I'll vote for whomever I please, you fuckers!

[DanBlather]

@Rubystreak

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?

Where in the hell did you get that out of my post. 3rd, 4th and 5th parties are fine with me. But if after 3 or 4 runs at President you still can’t poll above single digits then pack it in.

The networks could fill the debates with marginal candidates, but it would look like the first few weeks of American Idol where they show the auditions of contestants the producers picked for us to laugh at.

If you want to be taken seriously, then run a serious candidate. By your own admission, Nader wasn’t trying or expecting to win. Jeez, wonder why so few people voted for him.

Most of the 3rd party candidates for Presidents have been nut jobs: Perot, George Wallace, Pat Robertson, Nader. Only John Anderson in '80 was close to being mainstream enough to be electable.

Lennon said “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow”. Likewise, if you run on a platform to abolish the IRS, legalize marijuana, return to the gold standard, or any number of other unpopular ideas you aren’t going to get elected. Not because democracy doesn’t work, but because it does.

[Cheesesteak]

@Rubystreak

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.

The problem with this strategy is that you can’t build a viable party by running for president. For regular folks, these parties pop up every 4 years and then go away when they lose. You occasionally get some 3rd parties on local ballots, but they don’t win, don’t gain any traction, don’t build their party base.

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?

Ever heard of the “butterfly ballot”? Because Florida had a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th , 7th, 8th , 9th and 10th party candidates clogging up the works, they had to come up with some stupid fucking design to cram them all into the ballot. How many folks do you think would have dorked up their vote if there were two choices? Choices of the the two people who actually had a chance to win the election.

People wonder why our election process is so screwed up with Diebold and chads and the rest. If our presidential election was simply choosing between the two viable candidates, instead of having 10 presidential candidates and 8 other elections to wade through, we could have simple, reliable ballot technology.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be allowed, but adding candidates to the ballot isn’t all sunshine and puppy dogs.

[Rubystreak]

@Cheesesteak

People wonder why our election process is so screwed up with Diebold and chads and the rest. If our presidential election was simply choosing between the two viable candidates, instead of having 10 presidential candidates and 8 other elections to wade through, we could have simple, reliable ballot technology.

I’m sorry, but this is America, one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, yet you claim we can’t come up with a reliable, corruption-free ballot system… because there are more than two parties? No, sorry, that’s not the reason. I’m hoping you realize that.

[Cheesesteak]

What I’m saying is that if our elections were

1. Only for President
2. Only for the people who have a chance in hell of winning

You could have your reliable corruption free ballot system with pre-industrial age technology. The REALITY is that we do not have a reliable, easy to use, corruption free ballot system, and a great deal of the blame goes to the sheer amount of stuff our ballot system has to deal with on election day.

We have 10 presidential candidates, Senate, House, town council, sheriff, 5 uncontested judgeships, and 3 wordy ballot initiatives all in one election. No wonder the lines are out the door, the machines are stupid complicated, and people screw up all the time.

You can proclaim that it should be easy for us to build these machines, but that doesn’t make it so.

[saoirse]

@Cheesesteak

You can proclaim that it should be easy for us to build these machines, but that doesn’t make it so.

I just wanted to point out that the technology is already here, and has been used in New York for about a century.

[Liberal]

@DanBlather

The networks could fill the debates with marginal candidates, but it would look like the first few weeks of American Idol where they show the auditions of contestants the producers picked for us to laugh at.

That’s pretty much what they’ve done with the primaries. Senator McCain, what would you do about the war in Iraq? Governor Romney, what would you do about the economy? Congressman Paul, do you believe in flying saucers?

[Carol_the_Impaler]

@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.

I don’t disagree that we also need to be building diversity on the local, state, and national level. But the reality is that you also need to build a certain amount of cultural “top of mind” awareness simultaneously so that when the average voter sees, for example a Green candidate on the ballot for City Council, they don’t automatically dismiss that person. A Presidential election is a marketing campaign to a degree. Certainly you can acknowledge that the average American consumer/voter goes with what they perceive to be popularity, and avoid what they perceive as being for “losers”. Slogging has it’s place. So does the boost a party can get from a nationally recognized Presidential campaign.

Certainly, we who desire choice need to work in the trenches, but a successful third party Presidential campaign can have trickle down effects into the lower levels of government, as well. A third party candidate doesn’t have to win to make gains, both literal (matching funds, being allowed into the debates, being on more ballots) and conceptual.

