Slashdot Mirror
The Hidden Swing State?
rwiedower writes "What if all the Nader voters lived in a single state? Kerry would have to court them and their electoral votes just like he pursues union workers in Ohio and senior citizens in Florida. Now, in the two weeks before the election, Nader's 1% might well be a deciding factor. And Nader voters, sick of being told that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, have formed a loose coalition demanding to be treated for what they are--a swing state."
How obvious. Real men vote for Badnarik you insensitive clods!
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
OK, Nader's out there and is good for democracy, sure. And its a shame that some votes don't count because they're in a majority state, once that 51% is passed, it don't matter. But proportional representation has its own problems, too much fractionisation and ineffective leadership. It might work in penny ante institutions like the EU, but it'll never work over here.
I don't get why some folk are voting Nader when its so important to get rid of bush. The reason why I ain't voting for Bush is because he's had everything handed to him on a plate, he ain't never had to work for nothing. His daddy got him a job working for some friends of his in oil and although he messed up, he still got the money and the power. His daddy even bailed him out of active duty by getting him some plum assignment pretending to fly airoplanes in the boondocks.
Now Kerry, he had nothing. What he got, he had to EARN it. And he paid us all back by fighting oversease and putting his life on the line for America. He didn't get no easy route to the top, when he needed money he had to earn every scrap. George got a handout from his Dad but John had to marry some rich bitch, who must make his life hell.
Everytime I see that snooty cow on TV I'm filled with admiration for John. Not only did he somehow win her over to get his hands on some loot, thaw that ice queen, but he's got to put up with her for every goddam day of his life thereafter. Now that's duty, persevernce and the American Way. And that's why, unlike George, he's gonna make a GREAT president.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
They're spread throughout the country, though. It doesn't matter what they believe...they aren't a swing state.
Really...are they going to take all of the Nader votes and count them for one state? Hell, how about we give him Rhode Island?
That won't happen. Remember our Constitution?
Nader voters aren't a swing state. Case closed.
Goo goo g'joob.
I have been wondering this for a while...
Why is it that Ralph Nader and his supporters are doing thier best to ingore how the US Electoral system acutally works? The chance that Ralph Nader will be elected president is exactly 0. In spending his political capital running for an office he can not posibly win he is insuring a minimal return on investment. Which is to say that the ideals that he stands for will not have someone to actually push them in any sort of elected capacity. If he were to spend his time trying to get elected to lower offices such as a state legislative seat. Then he may be able to make some of his adjenda happen.
If the Green party where to run a number of people for various state level posts and win a few key races they might be in a position to tilt a majority one way or the other here and there. Having that ability will lead to real if limited power. A party that can deliver a enough votes in a legislative body to tilt the ballance to one side or another can negotiate to get some of there ideal implemented. Not all but some.
A party that runs someone for president and gets 2% of the vote in the US has no ability to do anything of use. The mesure of success of a political party is its ability to take the things it stands for and do them. At that level the US green party is a stunning falure.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
UNLIKE the headline, this isn't necessarily about Nader or Cobb- while they are pushed in the 2nd "e-mail your friends", the general push of this petition is to let Kerry know that a large number of people voting for him have other agendas- like actually letting families survive, preserving the environment, rejecting corporate control over our lives and so on. I urge anybody who has ever supported a third party candidate in their lives and who doesn't support Bush to sign this petition- let's get a slashdot of signatures on this list!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This link should be http://thenaderfactor.com/ instead -- "thenadorfactor.com" isn't resolving (nor even registered)
What about the libertarians? They're not claiming to be akin to a swing state, they're basically trying to CREATE a swing state!
It's time to start pushing for vote reform. America has the dumbest voting system on the planet, one that only works when there are only two candidates. As soon as you have more than two, you have this crap.
I would vote for Nader if it weren't for the fact that it would essentially be throwing my vote away. I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who feel the same way. Stop bitching about it and do something. Write your congresscritters and tell them about the joys of other voting systems, such as instant runoff and approval voting.
