Nader is to the Dems what Buchannon is the Repubs.
His bolt is shot; its not really about the issues, its about him. Its a personality cult at this point. Its not a matter of getting things he believes in passed; its a matter of him being the one to do it.
Our voting system isn’t set up that way; that’s just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You shouldn’t vote for a third party candidate because they can’t win; hence they can’t win because few people vote for them.
The two major parties know this, so they don’t have to convince anyone that they’re the good guys, they just have to convince people that the other guys are worse. Which is why attack ads are prevalent and effective. As much as the war on terrorism that our current administration has waged has damaged our civil rights, I don’t think it has yet done as much damage as the war on drugs that went on for eight years under a democratic administration. The DMCA was signed by a democratic president. As long as our attitude is only “Let’s not let things get worse” things won’t get better. I voted for Nader last time; it’s not out of the question that I would vote for him again. To get my vote, a candidate can’t just say “I’m not as bad as Bush”, he should convince me that he’s good.
That said, I like Edwards and even Kerry better than Gore. If Nader runs, I’m not sure who I’d vote for.
Jay
Why isn’t preventing things from getting worse a legit reason for choosing a candidate? Jay, you seem to agree that Bush is worse than either Democrat. Why vote for someone you like if it will help someone you dislike get into office? Being realistic isn’t a bad thing.
I don’t think Nader poses the same threat this year as he did in 2000. People who wre angry at government want Bush OUT more than they want to make some point, so whatever extent to which he “stole” Democratic votes last time (I think if he hadn’t been in the race, a lot of those votes simply wouldn’t have been cast at all) is’nt going to factor into it.
In 2000, we were still a little srunk from the 90s, and had the leisure to indulge ourselves. This time around, whoever has the reins is going to be a wartime president, and I think poeple will look at Nader and realize he just doesn’t have the credentials needed now to take control of the Executive branch.
Good questions, Marley23.
I think that only trying to prevent things from getting worse will prevent things from getting better.
It isn’t so much that I have a problem with people who vote against (rather than for) a candidate; it is, I suppose, a legitimate way of playing the voting game. But I don’t like it when people are criticized for or dissuaded from voting for who they think is the best person.
Jay
I think you’re doing yourself a disservice if you simplify things to “Democrats = things won’t get worse, Nader = things will get better.” Nader won’t get elected, so he won’t make anything better. In this case, ‘trying to make things better’ seems extremely likely to make them worse.
Signed,
A guy who voted Nader in 2000
I would never vote for Nader, but as someone who would gladly vote for a third party candidate if I could find one I agree with because I find the thought of voting for either Kerry or Bush rather repuslive, I have to say that calling him “self-serving” for running is a bit hypocrtical on the part of Democrats given that the reasoning behind the party NOT wanting him to run is for there own self gain.
If you don't want him pulling votes from your party, have your candidate change their paltform to more align themselves with the Nader supporters. Otherwise, stop whining and stop blaming him, hanging chads, badly designed ballots and whatever other possible excuse that is thrown out there for Gore's failure in 2000.
Nader, despite his poor showing, had the best quote, in my opinion, of the whole 2000 election. "The only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don't believe in." People have every right to vote for whoever they choose. Any person has a right to run. If more people voted for who they believed was the best candidate instead of buying into the idea that they MUST vote for a Democrat or Republican because ONLY they have a chance of winning and, therefore, any other vote is "wasted", the country would be much better off. If you vote for a losing candidate, the vote is not wasted. You still made a statement that will be remembered in history. I think many people who vote third party do so because they are disenchanted with the two party system and probably don't give a rat's behind whether that pisses off Dems or Republicans.The 2000 presidential election came down to Florida’s 25 electoral votes.
Bush - 2,912,790 / 48.85%
Gore - 2,912,253 / 48.84%
Nader - 97,488 / 1.63%
Only 537 votes decided the election.
You are correct.
It wasn’t Nader’s fault.
In New Hampshire in 2000, Nader got 22,000 votes. And Bush won the state by 7,000. If not for that, Florida would have been irrelevant.
Nobody said Nader shouldn’t be allowed to run for office. On the other hand, people are well within their rights to point out that he is likely hurting the causes he claims to believe in by doing so.
[quote]
If you don’t want him pulling votes from your party, have your candidate change their paltform to more align themselves with the Nader supporters.
[quote]
Doing so could lose them more votes than it would gain them.
And if Gore had won his home state, he would not have needed Florida. You could play this game all day. Its like after a football game when someone says that if this call had been made or if they had just made this or that play their team could have won. Yeah, but they didn’t. Their were multiple states in the last election that were very close and could easily have swung the other way for either candidate. Florida simply received the most attention because its the one that was contested in the courts.
Well, yes and no. The margin in so many states was so damn thin, the entire Electoral College could have been turned inside out for a piddling change in the popular vote. Its hard to credit the notion that if Nader had thrown his support to Gore, Gore would not have carried the day.