[ForumBot]

Anyone who votes with any intention of changing the outcome of an election is deluded. Your Vote is Useless. But you should vote anyway, because it’s your civic duty.

Mulligan, Casey B. and Hunter, Charles G., “The Empirical Frequency of a Pivotal Vote” (November 2001). NBER Working Paper No. W8590. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=290394

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

@Captain Amazing

I’m not talking about what should or shouldn’t happen. I’m saying that under the current electoral system operating in the US, voting for a third party candidate is generally not a rational act. If you want to make a third party candidacy viable in the US, change the electoral rules.

So what will it take to gather the critical mass required to change the electoral system? Maybe a few administrations that got in by the skin of their teeth and then start wreaking havoc on an international scale? I honestly don’t think anything less disruptive has much of a chance of mobilizing the masses to change. I think we needed a painful anecdote for enough people to realize that the system is indeed flawed.

I voted with my conscience, for Nader, in 2000 and have often had feelings similar to the OP, when people basically thanked me for “voting” for Shrub. Eventually, I got a thicker skin and realized that for all of their railing and complaining at me, and those like me, what many of these people were really angry about was the flawed system, but the system is not as easy of a target for ire as Nader voters. A system that functionally translates a vote from Candidate A to Candidate F is the root of the problem, not the individuals who voted for Candidate A.

[saoirse]

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

I think we needed a painful anecdote for enough people to realize that the system is indeed flawed.

Okay, this one time, I was on my way in to vote. And I slipped on some ice on the sidewalk. I skidded along and hit my head on the drainpipe, then went right off the curb and into a car that was going about 10 m.p.h.

How’s that?

[Maeglin]

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

So what will it take to gather the critical mass required to change the electoral system?

Violent revolution.

Our electoral system is actually quite good. It is certainly no worse than that of any other developed country. Should we change it, we will open up other cans of worms that people will rightly complain about.

[gonzomax]

It has been reported that after Kennedy narrowly beat Nixon ,the Nixon people were asked if they were going to protest the results. The response was that they just stole the Chicago vote better than we did. There has always been voter dirty tricks. The Bushies as always have taken every dark art and accentuated it. The distortion is enough to be dangerousbto the system. It should be fixed.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Rubystreak

I’m sorry, but this is America, one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, yet you claim we can’t come up with a reliable, corruption-free ballot system… because there are more than two parties? No, sorry, that’s not the reason. I’m hoping you realize that.

The corruption is the problem–not the system. Having a candidate’s brother as Governor of the deciding state definitely contributed. The Floridians who voted for Nader were only accessories to the crime. There was the butterfly ballot & lots of uncounted votes. And the corrupt Supreme Court to top it all off.

I agree with many Green Party ideas–but the party became tainted after being used by Nader. And the tragedies of the Bush administrations were hung around the neck of the Green Party like a dead albatross.

Fair? Maybe not. But the stench is still with us.

Vote for whomever you please. And understand that people will say whatever they please. We won’t shut up because you want to forget…

[Zakalwe]

@niblet_head

But the reality is that you also need to build a certain amount of cultural “top of mind” awareness simultaneously so that when the average voter sees, for example a Green candidate on the ballot for City Council, they don’t automatically dismiss that person.

Then stop running a loon. I currently dismiss Green Party candidates (or I would if I ever saw one on a ballot) as crazy Naderites.

Certainly, we who desire choice need to work in the trenches, but a successful third party Presidential campaign can have trickle down effects into the lower levels of government, as well. A third party candidate doesn’t have to win to make gains, both literal (matching funds, being allowed into the debates, being on more ballots) and conceptual.

As noted above, the matching funds thing is a red herring - you have to have meaningful funds before matching them means a damn thing. Twice nothing is still nothing. Why do you want to be in the debates? To debate national issues? How’s that going to help you elect a councilman or legislator?

I simply don’t see how you can hope to have anything even remotely approaching a “successful” Presidential campaign with no base. And if you don’t have people working and governing at the local and state level then you ain’t got no base.

Seriously, pick a few issues that you and some party can agree on. Offer to run and fund the hell out of candidates in districts that party doesn’t bother with. Run and win. Leverage that. Bottom up, not top down.