And more importantly, the third parties should present a unified front on this if they ever want to win an election. Libertarians, Greens, hell even Communists, the first and foremost issue for you should be the voting system. We need to abolish this two-party crap and allow our voices to really be heard.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
the US shouldn't have to be choosing between Worse and Worser. At least six candidates are needed to make a presidential election in a country as big as the USofA really representative, or even more, considering that voting is optional and that only circa 50% of the possible voters vote...
The Green party of the US is a great failure, yes, but because (1) voting is not mandatory and (2) people are taught since they are kids that you are either a democrat or a republican.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Experience is a wonderful thing. It allows you to recoginize a mistake when you make it again.
or another way of looking at it is:
A vote for Nader is the triumph of hope over experience.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Time for the obligatory Simpsons quote from Treehouse of Horror VII:
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles! [audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!
Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
What about the 50% of eligible voters that don't vote at all.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The home page at that site indicates that the Bush campaign is donating money to Nader's campaign, presumably to take otherwise-Democratic votes. Perhaps the Kerry campaign should help fund some other candidates as well, such as Pat Buchanan, or Pat Robertson.
The optimal electoral strategy is to attempt to invade your opponent's territory on the political spectrum, stealing his supporters while keeping your own. A candidate can be as far upleft as Nader, but they stand to lose more votes by pissing off the opposition's supporters than their own, so to win they must hide their true colors. It sucks but that's how our shitty electoral system works.
Nader's best chance at the presidency is to join the democratic party and act like a 90% republican after he wins the primaries, by doing his best to avoid talking about the on the split issues. Then once/if elected, he can do whatever he wants.
My contention is that Aladdin tells a better story of the current administration.
Cheney = Jafar, the Grand Vizier, the real power behind the throne
Bush = the Sultan, dressed up head of state action figure for public display.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
http://wearetheswingstate.org makes a simple pitch... if Kerry believes that he owes the win to Naderites, then Naderites get a voice. This is how the conservative right took over the Republicans.
Simple and obvious but it only works if we sign the petition.
The mice have formed a loose coalition to demand that the cat respect their wishes and wear a bell; King Canute has demanded that the tides cease to turn; and Al Gore has asserted that he's the real President, Electoral College be damned.
So tell me... how do you plan to vote in 2008 after four years of watching Kerry ignore progressives the way Clinton did? If Kerry won't say the things you want to hear before the election, why would he bother with your issues after he's already in office? The odds of the Democrats nominating a non-incumbent candidate in 2008 are next to zero. So if Kerry fails to dazzle, you'll still have nowhere to go because any defection will only help a Republican win. And if that's the mood in 2008 the Republicans will run the most rightwing nutjob they can find. Then you'll be right back where you started.
In short: voting for Kerry is voting for Kerry and continuing to move the Democratic party to the right. If you want an alternative you have to vote for an alternative. Now. There is never going to be a better time.
How exactly is Kerry a "traitor?"
I know it can't be Vietnam, since he was the face of those so grievously harmed by the political meddeling in a pointless war. He simply repeated what many had publically confessed to congress. And absolutely crushed O'Neal (head of the Swift Boat Vets organization) on the Dick Cavett show, getting O'Neal to admit to having commited war crimes un the Geneva conventions. To say nothing of the story of Hugh Thompson and the well documented excesses of Lt. Calley.
I know it can't be his votes on arms reductions, since most of them were for reducing stockpiles of nuclear weapons (unless MX missles with 10 Mirvs and 5 decoys were weapons essential to winning the war on terror), and creating programs encouraging cost savings in weapons programs such as those built into the Joint Strike Fighter. The others were cuts championed by the likes of Cheney in continuing Clinton's pursuit of a lighter more agile military that could deploy more quickly. Not to mention Al-Queda doesn't have an advanced interlocking air defense network that needs a B-2 to penetrate it. I know it can't be the 87 Billion dollars, because Kerry voted for it when it wasn't going to be put on a high interest credit card, even though he thought the administration was low-balling and cutting corners, which has later been proven to be accurate.
So I'd really like to know what it is that makes him a traitor.
