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.
Errr... Nader isn't connected to the Green Party this election. He's the Reform Party candidate, IIRC. David Cobbs (who did a /. Q&A a while back) is the Green Party candidate.
Partially true- and depends on your state. In Oregon Nader's not even on the ballot- but if he was he'd have to be listed as an Independant.
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
Not quite true- Nader isn't green this time around, and Cobb is supporting his local candidates (and Kerry BTW- which is why Cobb hasn't been campaigning in swing states). Here in Oregon we've got a number of Green state legislators, and the Green Party is supporting a bid to turn PGE into a PUD, instead of letting Texas Power buy it from Enron (and continue to siphon off $40,000 a year in tax money collected but not owed to the state, since the parent company is running PGE at a loss).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Running for President gives the candidate and the party publicity that running for a lower office (such as a state legislative seat) does not. Publicity for the party's Presidential candidate then helps (in a trickle-down sort of way) the campaigns of the other party members running for lower offices. Running for President is not about winning, it's about getting your party some publicity and communicating your message to as many people as possible.
Another reason to run for President is that in some states a party must get a certain percentage of the vote in a major election in order to be recognized as an official political party. Officially recognizied political parties generally have easier requirements for getting candidates on the ballot than do unrecognized parties and independent candidates. The Presidential race is as good a race as any to pick up those much-needed votes to keep your party on the official list of political parties.
I am not in Oregon, what is PGE? and what is PUD? There are far to many TLA's in the world, and I can only keep track of so many.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
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.
Maybe because alternative parties through the history of this country have been the ones responsible for major political and social change, not established parties:
the abolition of slavery
women's suffrage
the establishment of the Social Security system and workers' compensation insurance
the Pure Food and Drug Act
and the abolition of child labor
etc.
But I agree, it's a dismal situation due to the flawed election system we have. I think all these "alternative" parties need to band together regardless of their political differences, and demand Condorcet voting, or Borda count voting or Runoff or Approval or SOMETHING other than just winner-takes-all vote and constant gerrymandering that has made a mockery of the democracy of this country.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
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
OK, I didn't know that, but what I said is still true in outline. I live in Israel, land of many small parties, many of whom know how to play the system very well. Here the small parties know they won't get their guy to be PM, but if they join a colalition they may get one of their guys to be a minister of something, and therefore they will be able to do some of the things they care about.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
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.
I don't object to small parties in general. In fact I think they are a great idea. What I object to is the fact that in the USA the small parties mostly act like they are the big parties and fail at it.
I live in Israel, which is a country with a party list system. The way it works is that there are 120 seats in the Kenesset (Our parlament). At each election each party publishes a list of canidates. You vote for a party. For each X votes a party gets they get one seat in the Kenesset.
What this means is that in any given session of the kenesset there are about 12-15 parties, none with a majority. So whichever party has the most seats (Currently Ariel Sharon's Likud) has to try to rope in other parties until they have 61 seats.
This is less then ideal for several reasons. First of all there is no accountability. In the USA I can say that person X is my congressman and If I don't like him I can vote for the other guy. In Israel I have no choice what so ever in how a given party picks its canidates. Nor is there somone who represents my district, as there is no such thing. Also once you get above some number (about #15) on one of the big party lists you are going to get in. The chance that Shimon Peres will be in the next kenesset is 100%, unless he choses to retire.
This system also makes it imposible to balance a budget as each party demads that their projects ge funded, or they will bolt, ensuring that we get new elections.
A lot of folks in the USA assume that if we just changed the way we voted that it would fix all of the problems. It woundn't, it would just shuffle them around. As long as you have an elected president and not a PM elected by congress you have a winner take all system. This is going to favor a few big parties. If you state that you must win a majority (In this case of the electoral vote) you will push this even farther. If there were 4 "major" canidates for president it would ensure that congress picked. In Israel land of many many parties only 2 have ever had one of their members elected Prime Minister Labor/Mapai and Likud.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Not that I'm a fan of or will vote for Nader but, I think what he and other 3rd party's are doing is trying to make enough noise that the majors will adopt some of their positions.
I agree, but I don't think Nader is playing the game any differently than Bush or Kerry. He's running on "party" not on "issues." That's a problem for him, but not for them, because Bush and Kerry can get to the final stage of the election process riding on party loyalties and then start differentiating themselves on issues.
