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."
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.
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.
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
Why is it that Ralph Nader and his supporters are doing thier best to ingore how the US Electoral system acutally works?
You mean the part where he's allowed to vote however he likes, even for Nader? Oh, that's right, the democrats and republicans are colluding to make sure you have no choices but them... nevermind.
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 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.
I think the Democratic party has shifted to the left since 2000, and I think that is in no small part due to Ralph Nader. Almost 5% of Democrats were so frustrated by Gore that they were willing to risk letting Bush into office to send that message. Nader may have 0 chance of being elected, but in 2000 Nader sure was heard.
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.
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.
Yeah, you guys are in great shape, politically, over there in Israel. Your government is basically hostage to extremists. Any time the extremists don't get their way, they threaten to leave the coalition, and then the government falls. And if that doesn't work, they use assassination.
Now, here in the U.S., we have. . . . oh, wait a minute. I forgot. The Republican Party is basically hostage to extremists, too. And it's unlikely that the extremists would assassinate Bush, since he is one of them. It's sort of like Yossi Kadourie is our president.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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 probably why the Kerry folks might take the Naderites more seriously than the Badnarikians. The whole purpose of the Free State Project is to have less government pandering and intervention. The libertarians don't want promises from Bush or Kerry, besides the idea of respecting everyone's rights. The Nader folks, on the other hand, do want the government to step in and legislate solutions to problems over the environment, corporate law, etc.
Heh heh. It's great to be moderated troll in a political argument. If the fool moderator had any intelligence, he might see the parallels in the power of coalitions in both systems.
Reagan and Bush I were beholden to the religious extremists. Bush II is one of them. He believes in the rapture, which is clearly an extreme fringe belief that allows him to act recklessly and without fear of consequences.
What Nader consistently fails to take into account is that shifting the Democratic party further to the left will only increase the fequency with which Republicans get into office. Both parties don't pander to the middle because they like it; they pander because it's the middle that holds all the voters.
Viewed as a distribution, Nader is asking the Democratic party to shift to the left to more accurately suit his own views (and those of, say, 10% max of the Democratic party). Were this to happen, the GOP could easily grapple a few percentage points in the center-left category and nearly force the Democrats out of government entirely.
Not only is Nader's current quest Quixotic at best; his long-term goal is in no part realistic, intelligent or informed. He wouldn't enjoy living in the country that would result from the Democratic Party shifting hard to the left.
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
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.
Ballot access, funding, visibility and media coverage... all things that vote counts affect.