I went to the "slacker uprising" rally at the Univeristy of Minnesota during the 2nd presidential debate. Slacker Uprising is a publicity tour of Michael Moore nominally to increase voter turnout by offering a pair of underwear if you register to vote (Yes I registered, no I didn't grab the undies).
After the debate, and Moore's appearance on HBO, he began his "speech." I use quotation marks because most of the content was culled from other writers and speakers. The one salient point I thought he did have concerned Nader and the temptation to vote for him. As you can imagine there were quite a few Nader supporters in the crowd that were wavering between supporting Kerry and supporting Nader. There were others that were plain pricks about it, calling Moore a traitor and such.
Moore expressed the opinion that, because of Nader, the democrats have been pulled much further to the left than they were in 2000. If you compare Kerry to Gore in 2000, the rhetoric has become much harsher and emphises the differences instead of their cheery agreements. The two candidates today have very different proposed solutions to the same problems, and no one thinks for a minute that Kerry and Bush are equally evil (I haven't heard anyone use the tweedledee and tweedledum analogy this time around).
As someone who voted for Nader in 2000 this argument made a certain degree of sense to me. Is voting for Nader throwing your vote away? I don't think so. In fact I think Nader's support has swung the democrats over enough to my viewpoint that I'm willing to vote for them, hence my decision to vote for Kerry.
A socialist has never been elected preisdent of the United States, but minimum wage and social security would hardly haave had as much support without them. Those who support Nader don't expect to have him become president, they expect to influence policy of those who *are* elected.
Exit polls showed that Nader grabbed quite a few voters from would-be Bush supporters. He did NOT cost Gore the election. Get over it.
For starters, he's a traitor to those POWs who endured years of torture to get them to say they committed war crimes even if they didn't.
I still don't understand the whole traitor thing, but I haven't really heard it in a coherent way yet. What exactly are you accusing Kerry of?
From your post it sounds like you're saying he tortured POWs, to get war crime confessions out of them. Is that it? Or they were tortured while POWs, then later he somehow forced them to confess war crimes they didn't do? What exactly did Kerry do that made him a traitor?
Pointing out a website that at least tries to be fact-based on this issue would be helpful. Thanks.
This is another fine example of how Ralph Nader and his supports live in a magical alternate universe of political "what ifs", hypotheticals and meaningless caveats. I voted for Nader in 2000 and here is what I have to say to you: Your swing state idea is every bit as silly and dangerous as Nader continuing to assert that there is "no difference" between the two mainstream parties in this election. Like many things on the left, it's a great idea in theory that breaks down horribly in practice. "If we all lived in the same state then we'd be a swing state and Kerry would have to court us and blah blah blah..." well guess what, ya don't. There is no Nader swing state, never will be, and if you live in an actual swing state, are left of center, and plan to vote for Nader... it's not that you should be shot, but definitely some pain needs to be inflicted. What is wrong with you? Can you really say that the outcome of the 2000 election was worth (y)our symbolic votes of protest? That's not even worth answering. With two weeks before the election, it's time you idiots stopped blathering on about this fantasy world you have constructed and realize the damage you're doing.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Welcome our new corporate overlords. And, I voted for Kodos
The thing about politics is that it is a very developed science.
.
From the perspective of the "common man" there is only the end result, Health Care vs No Health Care, Taxes > Taxes, War (This is about america after all)> war
But from the perspective of politicians politics is all about having the people of a nation unified behind one set of goals and a single means of accomplishing them.
This isn't as obvious in democracy because government's are forced to cater to the "common man".
Because there are few options it is harder for people to accept for example a right wing view that the needs of the few should be curtailed for the benefit of the many, or the left wing view that a society should benefit it's inhabitants to the fullest extent possible.
The really scary thing is that democracy isn't about the average opinion at all(mean), it's about the mode (the option with the highest number of responses).
This of course leads to the two party system whereby it becomes much closer to a test for average (half fell closer to this ideology half feel closer to the other ideology).
