]

I've written an editorial on this at my political website (please visit it!)

Hurricane Nader Hits Florida

CNN reported in the wee hours of the morning today that a Florida Supreme Court decision has confirmed Ralph Nader's spot on the sunshine state's ballot.

I'm not quite sure who I'm more ashamed of, the Democrats or the Republicans. The Democrats have fought Nader's appearance on the ballot every step of the way. They claimed his party had been defunct in the state of Florida for many years, which would require him to gather signatures in order to appear on the ballot. The Dems are only backing off now after the court handed down its decision. They know that it will be close to impossible to win over Florida with Nader on the ballot.

The Republicans are equally as horrid and self serving. Nader's views are against both major parties but moreso against the Republicans. It doesn't take a political analyst to realize they only want Nader because he'll take away FAR more votes from the Democrats than the GOP. This story isn't restricted to Florida, either. The same can be said for many states, including Ohio and Oregon.

But what on earth is Ralph Nader trying to prove? Surely he want's Bush out of the Whitehouse and surely he knows that he couldn't possibly be the one to do it.Hope may spring eternal in Naderland but he's not an idiot. Kevin Zeese, a spokesman for Nader's Campaign said to CNN: "We hope Democrats engage on issues and stop anti-democratic efforts to prevent voters from having a choice."The key here is engaging the Democrats.While Nader has no real chance of getting into the Witehouse, he can ensure that some of his key issues do.By forcing himself onto the ballot in battleground states, Nader is essentially forcing the Dems to adopt some of his agenda in order to win back some of the votes he'd otherwise take from them.

As Nader sees it, he doesn't need to become president to change the country. Now let's just hope Kerry decides not to play hardball and his plan works.

3 words

[Anonymous Coward]

Ross Fucking Perot....

(vengance is sweet....assholes....)

Gore failed, "noise" should not have made a diff.

[AHumbleOpinion]

You are not seeing the forest. The election turned on 500 votes in Florida. That is not Nader's fault. The Dems who made the butterfly ballot had a greater effect. There are many other things that had a greater effect. Dems are cherry picking one small thing that went against them and are trying to unfairly blame it all on Nader. The greatest thing that went wrong for Gore was the Gore campaign. The fact that the election was so close that statistical error and noise decided the election is entirely his fault, his failing. I'm sorry, the folks with their head in the sand are those picking one element of that noise and laying blame. Those with their heads up are those that blame Gore.

Re:Gore failed, "noise" should not have made a dif

[ericspinder]

Your right about one thing Gore didn't get enough votes to get Gore elected. He only got over half the votes, but in this country you need a majority in a majority of the states (well the electorial college).

Your so busy looking for the forest, you've run smack into the tree right in front of you. Odd that you use the 'noise' example, in networking signal noise is a reality that must be minimized, so then you are saying that Nader should have been minimized?

Sure the butterfly ballot had problems, but it wasn't nearly the 100,000 votes which Nader got. It's also not like the Democrats are 'only blaming Nader' like you seem to say; Supreme Court, Fl election comm, Harris, themselves,etc, as well as Nader, are all acknowledged reasons why they lost. Ralph "the Spin Doctor" Nader would like you to believe that he had nothing to do with Bush being president, and that he is unfairly being singled out as the 'only reason', but the simple fact is that if less than 1% of the Nader voters voted for Gore in FL, Gore would now be looking for a second term (most likely) vs. about 800 for the 'hanging chad counts'. However that did not happen, and now we have "chosen by God" Bush the 43rd, who is looking for a second term. Kerry could be running a better campain, but does Nader really want Bush again. Hell, he has to find it odd that Bush supporters are signing him up for races in close states.

Nader, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FREAKING COFFEE.

If Nader had any interest in public office, he could have tried to pick up a congressional seat (a House seat would be a piece of cake for him), but instead he strokes his ego with another presidential campain, another turn as the pied piper leading left leaning away from the only man close to their views who has any real chance of being president.

Only Reagan had a majority ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Again, Nader, chads, butterfly's, etc. All trivia. The problem was Gore. It is Gore's fault that he ran such a poor election campaign that the election was essentially a tie, actually I guess that is just as much Bush's fault. You can fantasize all you want about 1% of Nader supporters voting for Gore, last I heard 2000 Nader supporters were 25% Dem-leaning, 25% Rep-leaning, 50% unlikely to vote, no one really knows what would have happened. Nader was also a pretty weak 3rd party candidate. Other recent Presidents overcame far more threatening 3rd party candidates. Which leads me to ...

... He only got over half the votes ...

Actually I do not think any president since Reagan had half the votes, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, all were elected with popular minorities.

... and now we have "chosen by God" Bush ...

Actually Bush won according to the rules set prior to election day. Even the local newspapers in Florida admitted that when they did their own recount.

Re:Only Reagan had a majority ...

[ericspinder]

Actually I do not think any president since Reagan had half the votes, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, all were elected with popular minorities.