@Maeglin

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.

Ah, gotcha. Yes, you are right about that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Rubystreak]

@Bridget Burke

Fair? Maybe not. But the stench is still with us.

Vote for whomever you please. And understand that people will say whatever they please. We won’t shut up because you want to forget…

The stench of what is still with us? I don’t think there’s any “stench” to voting your conscience, which I and other Nader voters did. And I don’t want to forget it. But I do want you to shut up (you in general who perseverate on Nader in 2000, not you particularly, Bridget).

However, if shutting up is not your bag, and if you want something not to shut up about, how about the Supreme Court’s decision about the election in 2000? No one talks about that anymore. That was fucked up.

Or, if you really want something that stinks to high heaven to bitch about, check out page 50 of the February 7, 2008 issue of Rolling Stone: “E-Voting Flunked the Ohio Test,” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The Ohio Secretary of State ordered a non-partison audit of Ohio’s electronic voting machines. RFK had alleged in 2004 that the machines were hackable; for instance, over 3,000 votes “spontaneously” appeared for Bush, and flipped votes from Kerry to Bush. We all remember how pivotal Ohio was in 2004, so this should be of great interest to people who disliked the outcome of that election.

Turns out 40% of the machines manufactured by Diebold (Google them for evidence that they are Republican partisan) flipped votes. One machine even erased votes when its memory card got full. The Ohio Secretary of State said she was “shocked and dismayed” by the outcome and that she “couldn’t sleep for days” after she read the reports of how dismally the machines failed the audit.

The electronic voting system used in Ohio is not secure and cannot be trusted. It may well have altered the outcome of the 2004 election. Researchers found they could be tampered with using just a magnet and a PDA! They could be rigged to IGNORE VOTES without detection! Now, doesn’t that bother you a lot more than people voting for Nader 8 fucking years ago, people who got off their asses to vote and actually made a principled choice, albeit one that you might disagree with? Stealing votes, erasing votes, hacking votes… that is something people should be freaking out about, calling names over, not letting go for years.

But alas, no, I’ve heard many magnitudes more bitching about Nader than I have about this. I don’t get it.

[Cheesesteak]

@Rubystreak

The electronic voting system used in Ohio is not secure and cannot be trusted. It may well have altered the outcome of the 2004 election. Researchers found they could be tampered with using just a magnet and a PDA! They could be rigged to IGNORE VOTES without detection! Now, doesn’t that bother you a lot more than people voting for Nader 8 fucking years ago, people who got off their asses to vote and actually made a principled choice, albeit one that you might disagree with? Stealing votes, erasing votes, hacking votes… that is something people should be freaking out about, calling names over, not letting go for years.

Speaking as someone who is not “bothered” in any way by Nader voters… What could happen is a much less troublesome thing than what did happen.

After 7 years worth of bleating over stolen elections, there’s still not a shred of evidence that anyone, anywhere actually tampered with a voting machine in an effort to give the election to Bush, nor is there evidence that votes counted for Bush (and that won him a state) were discovered after the fact to be fraudulent. In contrast, there is ample evidence that tens of thousands of people in Florida 2000 voted for Nader, and it’s reasonable to think a majority of them would likely have voted for the Democrat candidate, if they didn’t choose a 3rd party.

[Rubystreak]

@Cheesesteak

After 7 years worth of bleating over stolen elections, there’s still not a shred of evidence that anyone, anywhere actually tampered with a voting machine in an effort to give the election to Bush, nor is there evidence that votes counted for Bush (and that won him a state) were discovered after the fact to be fraudulent.

There does seem to be some evidence of e-voting tampering in Ohio. RFK2 has been saying it for 4 years, and now the audit’s been complete, which backs him up. So there is a shred of evidence, apparently, and I posted you one cite for it.

[Carol_the_Impaler]

@Zakalwe

Then stop running a loon. I currently dismiss Green Party candidates (or I would if I ever saw one on a ballot) as crazy Naderites.

In the same way we should dismiss all Republicans as Bushy fascists and all Democrats as sleaze-bag blow-job-on-office-getters?