If a third party candidate with moderate charisma ran under a specific set of issues, he or she could generate a lot of steam [1]. The reason why Clinton was such a vote-getter was that he ran on a specific platorm, including making the radical promise that he would reform health care in his first 100 days in office. If someone picked up that same banner and run under it this election, third party or not, they'd get a hell of a lot of attention because the problem is much more pronounced now.
[1] Perot was probably the best example of this in recent times. But also, in Minnesota, pro wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura got himself a governorship as an independent because he ran on an issue. What was his issue? He didn't like being harshly taxed on his recreational vehicles. Just goes to show you it doesn't matter what it is, just have an issue.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
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.
Portland General Electric is the name of the local electric company owned by Enron and figuring prominently in the crimes of that company. A Public Utility District is the communist/socialist answer to such crimes- turning ratepayers into stockholders and cutting the cost of the electricity by the profit margin of the company. The only problem I can see with this plan is that Enron has been running PGE as a debt sink for many years now- so profits are officially negative, thus rates might actually go up if the Green Party is successfull (instead of DOWN as is typical for a regulated public monopoly being turned over to public ownership).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
First, voting for a Republican or Democrat candidate when you're not in a swing state is really a wasted vote, because your vote won't change anything. Any Texan who votes for Bush or Kerry won't make any difference in the world, because Bush will carry Texas. There just aren't enough Democrats in Texas to make a difference.
However, a vote for a third-party candidate in Texas (or any state) will increase the visibility of that candidate.
Second, third-party candidates that are tied to one of the two major parties can affect things. Let's take Nader. His point has been that the Democrat party isn't liberal enough, so his presence will force the Democrat party to really evaluate their positions. If there are enough liberals who don't think the Democrat party isn't liberal enough, they will vote for Nader, possibly forcing the Democrats to lose. That's what happened in Florida in 2000. In theory, the Democrats will then be forced to become more liberal, i.e., "truer" to their party platform.
The question is, have the Democrats learned their lesson? Have they realized that if they don't really cater to their liberal elements, they will lose swing states to Nader again? I believe the answer is no.
For the record, I'm in Texas and I'm voting Libertarian. The Libertarian party is to the Republican party what Nader is to the Democrat party. In theory, the Libertarian party could swing Texas to Kerry. Imagine if the Libertarian party got 15% of the vote. If that happened, then it's unlikely that the Republicans will get more than 40%. That would leave 45% of the vote for the Democrats. If the Republicans lost Texas because of the Libertarians, then it would send a message to the Republican party that need to pay less attention to their Jesus-freak constituents and more attention to their supposed support for personal responsibility.
A Libertarian candidate may never become president in my lifetime, but if he scares the crap out of the Republicans, then he will still make a real difference.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
In Florida he's listed under the Reform Party.
Well, right now we are at the other end of the extreme. I'm not saying it would be practical if we has 12-15 parties all /simultaneously/ represented in government... 3 or 4 would be a great start. Right now we have a rigged system whereby the top two parties collude together to form a psuedo-"official" debates commission to exclude other points of view... so it's not even that the other parties aren't getting support, it's that they aren't even allowed to enter the discussion AT ALL. That is a great disservice. It may be that even if the process was opened up to a few more parties, the top two would still always eventually win... that's ok because it is these alternative parties that keep the major parties "honest".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
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."
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.
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.
Nader is much more an issue candidate than a party candidate. He didn't even agree with much of his party's platform when he voted in 2000. I didn't even hear about the Reform Party until I saw it listed next to his name on the sample ballot I got yesterday. Nader is running on a number of issues. Eliminate the death penalty. Decriminalize marijuana. Raise the minimum wage immediately to $8/hour, to $10 over a period of time, and then tie it to inflation. Maybe he hasn't gotten these issues out, but he's definitely an issue candidate. He likely only chose to accept the endorsement of a party in the first place because it makes it much easier to get on the ballot in a lot of states.
Perot was probably the best example of this in recent times.
I just realized the irony of this. Perot started the Reform party, and the reform party is the party which endorsed Nader in 2004.
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.
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.
The Libertarian party is to the Republican party what Nader is to the Democrat party.
No, not at all. The Constitution Party is to the Republican Party what Nader is to the Democrat party. Libertarians come from both sides of the spectrum.
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.
But if improvements are financed with low interests loans, and it's run near capacity, costs might well drop, and a profit made from the power sold, particularly if PGE ownes any dams.
