I just read this thread and am a little confused. As a not-american I started to wonder why do you even spend that shitload of money on all that voting. Can’t you, like, flip a coin or take turns between Democrat and Republican presidents? End result would be the same.
Democracy my ass.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
Holy Jesus, you’re so full of shit. Are you seriously trying to put blame for Bush’s destructive policies on the people who voted AGAINST him?! What the fuck is wrong with you?
[/QUOTE]
Show me one place where I placed blame for Bush’s policies on the people who voted against him.
One.
I placed it squarely on the people in the government who’s responsibility it was to have some balls and stand up to the asshole.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
In other words: Just because you were under the spell of Nader’s mysteriously seductive mojo doesn’t mean that the Dems did anything wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Sure they did. They lost the election that was perceived as being in the bag. That’s doing something wrong IMO.
Maeglin, I think that we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. But I thank you for your cogent argument. I voted for Kerry in 2004, so I did come around to your way of thinking, but I think it’s sad that my feelings about voting are almost always “lesser of the two evils.” A lot of people feel that way, which is why voter turnout is so low. A lot of people feel disenfranchised and the two major parties feel entitled to the votes of people who are even faintly aligned with them.
Maybe America is just too big. I know that’s a separate topic entirely.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Why are you blaming your vote on the Democrats instead of touting the awesome persuasiveness of Nader? Answers like yours is why I find it hard to take Nader voters seriously.
Yeah, so the Dems didn’t put on a shiny enough dog and pony show. Gore wasn’t an award-winning movie star back in 2000. He looked like dork. And he spoke in a monotone! But in spite of all these heinous flaws, millions of people (most of the population, as it were) were still able to shake that magic eight ball and see that Bush + White House = Bad Times. Your failure to figure this out is not a badge of honor.
In other words: Just because you were under the spell of Nader’s mysteriously seductive mojo doesn’t mean that the Dems did anything wrong.
[/QUOTE]
You have not taken the time to read the responses from the Nader voters in this thread clearly. How do I know this? Because you apparently didn’t read my post about why I voted for Nader at all. I did not vote for Nader per se. I voted for diversity, choice, more options, matching funds, a place on the podium at the presidential debates.
But of course all you choose to see is “the awesome persuasiveness of Nader”. I find it hard to take anyone who can’t be arsed to even read what I said seriously.
Do you or do you not believe that the Dems knew that Nader voters were a viable threat? Cuz if they did they did a pretty sucky job at pulling them into the fold or back into the fold. A horrendous job with, turns out disatrous results. They either paid them little to no attention or called them stupid assholes. This is not how you deal with a very real threat to your victory.
Nader voters tended to feel very strongly about voting for Nader. For a number of reasons. Go back and read that again. For a number of reasons. Sure, I had the luxury of voting third party because my state isn’t even close to a swing state. I don’t recall a whole lot, if any, meaningful attempts to reach out to the Nader voter. Why is that? Did they not hear? Did they not see? And if they did, why did they not deal with it effectively? Why can the Dems never seem to win when the chips are down? If it was so fucking important, how did they blow it? Why on God’s green Earth, which so much on the line! did they choose to marginalize and denigrate the very voters they needed?
I knew Bush was bad times. Fuck, I lived in Texas during his term as Governor, so I’ll thank you to take your swipe about “millions of voters” and stick it up your ass. I was hardline, knee-jerk Democrat until the 2000 election. You think it makes me happy to have to hold my nose and vote for John Kerry?
The Dems did wrong after wrong after wrong. If they’d had the talent, vision, and skill, they could have, and should have, been able to overcome a third party. Hell, the Libertarians have been buzzing gnats for years. (As have the Greens in general.) They got smug and arrogant and they blew it. (Not that any of you know what it means to be smug and arrogant.)
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Sure they did. They lost the election that was perceived as being in the bag. That’s doing something wrong IMO.
Maeglin, I think that we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. But I thank you for your cogent argument. I voted for Kerry in 2004, so I did come around to your way of thinking, but I think it’s sad that my feelings about voting are almost always “lesser of the two evils.” A lot of people feel that way, which is why voter turnout is so low. A lot of people feel disenfranchised and the two major parties feel entitled to the votes of people who are even faintly aligned with them.
Maybe America is just too big. I know that’s a separate topic entirely.
[/QUOTE]
That’s fine. The point I am struggling to make is that the idea of the “lesser of two evils” is completely and utterly baked into our electoral rules. That is not going to change until our rules change. The problem is, when we do change them, we are going to introduce other undesirable properties into our political process that we will rightly complain about.
I like that you at least care very deeply about this stuff. I approach these issues from a public choice theory mindset. The wiki on public choice really is pretty good, and the References section, while very dated, lists some real classics in the field. Unfortunately, it is a “dismal science” just like economics. Reality is a real bitch.
[QUOTE=Maeglin]
That is not going to change until our rules change. The problem is, when we do change them, we are going to introduce other undesirable properties into our political process that we will rightly complain about.
[/QUOTE]
An earnest question: how can we - the people - ever get those in power to change these rules, though? The Democrats and Republicans have no incentive to change anything. What options are there for the electorate? The two parties seem to run the rules on many levels, not just Federal.
[QUOTE=Maeglin]
That’s fine. The point I am struggling to make is that the idea of the “lesser of two evils” is completely and utterly baked into our electoral rules.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you know, this election I actually feel mildly excited about Obama, so if I am fortunate enough to be able to pull a leve for him in November, then I won’t feel like I’m voting for someone evil. Consequently, I am convinced he won’t get the nomination, or if he does, I will wind up despising him as I did Bill Clinton. However, the cynicism hasn’t completely overwhelmed my ability to vote for a major party candidate, so there still is hope in me for the Dems. I’m sure it won’t last. 
