Why would the Dems want to silence a 3rd party? I don’t get it. I thought they wanted to include all points of view, or is it only points of view they agree with? Or am I so obtuse as to somehow miss this as a conspiracy of “Bushco”?
Frankly, I don’t think either of the major parties would be exactly thrilled to have Nader run this election term, but Nader’s running is, arguably, far mroe damaging to Democrats than Republicans.
Why?
Let’s break it down:
Those who would likely vote for Nader are of the liberal persuasion. Voters of the liberal persuasion, given a choice between only Democrat and Republican candidates, are most likely to vote for the Democrat. A liberal third party will siphon off liberal votes from the Democrats; and there is no corresponding fourth party of a conservative bent to siphon votes off from the Republicans.
Many people, myself included, blame Nader for Gore’s loss in 2000. If he hadn’t run, those who voted for Nader would have (probably) voted for Gore, and Gore therefore would have won.
It is stupid and selfish for someone like Nader to continue to run when he has absolutely no chance of winning the election. I have every reason to believe that Nader’s running could cost the Democrats another election this year. And by damaging the Dems chances of winning, Nader defeats the major party most closely aligned with his beliefs and ensures that the party which has the LEAST in common with his beliefs takes the election. Again.
The issue the AZ dems have is with the validity of Nader’s signatures. A number of the signatures were collected by convicted felons, which means they’re invalid, and there are other reasons why signatures may be invalidated. The AZ dems are checking to see if Nader is in compliance with the law. Since when is that “skewing” an election?
We do it because we’re EVIL.
Face it, if we were good, there would be no Democratic party, and we’d all be voting for GWB.
Except of course for those America hating Naderites, who would still be evil, and still need to be crushed by the GOP.
I guess that, in a way, we’re doing your job for you.
So you should thank us.
-Except that we’re EVIL…
Amen! That’s how democracy works. If you can’t convince a majority of the population or Supreme Court to vote for you, you don’t get elected. What’s the point of whining about 3% of population voting for Nader? Why not go the whole mile and whine about the 49% that voted for Bush, too? Nader is the Democrats’ pennance for trying to be Republican Lite for the last ten years.
I hate Bush like fire and am desperate to get him out of the White House. However, petulantly sulking about people who might vote for Nader instead of Kerry isn’t the way to do it. Convince people that Kerry is the better candidate and he’ll win.
First, it’s irrational to ascribe to the entire party the actions of a handful of activists in one state or a handful of members of Congress. Second, even if Nader is being targeted it doesn’t translate into “quash[ing] any dissenting voice” since there are many other candidates and parties listed on various state ballots whom the Democrats are not challenging. Finally, if Nader did not meet th requirements for being on the ballot in any particular state, then he shouldn’t be listed. Whether ballot access is fair or whatever is a separate issue certainly up for debate but there are rules in place now that he has to meet just like any other candidate.
Ralph Nader is not running as a representative of any political party.
OK hypotheticals are problematic but try this one.
What if John Macain decided that the Republican party had pooped on him for long enough and had given up on the ideals that brought him to the party. Say then he decided to pull out of the party and run as an independant. You can bet your ass that Bushco would be doing anything within the law ( And we know how much he figures the president is bound by law) to make sure Macain didn’t get on a single ballot anywhere.
Actually thats not a bad idea. What if all those conservatives who can’t stand Bush and can’t quite bring themselves to vote for Kerry wrote in Macain.
-Ralph picks up more than 5% of the vote. Sure, this’ll probably cause a Bush win, but hey, I’m looking 40 years ahead, not 4.
-Election after that, the Greens siphon up a larger boatload of the further-left liberals of the Dem party, leaving the Democrats more centrist.
-The socially liberal Republicans siphon over to the more moderate Democratic party, leaving only the hardliner Religious Right to stew in their own divine juices.
-Crazy bat-winged monkeys from the planet Zortron come and exterminate the Religious Right.
-The two remaining parties settle down into a more rational and tolerant balance.
Won’t happen, of course. But goddammit, I pray for those Zortron monkeys with ever fibre of my socially-liberal heart.
Looks to me like Nader is trying very hard to encourage people to be less afraid of losing an election, and more concerned about doing what they, personally, think is right.
Makes me almost want to vote for him myself, despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of his politics…