PGE doesn't own any dams. Around here the Federal Government owns all of the hydropower through the Bonneville Power Administration. PGE used to own Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, and currently owns a subsidiary known as Clean Wind which owns a few windpower farms in Eastern Oregon, but no dams.
It's possible the public might be able to seize the assets as the result of Enron's wrong doing, which normally you'd think the Federal government wouldn't whole heartedly endorse.
With Bush's lack of accountability for corporations, not likely to happen.
Just from the Enron scandal alone, I can't imagine how Oregonians would vote for Bush considering it his appointee who endorses Enron's criminal business practices. That's the Bush energy policy in action. The manipulated spike in energy prices was every bit the tax Bush accuses Kerry of planning on the poor and middle class, only there were no exemptions.
The only way the Enron scandal actually hurt Oregonians was confined to employees of PGE who saw their retirement saving destroyed and ratepayers who were bilked out of taxes that we would have had to pay for a PUD anyway. It was California that was hit bad by Enron. Scottish Power, aka Pacific Power and Light, is the other major utility owner for the rest of Oregon (except for isolated PUDs like Corvalis Power and Telephone Co-Op and Lincoln City Power and Light).
Part of the problem with the Green Proposal is also that they're taking it county by county- and some counties have NO power generation ability at all.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If we assume for the sake of argument that:
1. The election will be a close contest between the two "major" parties, with Nader a distant third (almost guaranteed)
2. Nader supporters will vote for Nader unless one of the major candidates comes close enough to the Nader position (plausible)
3. The goal of the Nader campaign is primarily about achieving Nader-like policy (possible), rather than winning the election (which would be nearly impossible)
Then it might make good sense for Nader to run, and Nader voters for to vote for him unless a major candidate adopts a more Nader-like position. Even if he doesn't have a chance of winning.
If the Democrats know they need Nader voters in order to win the election, they could be forced to align their policy more closely with his in order to siphon away a (small but potentially decisive) number of votes. Of course, this makes the (big) assumption that moving closer to the Nader position wouldn't alienate more moderate voters, thus negating the benefit.
This is basically a higher-risk but higher-reward strategy for the Nader constituency. On the one hand, if the Democrats don't adjust leftward, then there's the risk that Nader votes helped elect the Republican. But if the Nader folks vote Democrat without demanding anything for it, the Democrats can take their votes for granted. This would mean a less liberal Democrat position, because the logical thing for Democrats to do in that situation is to swing less liberal in order to pick up more swing votes.
Ralph Nader and his supporters are doing thier best to ingore In. Gore. Freudian slip?
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
So tell me... how do you plan to vote in 2008 after four years of watching Kerry ignore progressives the way Clinton did?
For myself- I'll be old enough to run by then.
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?
His goals are basically the same as mine- excpet for abortion- I just disagree with how to get there- except for abortion. Oddly enough, I've got a different goal than he does with abortion, but I think his plan will work towards my goal (by providing the same co-pay for abortion as birth in universal health care, he will cause the number of abortions to go down).
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.
Except for, in that election, I'll be running as well- not sure if on the Technocratic ticket anymore (the isolationism thing- I'm begining to think that international solidarity combined with isolationism for corporate trade makes more sense) but believe me, I'll be announcing a new web page to start gathering donations November 6th (this year) (maybe LATE on the 6th- but it will be up by midnight).
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.
Yes there is- hundreds of laid off GenX computer programmers will be running in 2008- a great time to send a pointed barb at the Baby Boomers and neo* goofballs.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Nader's problem is that he has too many issues. When he talks about wanting to change everything, that can be disturbing. Most people don't like change. In most elections, they may have one or two things that they feel could be changed for the better, but otherwise they'd prefer that everything be left more or less as it is.
Take a look at Bush and Kerry. Bush's main issue has been the war on terrorism. Kerry's main issue has been how much Bush sucks. If Nader had focused on one issue - say, the minimum wage - and allowed himself to be middle-of-the-road everywhere else, then he would have been perceived as a safe candidate, and he'd probably be sucking up 15-20% of the vote like Perot did. Instead, he's got all these issues, and any particular voter is likely to find one or two of his ideas that they disagree with enough that it will keep them from voting for him.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
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.
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.
Except scarier. I would vote green before Constitution, For the record I voted Badnarik, I am a Christian and a libertarian, were I voting in a swing state I would vote bush, but we need a return to smaller government, and this year that vote is Badnarik.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
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.