[QUOTE=niblet_head]
An earnest question: how can we - the people - ever get those in power to change these rules, though? The Democrats and Republicans have no incentive to change anything. What options are there for the electorate? The two parties seem to run the rules on many levels, not just Federal.
[/QUOTE]
From post# 77
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Sure they did. They lost the election that was perceived as being in the bag. That’s doing something wrong IMO.
[/quote]
It was perceived as “being in the bag” by a lot of the people who voted for Nader. Isn’t that a funny coincidence?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
It was perceived as “being in the bag” by a lot of the people who voted for Nader. Isn’t that a funny coincidence?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it’s hilarious. The fact that they couldn’t get enough votes… which is the job of the candidate’s campaign… even though it was their election to lose, and their opponent was a fucking moron… but you say they didn’t do anything wrong. That is also hilarious.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Yes, it’s hilarious. The fact that they couldn’t get enough votes… which is the job of the candidate’s campaign… even though it was their election to lose, and their opponent was a fucking moron… but you say they didn’t do anything wrong. That is also hilarious.
[/QUOTE]
Essentially what you are saying is that Dems fucked up by looking so much better than their opposition that no one figured that the Republicans could beat them. The result was that some people stayed home and others voted for Nader. The Dems were victims of two things: 1) their own popularity leading up to the election and 2)an electorate that has the tendency to think everyone thinks like them. That’s the only reason why the election could have been seen as “in the bag”.
This faulty thinking was not the Dems fault. The only people who are responsible for making silly assumptions like this were the people who made them.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Essentially what you are saying is that Dems fucked up by looking so much better than their opposition that no one figured that the Republicans could beat them.
[/quote]
No, not at all. That’s not what “it was their election to lose” means. It means, being the VP of a strong, popular 2 term Democratic president who left a good economy, everyone thought that Al Gore should be a shoe in. But he dropped the ball, bigtime. Obviously I don’t blame people for not voting for him, since I didn’t. I guess the lost their “base” somehow (which I am not), since the man lost his own home state for god’s sake. That’s not Nader’s fault. That’s the fault of the Gore campaign. I don’t see how you can deny that.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
That’s not Nader’s fault. That’s the fault of the Gore campaign. I don’t see how you can deny that.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t blame Nader or Gore for the choices that voters made. I blame the voters. That’s the crux of it right there.
[QUOTE=niblet_head]
An earnest question: how can we - the people - ever get those in power to change these rules, though? The Democrats and Republicans have no incentive to change anything. What options are there for the electorate? The two parties seem to run the rules on many levels, not just Federal.
[/QUOTE]
Amend the Constitution. Violent revolution. That’s about it.
Rats.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
It was perceived as “being in the bag” by a lot of the people who voted for Nader. Isn’t that a funny coincidence?
[/QUOTE]
The funnier thing is that no one else “perceived” it as “being in the bag.” It was reported from every news source that it was going to be close. If you picked up a copy of Newsweek, they had a little map in every issue showing you how close.
[QUOTE=Maeglin]
Amend the Constitution.
[/quote]
Well, no, there’s no need to change the Constitution since it mentions nothing about the party structure (at least not the US one - some state’s may need amendment, I don’t know).
I’ve answered niblet_head’s question twice now, but I guess my answer is hard work, so that’s out. Easier to bitch about the lack of third party.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Yes, it’s hilarious. The fact that they couldn’t get enough votes… which is the job of the candidate’s campaign… even though it was their election to lose, and their opponent was a fucking moron… but you say they didn’t do anything wrong. That is also hilarious.
[/QUOTE]
So I guess Nader’s an even bigger idiot because he got even less votes than Gore.
All tghis rap about needing to "change the rules"so people like Nader can be elected is just whining. The public doesn’t like Nader or his policies. They have demonstrated that time and again. If the Dems moved left to pick up a few hundred thousand Nader voters they’d lose a few million votes from people in the center.
[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
Well, no, there’s no need to change the Constitution since it mentions nothing about the party structure (at least not the US one - some state’s may need amendment, I don’t know).
I’ve answered niblet_head’s question twice now, but I guess my answer is hard work, so that’s out. Easier to bitch about the lack of third party.
[/QUOTE]
There absolutely is a need to change the Constitution to do away with plurality voting if you want to do away with a stable two party system. Our outcomes are entirely driven by our voting rules.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
So I guess Nader’s an even bigger idiot because he got even less votes than Gore.
[/quote]
Wow, do I really have to explain this again? Ralph Nader knew he wasn’t going to get elected (duh). That was not the purpose of the 2000 run. It was to try to build the Green Party to a viable national-level party. I think it was a worthwhile goal; others disagree. And maybe he was an idiot for trying at that time, I’m sure you’d say so. But your argument above? Nope, that’s not why he’s an idiot.
You don’t think 3rd parties should be allowed on the ballot or in the debate? If they’re no threat to the 2 major parties’ coalition, why not allow it? You can’t bear hearing a POV not Dem or Pub? I don’t get it. Also, do you love the way our system runs right now? I think it’s demonstrably fucked as is. If you like it, then of course anyone who disagrees with you and wants to change it is a whiner, or some other negative descriptor. I could call you names too, based on your POV, but let’s not.