I didn't have him in mind, but he fits the bill exactly. It's too bad he didn't run. He could have kept the Reform party together, and had some $$$ to work with. He certainly would have been a much more viable 3rd party candidate than Nader. He'll have my vote if he ever runs.
Look, there are a ton of people out there who are disgruntled with politics. A significant chunk of the voting public wants another option. Everyone hates Gore and Bush. So why is it such a struggle for Nader to get a miserable 5% of the vote? Because everyone hates him too.
A little advice, if you are trying to supplant the two major parties you'd be well advised not to pick a candidate who is falling off one end of the political spectrum. There is a real opportunity for a centrist libertarian.
Someone who will try to reform government and limit government power (pull the Republicans) and limit corporate power (pull the Dems). AND who is fiscally responsible and has sensible moderate policies on health care, labor, education, foreign policy, etc, etc. Not some isolationist, commie extremist. Someone who can play the middle without being beholden to corporate or special interest money could do very well. Someone who doesn't have to pander to the jesus freaks or to the labor unions or to the oil companies or the health care companies or the gun lobby or the entertainment industry. Sensible, honest, straightfoward. That's all. You don't have to go to extremes to find votes.
Oh, and try finding someone with an ounce of personality and character. Maybe some leadership ability. As much as I despise Bush and Gore, I would vote for either of them before I'd give my vote to Nader. As it is, I don't think I'll give my vote to any of them.
I see this sentiment throught these boards, and it's flat out wrong.
Nobody cares about write-ins. Nobody cares about Buchanan's.3% of the vote. People DO care about the fact that 60% of the voting public stayed home. Trust me, if you read the paper or watch the news after the election you will NOT hear how many write-ins there were, but you WILL hear what percentage of the public voted.
And believe me also that there will come a time when that percentage is low enough that there will be real problems. The smaller the voting population the more easily it is manipulated by big money. It works great for those with money... until everyone says fuck it and tears down the whole system. Representative democracy doesn't work anymore when you are only representing a few people. Then there WILL be real change.
The idea that tossing a vote away on a hopeless 3rd party will have any real impact isn't insane, but it certainly is naive.
Who's counting? When I look in the paper after an election I never see how many votes Donald Duck got, but I see displayed very prominently the % of the populace who voted. If you want anyone to actually see your protest you're better off staying home.
Yes there has always been gridlock. There has always been corruption. There has always been backroom political scheming.
BUT:
-Has voter turnout always been so low?
-Have campaigns always been so pre-fab and lifeless? (the accounts of the early conventions and debates in Walter Kronkite's autobiography are highly recommended)
-Has mass-marketting always been so influential?
-Have elections always had so many people who are voting AGAINST a candidate, rather than for one?
-Have large corporations always held this degree of control over politics and legislation? (I don't think examples are necessary in this crowd)
-Has the mass-media always played such an influential role?
Sure there have always been problems with our democracy, but to pretend things today are just the same as they always have been is to completely miss the real lesson of history. Things are always changing. The world is not static. Nothing is as it always was. Politics is continually evolving, and not necessarily in ways that are good.
Our government is steadily becoming less and less representative of the people. Fewer people vote each election, because they don't feel their vote makes a difference. And by and large they are right. I don't think that's the way it was in Washington's day.
Is Ralph Nader the answer? No. I'm rather more inclined to think Ralph Nader is an asshole, but that's beside the point. You need not be a zealous pseudo-radical to think that something is wrong with our government today.
Yes the two main parties benefit most from voter apathy, but only relatively to the minor parties. In fact they are all weaker for it.
There is no absolute law of nature that states that the US government must exist in its current form.
There exists a very strong trend towards apathy and non-involvement in our society. Perhaps things need to get worse before they get better. I don't think the libertarians or any other third party can effect meaningful change in the system.
But a real threat of the collapse of our democracy, OTOH, could effect real change. That probably won't happen this election, but given current trends it is inevitable at some point. The sooner the better. That's what I'm voting for. That's why I'm staying home on the 7th. Voting for a 3rd party is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't have him in mind, but he fits the bill exactly. It's too bad he didn't run. He could have kept the Reform party together, and had some $$$ to work with. He certainly would have been a much more viable 3rd party candidate than Nader. He'll have my vote if he ever runs.