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.
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
If a third party candidate with moderate charisma ran under a specific set of issues, he or she could generate a lot of steam [1].
WTF do you mean "if"? Perot did that in 1992.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
Nader's problem is that he has too many issues.
It's why he'll never be a viable candidate for President. I don't think it's a problem, though.
If Nader had focused on one issue - say, the minimum wage - and allowed himself to be middle-of-the-road everywhere else, then he would have been perceived as a safe candidate, and he'd probably be sucking up 15-20% of the vote like Perot did.
And what would that accomplish, other than ensuring that Bush gets re-elected? The purpose of Nader's candidacy is to send a message, not for him to actually get elected.
Come think of it, I highly doubt Nader would get more than 1% of the vote if he ran a campaign of "I'm just like Kerry but support a slightly higher minimum wage". The far left would vote Green, and the other Democrats would vote for Kerry.
Instead, he's got all these issues, and any particular voter is likely to find one or two of his ideas that they disagree with enough that it will keep them from voting for him.
People are going to disagree with any candidate. People won't vote for Nader even if they agree with him more than they agree with others, because he's a third party candidate. Aren't most Democrats against the death penalty? I'd assume most of them are in favor of decriminalization of pot. How does Nader's stance on these issues hurt him?
I have voted green, and I'd vote for just about anything before I'd vote Constitution. My views are probably best categorized as moderate Libertarian, and this year I'll be voting for Kerry.
Constitution vs. Republican vs. Democrat vs. Green is a question about what kind of government you want, not about how much government you want. Libertarian says there should be virtually no government, and that's a little too scary for me, but I tend to favor smaller government when all else is equal. I must admit, though, I haven't really looked into Badnarik.
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!
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.
If that is the case, then you should always vote for whoever you think will win. That is the best return on investment ever. Your guy always wins!!! Woo-hoo! You're a winner!
Of course, those of us who are more concerned with voting for someone who shares our views rather than being part of the "winning team" will be voting for Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, etc.
As I read in the news today, Nader is focusing his campaign money on Bush/Kerry swing states for maximum damage. This I don't understand, unless he really wants the Republicans to win. I do think that in some ways he's had an influence on the platform of the Democratic party. Not a huge one, but then again, he's just one man, and he's had more of an influence than almost any other individual. He might have wanted more, but at least from the Democrats, he got something, a whole lot more than he would get from Bush in his second term.
He's also doing a great deal of damage to his own reputation, since the majority of the US left wing, even if they didn't vote for Nader, really thought highly of him and valued his input. Nader's greatest weapon was his credibility, and with that one weapon he did a lot of good in the last four decades. Now his credibility is shot. Most left-wingers who used to admire him will never forgive him unless he asks for their forgiveness and stops screwing up plausible efforts to unseat Bush. Nader has done neither, so he basically marginalized himself. He has no audience anymore, except for fringe people who don't matter. It used to be different. And he has himself to blame. I for one am sad that this is how Nader is exiting the scene. I wish he didn't undermine himself the way he did so that he could continue to advocate for justice. I'm sad he threw that away; I don't know who can step in and replace the "old" Ralph Nader, the former conscience of this nation.
People always talking about Left, Right, More Left, More Right.
:)
Anyone tried Forward/Backward?
but in 2000 Nader sure was heard. Definitely. And I am glad for the changes he made and his influence, but this year, I quite honestly feel like he is running to be an asshole. Despite his impact on the Democratic Party, he has already discredited Kerry, telling people not to vote for him. I seriously hope Nader isn't heard in this election.
My intended sarcastic tone obviously didn't come through... I wasn't seriously suggesting that Nader drop some of his issues (though, as a Bush supporter, I'd love to see him pick up a few more Democratic votes). It was intended as more of a commentary on the decline and fall of the American voter than a slight on Nader or his selection of issues.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
I'm european, so maybe that's why I don't get this, but my question is this:
Would the democratic party allow Nader to run in their primaries?
I mean the democratic and republican "parties" are not as much meant as political parties as they are meant as frameworks for selecting two candidates, right?
Or did your founding fathers actually select two political alternatives that would have to work for all eternity?
But sure... if Nader's not allowed to run in the democratic primaries I can see your point.
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
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
Fact: In most states, I believe only a petition with the signatures of so many registered democrats is necessary to be on a primary ballot.