So, while Gore got more votes than Clinton or the Bush(es), you believe that he ran a bad campaign. I can't say that he ran a poorly, It wasn't my Campaign, it's awefully hard to make a run for President of the United States, I wouldn't pretend to understand the complexities, but apparently you do. Did Ralph 'Pied-Piper' Nader run a good Campaign? Seems to me, he was at least 20 to 30 times less effective, but just effective enough for Bush to win.

...last I heard 2000 Nader supporters were 25% Dem-leaning, 25% Rep-leaning, 50% unlikely to vote, no one really knows what would have happened.

Every poll that I have see says about 2/3 rds of all 'likely voters' who would vote for Nader would go to a Kerry/Gore if Nader wasn't in the running.

Other recent Presidents overcame far more threatening 3rd party candidates

Did you read my previous message or just poke though looking for quotes to burn?? Perot vetoed Bush Sr's bid at a second term. Some would say that Bob Dole had a hard time because he had to shift farther to the 'right' to try to pull enough 'conservative' votes from the Reform party. Do you even know American History? Teddy Roosevelt was an election spoiler for the Republican party in the 1912 election. Noteworthy third party canidates always shift the country in the 'other' direction. What makes a 'noteworthy canidate'? Someone who can statisically affect the outcome of the election; like Ralph 'pied-piper' Nader.

Actually Bush won according to the rules set prior to election day.

As I said many times he won by 500 votes, of course if you apply a looser definition of 'voter intention' Gore won by like 300. But rules are rules, and he did win FL by less than 1/2% of the people who voted for Nader in FL. Also, I really believe that you missed the point of the phrase of mine, which you quoted to make that point. I refered to him as "'choosen by God' Bush", not because I believe he was, but because many voters believe he was so, to 'lead' us through Sept 11 (reportedly even himself). That 'god-given mandate' is the scariest thing about Bush. Of course, I am sure that some of those same poeple believe that Ralph 'pied-piper' Nader is an unwitting instrument of God, fracturing those 'evil liberals' just enough to allow the 'right thinking' people to prevail.

This almost certainly is my last post of this thread. You must be a Green Party member (at least simpethetic), you dislike Nader now, but hold to the same story (the 'green party' line of 2000). I understand the anger, Nader was a great disappointment to the Green Party, they (or maybe ya'all) wanted Nader to push your party into national campain financing, but all they really ended up doing is putting a 'dirty air' Republican in office. In the end they blamed Gore for not getting past their spoiler. Should Gore have gone a little to the left, should he have embrased Clinton, should he have picked a different running mate? I think so, but those actions would have had other reactions.

We as voters (assuming that ya'all can vote in U.S. elections) need to understand the realities of the election process, it's our duty to our country's history, our country's future, and to the world. I doubt if I can change this notion in your head that Nader was/is an election spoiler, but do us all a favor, check out Kerry, if you can get by the Vietnam era stuff, I think that you will find him to be fine man with strong beliefs in ecology, and fiscal responsiablity. Personally I would have choosen someone with a little more moderate profile, but much like Dole in 1996 the Democrats need to push to the left to 'shore up the flank' against Nader's attack at their base. Hopefully Kerry will do just a little better than Dole did.

Just explain it.

[bill_mcgonigle]

"It's just like Letterman's Top 10 List".

See, easy.

Nader is the scapegoat revenge can be taken upon

[AHumbleOpinion]

This almost certainly is my last post of this thread. You must be a Green Party member (at least simpethetic), you dislike Nader now, but hold to the same story (the 'green party' line of 2000). I understand the anger, ...

The only anger in this thread is yours. I am not a green, I have never supported Nader. I am an independent who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, whoever I thought would do the better job. Nader was never one of those. Reread your posts, you are in denial over Gore's failure and desparately want a scapegoat, Nader is merely the most politically expedient, he is also the most therapeutic for the overly angry and obsessed since he is the one scapegoat that "vengence" can be taken upon.

That 'god-given mandate' is the scariest thing about Bush.

That is a minority lunatic fringe opinion even in the Republican party. Your exaggeration is pathological, if you are not a Democratic party operative/volunteer you need quite a bit more exposure to the real world, layoff the James Carville on CNN. If you are an operative/volunteer dial it back a little, you have blown your credibility.

Re:Nader is the scapegoat revenge can be taken upo

[ericspinder]

I'm going to break my word and say...

playing "what ifs..." is hard and usually pointless. "What if Gore had a better campaign", "What if Gore was President on Sept 11?", "What if {blah, blah, blah}". Mostly because it's hard to understand cause and effect when talking in such broad terms. You keep saying that Nader had no effect on the 2000 election. You won't even commit to saying that there is even a chance. However, statistical analysis tells a different story. Weather forcasting, Hurricane projections, crop yield, even the amount of cereal dropped into a package are all subject to statistical analysis. It's been far too long since, I've done a proper statisical analysis of any data, but I don't believe that it takes a genius to understand that if less than one half of one percent of Florida Nader voters voted for Gore, the results would have been different. Even Nader thinks that 38% of his voters would have choosen Gore (vs. 25% for Bush and the rest non voting).