Put into this context the justification for being afraid of a three party system becomes more clear, the terrifying thing is that even the "common man" feels there is no diffrence between the two parties in America because their short term results are so similar, this is partially because neither party has the power to enforce their ideal system.
Basically the American is a great political system for people who don't want change and who's views are consistent with the most common viewpoint, which is in fact democracy but with terrible perversions.
Really the whole thing is an example of how democracy doesn't work, a society of inward looking "common men" simply can't appreciate the entire nature of their parties ideologies and weigh even the chance for their success let alone the value of their desired results.
Yes, call your friends and tell them HR 5293 needs to be changed to support Condorcet voting, not IRV. Yes, I will keep pointing out that IRV is a broken voting method that's even worse than our current system. Read up, get the facts.
Constitutionally Correct
What about the Christians? They're not claiming to be akin to a Bush state, they're basically trying to CREATE a Bush state.
Direct away from face when opening.
Either Badnarik or Peroutka is OK. THat way it helps build the Libertarian and Constitution parties for the future, which will weaken the GOP in the future. Here in Texas, Kerry is out of the running, and the only presidential candidates who made it on the ballot. So I will be voting for Badnarik, the better to build the future Libertarian party, and take future votes from the GOP. I plan to do this even though I find most of the Libertarian party platform irrational and even revolting in some areas. The Constitution party is the one that can really really hurt the GOP if they get any real publicity in 2008....
Homo Sapiens Americanus--A documentary in p
I can only assume that from recent moderation to this thread a member of the GNAA got mod points. And, I'm sorry, but that's awesome!
This looks like another attempt by the DNC to say, "Hey, dont' vote for Nader, your vote doesn't count. If you vote for Kerry I'll give you this candy bar."
Libertarians seem to be resisting this and gathering steam. I don't want to be absorbed by one of the "real" parties.
I want change!
Cheap storage VM.
The polls are showing bush up anywhere from 4 to 9 points. Its not going to be close in the electoral college its not going to be close in the popular vote. As nader pointe out he is not going to have the slightest effect on kerrys chances.
On the other hand voting for Nader is a real protest to the democratic party. If they aren't representing your views. If you feel we shouldn't have bush and bush lite running. If you feel that there should be a real choice Nader is your man.
BTW I probably don't agree with you about Nader as I will be voting my conscience for Badnarik.
I've heard from several sources (one being NPR, though I can't find a URL) that with current immigration rates, that the Latino vote in Texas would essentially serve as a third party and possibly more aligned with Democratic interests than Republican interests. This might mean that in 2008, Texas is a "swing state" and 3rd parties that more closely fit Latino priorities would do very well.
-Geoff
Wish I hadn't blown my points on another thread...
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
As a progressive, I proclaim Nader is the ass. Cause he is. He's being supported by the same folks behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.
I don't understand why the media plays up Nader so much but seems to ignore the Libertarian and Constitutional candidates. And Nader is on less ballots. So much for the "liberal" media bias.
The Libertarian party is obviously the new cool for "politically interested" geeks.
People always talking about Left, Right, More Left, More Right.
:)
Anyone tried Forward/Backward?
Master,
Can you kindly loosen a bit the leash, it is hurting my neck.
Many thanks.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Nobody who favors the Digital Millenium Copyright Act gets my vote.
Nobody who favors USA-PATRIOT gets my vote.
Nobody who favors the war on Iraq gets my vote.
Nader not being on my ballot, Cobb gets my vote. Because Democrats denied Nader his spot on the ballot, the Libertarians picked up a few votes form me for offices lower on the ballot, because they're not Democrats.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
The Nader voters, whose small number's I would join if my recognition that our system really is "lesser of N evils" didn't overpower my revulsion at the poor choices we are offered, have a point here. At least in terms of some notion of "fairness", they ARE disenfranchised by the US electoral scheme. But what they, and any other minority, should be working for is electoral reform...it would benefit all voters if the system was not winner-per-state takes all for national office. then Nader supporters could bargain for coallition membership in whichever party was more favorable to their green/reform=muzzle-the-big-money adgenda instead of just acting as a spoiler party. Until they can change the system, they would do themselves a favor to face the facts and stop the unrealistic, quixotic voting that actually works for the party that is farthest from their political ideals.
its up-up-down-down-left-right-B-A-start
thats the code to unlock the secret presidential candidate. one that doesn't suck.
