Slashdot Mirror
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."
Lemme guess, you're Republican and want Bush to win Florida?
Again as a gladly non-US voter this discussion amazes me.
.. have a read ..
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting/
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!
Bye!
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:
- Abortion is Murder(tm)
- 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.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
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.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
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.
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.
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.
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
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.
Mussilini said that a better name for facism was corpratism- facism was the ultimate marriage of buisness and government.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
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
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.
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.