You most likely are correct that Gore could have run a better campaign, I can't say how statistically (too many variables over too long a time), but I can say that because of the small numbers, even a relatively weak third party canidate, which Nader was and is, did and does have an effect on the 2000 and the 2004 elections. It looks like it will be another 'photo-finish' election, and even a tick on one the horse's backside may decide the winner of the race.

But I am falling back to the same statements that I have gone over before. Personally, I wish that the 2000 election was McCain v. [someone else],

Your exaggeration is pathological

Wow now that's rude. What's so pathological about being worried about someone who believes that they can do no wrong because God is on their side, which is a simular view point of the madmen who attacked the WTC. Now hold it, I am not trying to make Bush into Bin Laden, there are many differences. More Google results

Reread your posts, you are in denial over Gore's failure and desparately want a scapegoat...

I don't say the Gore could have done anything differently, I dont' say that "it all Nader's fault", I believe that Gore made some serious mistakes in the 2000 election, and in hindsight he probally wasn't the best canidate in general, but that is very subjective. The only items that easily lends itself to anaylsis is the actual vote count of the election, and I believe that to ignore the results wholesale (such as your posts clearly want) is denial. Analysis of past events is important to understanding the effects in the future. I guess that what I am trying to say in the end is...

If you want Bush to say in office for "4 more Years!", vote for Nader in 2004 (at least in the swing states). I am certainly not the only one who believe that because, Republican operatives in those states have been busy signing him up.

No I am not a "political operative" of any sort.

Re:Nader is the scapegoat revenge can be taken upo

[AHumbleOpinion]

You keep saying that Nader had no effect on the 2000 election. You won't even commit to saying that there is even a chance.

You have fundamentally misunderstood my first post and the followups. My point is that the election was so close that it was essentially a tie and decided by "noise". Any single element of "noise" including Nader is insignificant compared to the far larger factor, the Gore campaign. Nader may have been the straw that broke the camel's back but focusing on that straw and ignoring the heavy log that was loaded beforehand is silly. Nader is however a very convenient scapegoat for those who refuse to lay blame on the primary culprits and engineers of defeat, Gore and his campaign management, the "log". I blame the heavy log, you blame one of the straws. So be it.

Re:Gore failed, "noise" should not have made a dif

[Minna Kirai]

You are not seeing the forest. The election turned on 500 votes in Florida.

False. Gore only lost by 500 votes- but Nader got 90,000 votes! If Nader hadn't been running, and his supporters had only a slight preference to Democrats, then Gore would've won. Plus, Nader cost Gore the election in New Hampshire too.

The fact that the election was so close that statistical error and noise decided the election is entirely his fault, his failing.

False. Elections being completely close is the natural advance of technology. As polling becomes faster and more accurate and each party's planners have increasingly better predictive power, they stablize towards exactly equal division.

It is the age of Spoilers. The 2000 election was completely determined by Nader. The 1992 election was completely determined by Ross Perot.

Third Party?

[jasontromm]

I know this is just nitpicking, but Nader is an independent. He's not affiliated with any political party in '04.

The Third Party candidates that I know about are Michael Badnarik (L) and Michael Peroutka (C)

Re:Third Party?

[Anonymous Coward]

and to nitpick on your nitpicking -- I guess it's true he is not affiliated with any *one* party, but in Florida, just for example, he is the candidate of the Reform Party.

Re:Nader is the scapegoat revenge can be taken upo

[ericspinder]

No, NO, NO, NO I am not 'blaming that damn straw', you are really intent on putting words in my mouth. Again for the deaf, dumb and blind, I think that Gore lost for a number of reasons, including (what I think) are his own campaign problems, but due to the closeness of the election both then and now, this "political noise" you referr to was and is statistically significant, when the race is as close as it is today.

I believe that minimizing the noise from Nader was one of Gore's campaign issues, hence part of your imaginary "log". The real irony with that example is 'there is no log', the camel story is about a pile of straw, with the last straw being the one to break it's back. You seem to want to wrap all of the other straw up into one issue. Then you try to compare that straw to your accumuated log and ignore that I believe is one fat straw (a smaller straw would be the rolling of the eyes during a cut away in one of the debates), however, I will acknowledge that there are many fatter straws (VP choice, who still ran for his Senate seat) , and most likely a couple of lead pipes (hiding Clinton away).

I believe you are doing is pulling the battery out of a car and saying that it is insignifcant when compared to the car.

Nader is a fool,

[ericspinder]

logs, straws, blah, blah, blah, the one thing that I think the we both agree on is that the other doesn't read very well.

I saw Nader on Lou Dobbs last night. Basicly his point was: " [paraphrasing] The Democrats lost %10 of their votes to the Republican party, so to gain those votes back they need to join me in the far left, or I'll take the last 2 or 3 percent advantage they have over the Republicans".