Only my opinion: No they wouldn't allow him to run in the primary. The DNC would gladly accept any candidate already president either literally, or one soon to become president. Better to have some hooks in such a guy, mind you, than none at all. But besides themselves, only another party has a chance of even creating such a guy, and the GOP sure as hell wouldn't make Nader a president. As far as the DNC is concerned, Nader would be uncontrollable, and that isn't the kind of candidate you want to turn into a winner. Something would have happened, his petitions would have been screwed with so that he couldn't get on primary ballots, or money would have been funneled to another candidate they favored. Some scandal would have been unearthed to sabotage his primary campaign.
Can I prove any of this? Not really. But I offer Howard Dean as what I believe to be another example of this.
PS Read my sig and email me about it!
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.
If they did, they obviously failed. Neither the Deomcrats nor the Republicans were political Parties in the Founding Fathers' day.
Can Nader run in the Democratic Primaries? If he wants to bother, but then he has to wear the Democrat label. Hell, he can run in the Republican primtaries, if he wants. Same deal, though - he gets stuck with the label.
And Nader doesn't want to be labelled either Republican or Democrat, especially after vilifying both Parties for years.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The stakes are too high for another pro-war president--vote Nader in the swing states!
Reagan and Bush I were beholden to the religious extremists.
Although Reagan was sympathetic to the ultra-religious, his popularity was so overwhelming that he was beholden to no one. No minority could've threatened him by withdrawing support (like they can with Dubya Bush)
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.
For the last 24 years, I have never voted for a republicrat president. For the last 12 year (except for this year where I will vote for Kerry and some other democrats; ugh), I have voted Libertarian. Everytime, I had the same feeling that you have. But after thinking about it, it takes a large number of votes to be felt.
But there is a way to have the politician feel it much earlier. Here in colorado, we have amendment 36, which will divide the electorial vote amongst the candidates as they win it. Basically, if the Libertarian Party (or green, or any other) can win 1/9, they get an electorial. Plain and simple, this will send a message to the republicrats that it is time to pay attention.
I find it amazing that both major parties are majorly broken and yet, ppl seem to accept it as ok.
Republicans have for the last 20 years spoken of having fiscal responsibility while driving up the deficits (insane). They speak of not going to uneeded war as well as being a group of warriors, while attacking iraq, ignoring iran/north korea and being led by a group of draft dodgers (except for a few such as Powell who opposed the iraqi war). they speak of being leaders, yet pass all the blame to everybody except themselves.
The democrats speak of having new ideas all the while bringing up old broken ideas to major problems that are coming (SS comes to mind). Likewise, the speak of being rational while pushing their anti-gun package but ignoring the fact that more ppl are killed by cars than guns, let alone automatic weapons.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
Well, gee, it is not hard to imagine that Ralph could endorse half a dozen candidates in House and Senate elections and thereby help to tip those elections. He worked inside the system for years. That is why you heard little about him He decided to change the way he approached things when he decided to run for President and I think that you will see a lot higher than 1% when the election actually occurs. To me, all of you are just like the sports commentators who said that the Red Sox had no chance. What would you have had them do? Fold their tent and wait until next year? No, the only way to win is to be in the game and I think you will see over the next few weeks just how in-the-game Ralph is.
Kerry did surprise me with his debate performances. He was never that good in the Democratic debates and he never did much for the state of Massachusetts that i could see in the years he has been a Senator. (I have lived in Massachusetts since 1975, with a hiatuses in NYC (7 years) and Rhode Island (8 years).
But still, he is getting torn to shred in the post debate analysis and platform speeched of George W. Bush. Few people really like him and no one is willing to risk anything on him.
He is a good guy. He is a smart guy. He is not a leader. He should be the Secretary of Energy or the ambassador to France. He should not be President.
Ralph on the other hand is a natural leader. People work tirelessly and thanklessly for him. They are not after plum jobs because they do not expect there to be any. The people who are working for him believe in him. Ralph should have been included in the debates. It was wrong for Kerry to oppose his entry.
Nader is the only candidate against the current Iraq war. He is the only one in favor of universal healthcare access and a $10 minimum wage.
He should be President.
At least that's my take on it. ;)
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
You think the cost of having a kid is the cost of paying an OBGYN for prenatal care?
No, but it's a start- the rest has to deal with actually paying women to *be* mothers, because at this point, children are the only manufactured product we have left in America. So we might as well actually invest in them.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.