Look, there are a ton of people out there who are disgruntled with politics. A significant chunk of the voting public wants another option. Everyone hates Gore and Bush. So why is it such a struggle for Nader to get a miserable 5% of the vote? Because everyone hates him too.
A little advice, if you are trying to supplant the two major parties you'd be well advised not to pick a candidate who is falling off one end of the political spectrum. There is a real opportunity for a centrist libertarian.
Someone who will try to reform government and limit government power (pull the Republicans) and limit corporate power (pull the Dems). AND who is fiscally responsible and has sensible moderate policies on health care, labor, education, foreign policy, etc, etc. Not some isolationist, commie extremist. Someone who can play the middle without being beholden to corporate or special interest money could do very well. Someone who doesn't have to pander to the jesus freaks or to the labor unions or to the oil companies or the health care companies or the gun lobby or the entertainment industry. Sensible, honest, straightfoward. That's all. You don't have to go to extremes to find votes.
Oh, and try finding someone with an ounce of personality and character. Maybe some leadership ability. As much as I despise Bush and Gore, I would vote for either of them before I'd give my vote to Nader. As it is, I don't think I'll give my vote to any of them.
I see this sentiment throught these boards, and it's flat out wrong.
.3% of the vote. People DO care about the fact that 60% of the voting public stayed home. Trust me, if you read the paper or watch the news after the election you will NOT hear how many write-ins there were, but you WILL hear what percentage of the public voted.
Nobody cares about write-ins. Nobody cares about Buchanan's
And believe me also that there will come a time when that percentage is low enough that there will be real problems. The smaller the voting population the more easily it is manipulated by big money. It works great for those with money... until everyone says fuck it and tears down the whole system. Representative democracy doesn't work anymore when you are only representing a few people. Then there WILL be real change.
The idea that tossing a vote away on a hopeless 3rd party will have any real impact isn't insane, but it certainly is naive.
Who's counting? When I look in the paper after an election I never see how many votes Donald Duck got, but I see displayed very prominently the % of the populace who voted. If you want anyone to actually see your protest you're better off staying home.
Yes there has always been gridlock. There has always been corruption. There has always been backroom political scheming.
BUT:
-Has voter turnout always been so low?
-Have campaigns always been so pre-fab and lifeless? (the accounts of the early conventions and debates in Walter Kronkite's autobiography are highly recommended)
-Has mass-marketting always been so influential?
-Have elections always had so many people who are voting AGAINST a candidate, rather than for one?
-Have large corporations always held this degree of control over politics and legislation? (I don't think examples are necessary in this crowd)
-Has the mass-media always played such an influential role?
Sure there have always been problems with our democracy, but to pretend things today are just the same as they always have been is to completely miss the real lesson of history. Things are always changing. The world is not static. Nothing is as it always was. Politics is continually evolving, and not necessarily in ways that are good.
Our government is steadily becoming less and less representative of the people. Fewer people vote each election, because they don't feel their vote makes a difference. And by and large they are right. I don't think that's the way it was in Washington's day.
Is Ralph Nader the answer? No. I'm rather more inclined to think Ralph Nader is an asshole, but that's beside the point. You need not be a zealous pseudo-radical to think that something is wrong with our government today.
Yes the two main parties benefit most from voter apathy, but only relatively to the minor parties. In fact they are all weaker for it.
There is no absolute law of nature that states that the US government must exist in its current form.
There exists a very strong trend towards apathy and non-involvement in our society. Perhaps things need to get worse before they get better. I don't think the libertarians or any other third party can effect meaningful change in the system.
But a real threat of the collapse of our democracy, OTOH, could effect real change. That probably won't happen this election, but given current trends it is inevitable at some point. The sooner the better. That's what I'm voting for. That's why I'm staying home on the 7th. Voting for a 3rd party is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.