But I was fooled, too, so I can understand it. I thought the election was center-left against center-right, no terror, no shakes. I voted against Bush rather than for Gore, but didn’t regard it as a grave decision.
But not today. Today we know the man we’re looking at. GeeDubyaCo actually lost the popular vote but is intent on governing as though elected by landslide. A second such “victory”, no matter how slim the margin…I shudder.
There are men who would rather make money than breathe, this is so, in this Mr. Nader and I have no disagreement. That having such men make decisions is a very bad idea…again, we have no bone to pick.
But they have twice as much money and not one scruple to share amongst them. Mr. Nader is not stupid, if I can grasp this, certainly can he. If he chooses to ignore this for the sake of his own imprint on events, then he sucks.
He isn’t stupid, he makes a clear choice and a bad one. Fuck 'em, and the horse upon in which he rode.
Then why don’t we just legislate a formal two-party system, and never allow anyone other than the Democrats or Republicans to enter into politics? What this seems to come down to is “Nader shouldn’t run, because some people might actually want to vote for him.” Heaven forbid people vote for the candidate of their choice! It’s too bad we don’t live in one of those countries where you can just have troublesome politicians killed to keep them from interfering with the election process by doing things like, you know, running for office.
Duckster and Marley23, unless you think that Nader gained those votes by bribing people or tampering with ballots or something, then he earned them fair and square. They weren’t stolen from Gore. If Gore had done a better job in his campaign, more people would have voted for him. I think every voter in America was aware of the Gore option, but some of them decided they preferred Nader anyway. You can’t blame Nader for Gore’s inability to win over those voters.
No. False. Not true. Wrong.
Jay, Lamia and everyone else:
In Europe, they have a voting method called, “Proportional Representation”. If 30% of the country votes for a given party, that party gets approximately 30% (or just under 30%) of the seats in Parlement. After that, the parties negotiate with one another, form a coalition, and choose a leader.
In the US, a party gets 30% of the votes in a given district gets… nothing. A party with 48% of the vote may get… nothing.
The US has, “Winner Take All Voting”. The party with the most votes takes all of the votes.
The 2 party system is not based on mere tradition. It is based on mathematics, plus our voting system, designed when Democracy was young.
The system is antiquated. But it’s the one we’ve got. Until we change it, third parties will inevitably be spoilers. (Indeed, the Republicans were merely the result when the Whig party collapsed of its own accord.) Another example of a failed third party is the Liberal Party in New York City, which spoiled a few local elections before they got wise.
I support moves to proportional representation. I reject egomaniacs like Nader.
Ralph Don’t Run
Repentant Nader Voter: Because Bush is So Bad:
Ack.
The party with the most votes takes all of the seats in the Assembly.
The Winner… Takes… All… of the power.
The Republican Leadership Council sponsored a $100,000+ ad campaign in Ralphie’s favor in 1980. Cite. Will Team Bush do so again? You betcha.
Jesus El Salvador Christo, we’re STILL not done flogging this flippin’ dead horse??
Sigh…okay, one thing at a time.
Voted for Nader in 2000. Would do it again in a millisecond. Gore and Lieberman convinced me of nothing. As far as I’m concerned, if a third party…which, I might add, was the target of one of the most disgusting smear campaigns I’ve seen in my life…costs you an election against a clueless idiot like Bush, you never deserve to win in the first place.
It was the Supreme Court vote that gave Bush the election, not Nader. I don’t care how sick you are of hearing this; had the recounts been completed, it’s Gore’s election, pure and simple.
Bush had a disaster happen on his watch and was allowed to run absolutely wild. Nader was not responsible for a sycophantic Congress about 99% of everything he ever wanted, nor did he turn the American news media into a bunch of simpering yes-men unwilling to call Bush to task for ANYTHING. Nader may have given Bush the White House (except he didn’t; see above post), but it was the media, Congress, and plenty of gullible ordinary citizens who gave him the rest of the country.
So forget Nader. He doesn’t have a chance, he’s not going to make a difference, and we all understand that, okay?
And before anyone asks, I’m not voting for him this time. I think he’s acting mostly out of defiance and is too polarizing an influence to be an effective President. Nonetheless, I’ll wait until I know more about all the candidates to decide. No one’s entitled to my vote.
What is this “home state” concept, anyway? Is there some rule that you’re supposed to win your home state? It’s an election, not a football game.
Wait! So if only 51% of the Nader votes went to Gore and Bush got the rest then Gore would be President?
Or if 1% of the Nader votes went to Gore and the rest of the Naderites stayed home and read about democratic theory, then Gore would have won?
Huh. I guess it is Nader’s fault. He runs, he promises not to campaign in swing states, he lies, and Bush wins. If he doesn’t run or lie, Gore wins.
Republicans and Democrats are 24/28 in their home states in presidential elections since WW II. It’s a pretty damn strong trend.