I’m cocking my head to the side in bewilderment at how you all keep ignoring that many people who voted for Nader in 2000 were voting for principle, and idea, a movement and NOT for the man. Thousands upon thousands of people felt very strongly that they were NOT represented by the Democrats, that the Democrats did not speak to their values or what was important to them, that the Democrats were part of the problem. And it’s apparent that Democrats are not at all willing to do any kind of post-mortem that even approaches acknowledging that. It’s just easier to bitch about the Nader voters than admit that the party played a role in driving so many people to vote against them.

Democrats are terrified of choice because it undermines their hegemony and threatens their cushy status quo. Clearly the reason that the word Nader incites such vitriol indicates a nerve has been touched. The very whisper that maybe Nader voters have even the slightest hint of a valid complaint drives Democrats to distraction.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Rubystreak

The stench of what is still with us? I don’t think there’s any “stench” to voting your conscience, which I and other Nader voters did. And I don’t want to forget it. But I do want you to shut up (you in general who perseverate on Nader in 2000, not you particularly, Bridget).

However, if shutting up is not your bag, and if you want something not to shut up about, how about the Supreme Court’s decision about the election in 2000? No one talks about that anymore. That was fucked up.

Or, if you really want something that stinks to high heaven to bitch about, check out page 50 of the February 7, 2008 issue of Rolling Stone: “E-Voting Flunked the Ohio Test,” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The Ohio Secretary of State ordered a non-partison audit of Ohio’s electronic voting machines. RFK had alleged in 2004 that the machines were hackable; for instance, over 3,000 votes “spontaneously” appeared for Bush, and flipped votes from Kerry to Bush. We all remember how pivotal Ohio was in 2004, so this should be of great interest to people who disliked the outcome of that election.

Turns out 40% of the machines manufactured by Diebold (Google them for evidence that they are Republican partisan) flipped votes. One machine even erased votes when its memory card got full. The Ohio Secretary of State said she was “shocked and dismayed” by the outcome and that she “couldn’t sleep for days” after she read the reports of how dismally the machines failed the audit.

The electronic voting system used in Ohio is not secure and cannot be trusted. It may well have altered the outcome of the 2004 election. Researchers found they could be tampered with using just a magnet and a PDA! They could be rigged to IGNORE VOTES without detection! Now, doesn’t that bother you a lot more than people voting for Nader 8 fucking years ago, people who got off their asses to vote and actually made a principled choice, albeit one that you might disagree with? Stealing votes, erasing votes, hacking votes… that is something people should be freaking out about, calling names over, not letting go for years.

But alas, no, I’ve heard many magnitudes more bitching about Nader than I have about this. I don’t get it.

Start a thread about untrustworthy voting systems & I’ll gladly chime in. Of course they caused problems–oddly, only for Democrats. And in 2004, as well. Even if Florida’s Naderoids hadn’t flushed their votes away, it’s quite possible that Bush would have “won” the state anyway. Here’s Hunter S Thompson’s take on election night, 2000:

There was one exact moment, in fact, when I knew for sure that Al Gore would Never be President of the United States, no matter what the experts were saying – and that was when the whole Bush family suddenly appeared on TV and openly scoffed at the idea of Gore winning Florida. It was Nonsense, said the Candidate, Utter nonsense. … Anybody who believed Bush had lost Florida was a Fool. The Media, all of them, were Liars & Dunces or treacherous whores trying to sabotage his victory.

They were strong words and people said he was Bluffing. But I knew better. Of course Bush would win Florida. Losing was out of the question. Here was the whole bloody Family laughing & hooting & sneering at the dumbness of the whole world on National TV.

The old man was the real tip-off. The leer on his face was almost frightening. It was like looking into the eyes of a tall hyena with a living sheep in its mouth. The sheep’s fate was sealed, and so was Al Gore’s. … Everything since then has been political flotsam & Gibberish.

I voted my conscience, too. Even though, as a Texan, I was told my vote “didn’t count”–I voted for Al Gore. And, as the total votes were counted nationwide, I was proud to be in the plurality who’d wanted Gore.

And I don’t feel the need to whine about my decision.

[Carol_the_Impaler]

Oh, come on, Bridget. We’re not whining, we’re defending our choice. I wouldn’t ever discuss my Nader vote if it wasn’t brought up first. And I wouldn’t feel compelled to defend it if the discussion wasn’t always couched in the context of being a stupid asshole, and how I should just accept the status quo, and how I should just shut up and vote Democrat and be happy. Don’t you feel compelled to defend your choice when inevitably someone gives you shit for voting for Gore?