Of course they are. If all those state lines hadn't been gerrymandered, we wouldn't be in this situation!
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
The stakes are too high for another pro-war president--vote Nader in the swing states!
This swing state group says on their web site that the election of 2004 will be the closest presidential election in history. How about this for blatant rebuking: WRONG.
I'm sorry, but I know that it's possible, but I can't imagine that anyone would say the very next election would be even closer than the previous election when the two major candidates received 48.3% and 48.1% of the popular vote, and 50.4% and 49.4% of the electoral vote. It just isn't that likely.
But even ignoring 2000... Kennedy defeated Nixon in 1960 with 49.7% of the vote, compared to Nixon's 49.6%. You want a pissed off America, imagine that type of split today with the electoral vote count that Kennedy enjoyed in 1960 -- he was neck and neck with Nixon in popular votes, but destroyed him in the electoral college with a 303-219 victory.
If you want a really close presidential election, look back to 1800 when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied at 73, or to 1876 when Rutherford Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden 185 to 184. Those were close elections, and this one won't compare to those.
And... besides... Bush will easily receive 50% of the popular vote this time, whether I like it or not.
How about this? A challenge-- to those of you who have said or thought this-- send $1 to Ralph Nader's campaign. Is his contribution to this election worth $1?
Heck, you Democrats can probably overtax his computer systems with all those $1 transactions.
it assumes that every single vote for nader WOULD have been a vote for kerry.
i am voting third party, i know many people that are voting for third party, and guess what...very few would EVER even consider voting for john kerry.
just because he is supposidly on the left side of the political spectrum, does not automatically mean he gets every single vote for the entire side. some people just flat out dont like him or his positions.
The LP also want these companies to be held legally accountable. That is they can be sued for causing the damage. Good example is that the GOP speak of the high costs of lawsuits and want to cap it. The LP would not have the caps.
In addition, the GOP want to protect large businesses from failures (such as the bailout of USAirways, which will end up causing 2-3 major airlines failure). The LP would not allow that crap. Basically, US Airways would have failed and they other airlines would be in great shape.
Finally, the LP would allow civilians to sue the Feds for the damage that they do, which is routine.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How about this? Nader can have a big rally where we get to pay 1$ to punch him in the face, as hard as we want. Is punching him in the head worth $1?
I'll bet he gets even MORE contributions from us democrats this way!
I'll bet he would consider your idea for a $1MM contribution to his campaign though. Why don't you write to his campaign and ask him?
Let me ask others, how much would you pay for one free shot at Ralph? I expect a lot of ludicrous answers here, but I am actually interested in people who would really pay real dollars to assault a Presidential candidate.
How about Bush? Would you pay more for a shot at Bush?
For those of you with more principles, how many times would you pay to hit a big Nader punching bag at a fair for $1?
Who are you working for? What are you trying to accomplish?
You don't have to vote for anyone in particular.
You don't have to be educated or white or a homeowner or a Yankee fan. You don't have to be super good looking, or have a killer smile or anything.
You don't even have to be loyal to your Commander in Chief (in the voting booth only), if you think that he is doing wrong.
You just have to care about the place you live and the people around you.
For those of you looking for a cheap thrill, send $1 to Ralph Nader at VoteNader.org
you are assuming that if nader didnt run, all his votes would have been shifted to gore.
this is wrong.
a suprising ammount of people didnt like gore, and were not going to vote for him no matter what.
At least that's my take on it. ;)
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
Try getting Badnarik to define his stance on gun control and you'll see that Libertarians can stretch the limits of logic just like anyone else.
The rapture is something of a tenant of Christianity, the belief that, at the end of time, the faithful, living and dead, will be brought up to Heaven. The controversial part is whether this occurs before or after the tribulation and the other events foretold at the end of the world.