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."
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
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.
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
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.
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 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.