As far as I’m concerned, the democratic party screwed up Ralph Nader’s campaign last election.
How come no one is asking for them to stop running?
IMO, anyone who’d vote for Nadir this time around wouldn’t vote for Kerry anyway, no matter how he plays (assuming he is playing to win–not a particularly specious assumption). I like Jonathan Chance’s analysis.
I don’t really follow the Greens and their activities, but I’d be curious if somehere who does (BrainGlutton?) could comment on what we’ll see from that party this time around. Will Nader + a Green Candidate poll higher colectivley in '04 than Nader-the-Green-Candate did in '00?
I still think the anit-Bush effect will be the key factor, but again I’ll admit my ignorance in the area of Green party politics.
This may not all be good news for Bush, because with Nader running as an independent he may pull a lot of the people from the Buchanan wing of the Republican party - people who would never vote for a Green candidate because they are protectionist conservatives and not environmentalists. But running as an independent, Nader can focus on trade, worker protection, etc. That will appeal to the Buchanan voters who would otherwise vote for Bush.
The real question is whether, like Sharpton did, he’ll accept it. Like Sharpton, he’s going to need tons of money to get signed up in as many states as possible.
Well, there are the 10,000 Forida Jews for Buchanan who turned out en masse to support Buchanan in 2000.
But Buchanan supporters rushing to a secular humanist like Ralph Mouth? While it is true that politics make strange bedfellows, this is too strange even for humor.
I don’t think a multiparty system in America would be as fragmented as that. If we adopted PR and IRV, then (in the course of a few election cycles) the Republican Party would break up along its natural fault lines: The kind of freedom-first Republicans who supported Goldwater in 1960 would go off to swell the ranks of the Libertarian Party. The Christian social conservatives would go to the Consitution Party. The nativist-isolationist conservatives would join Pat Buchanan’s America First Party. The white supremacist and militia conservatives . . . no, let’s not even think about that, shall we? The remaining Republican Party would be more purely (and obviously) the party of business interests and neocon foreign policy. The Democrats would split into a centrist neoliberal party, with the approximate politics of the Democratic Leadership Council; and a left-of-center party, made of the kind of Dems who have been supporting Dean this year, or Sharpton, Braun or Kucinich. Some Democrats will migrate to the Green Party. Maybe the various socialist parties of the left will put aside their ideological difference and merge into one big party, which will still be a small party, but definitely there. So there would only be seven or eight medium-sized parties, covering the whole range of political opinions among the American people, and it wouldn’t be impossible for them form coalitions on any given issue.
It would also make politics a hell of a lot more entertaining!
My beef with IRV is that it can encourage people to bury their favorite; for me, in a single-seat election passing the monotonicity criterion seems more important, but it is just a personal thing. I don’t think this is a good way to run single-seat elections, but to be honest, I wouldn’t complain if we switched to it, either, as wrt the current situation, any voting system which does not punish the electorate for desiring third parties is a Good Thing. While I haven’t heard this be an issue, Dean and Kucinich apparently support STV (single transferable vote).
Check wikipedia’s entry.
All the parties that you mention here already exist. Except that they’re refered to as “wings” or “subgroups” of the two major parties. In my view, the two parties offer these wings the oppertunity to show that they have support (in funding, organization, established voting bases) and then incorporate them into the policies of that party. You get the same kinds of compromises that you would get with 7-8 smaller parties, but you get them earlier in the campaign cycle.’
This is done for a good reason:
if 10 parties run for a senate seat, and 9 get 9% of the vote, and the last one gets 19% of the vote, that 19% just elected a US senator. The umbrella party lets the different groups within it compete for their ideology without suffering the fate of the 81% of the populace that has NO representation for their viewpoints from their senator.
For a third party to be viable on a nationwide scale, they first need to push for structural change other wise they’re electing the opposition.
And I don’t want exciting politics. Don’t forget that “may you live in interesting times” is a curse.
A quick note: I’m a dreamer, fine. But if you think that the GP is going to elect anyone, you’re a dreamer too. (Hell, I live in one of the bastions of the GP and they have trouble electing local officials here.)
But keep in mind, while I follow my dream, Al Gore is president, there isn’t a war in Iraq, the tax cuts for the wealthy aren’t offered to congress, and the environmental standards that we did get during Clinton aren’t being gutted (remember the roll back on limits for aresenic in the drinking water?) Keep in mind that Gore was, strictly speaking, more environmental than Nader.
While you dream we have… Bush 2. But continue to dream, it’s your choice and I wouldn’t remove your ability to make it for the world. Bush might though.
And finally, what Mr. Chance said.
[slight hijack]Regarding votes for war. If someone who I traditionally trust (say the president, dealing with national security policy, traditionally non-political) comes to me and says that another country is about to attack us and kill our citizens, and is a tyrant to boot. And then asks for permission to attack right now (it’s an emergency.) I’d have said yes too. I’m not suicidal. That said, learning later that I’d been tricked, I would have been pissed off, and amended articles of impeachment to everything that came past my desk, but I would have voted Yes in the first place.[/slight hijack]
-C
Hentor said:
Yes, I’m mad about the Democrats selling out the liberal agenda and allowing the Republicans to decide their agenda for them. Am I content with what we have? No. I’m not convinced that Gore would have been vastly better, though. But you can save your sticker, because the blame for what Bush has done, IMO, rests on all the people who voted for HIM, and the SCOTUS who upheld his shady election.
The only people here who are “unswerving” are those who are still blaming Nader for an election that Gore didn’t even lose, technically, but whose result was so close because of how badly he botched his campaign. When I said, “I evaluate Democrats on a case-by-case basis,” did that seem unswerving to you? I always vote for Maurice Hinchey, a Dem, for Congress, because I have examined his voting record and he’s someone I can respect and trust. I think my voting record reflects my commitment to finding a candidate I like and believe is worthy; that is far from such unswerving behavior as, oh, I don’t know, blindly voting right down the party line, isn’t it? Or voting for someone to spite the Republicans, even if you have to hold your nose while doing it.
Jonathan Chance said:
I do not think this is true at all. Gore had a chance to win my vote, but after considering what he stood for, and the many hypocrisies, evasions, and flat-out bullshit in his campaign, I decided not to vote for him. I haven’t made a decision on whomever gets the Dem nomination this time. Each candidate, even the Republican, gets a fair eval from me. In fact, I once voted for a Republican for DA when I knew both candidates personally and thought the Dem was a terrible human being. Any candidate can earn my vote fair and square, but NO ONE, including the Green candidate, just gets my vote automatically for being the member of a certain party. That to me is very weak-minded voting philosophy.
elucidator said:
Save that lecture about choosing for the non-voters. I do choose, and I choose who I think is best. That’s my rationale for voting and I don’t find it distasteful in the slightest. I feel proud of every vote I’ve cast and have zero regrets.
Sam Stone said:
I find the above sickening and it’s exactly why I’m no longer a Democrat. They do not own my vote because the Republicans are worse than they are. Sorry.
Why should Kerry be “free to ignore his base” (read: sell me out) to pursue a centrist agenda that isn’t true to what the Democratic Party is supposed to be about? What you’re describing isn’t Kerry merely ignoring the true liberals to woo the centrists, it’s a betrayal of liberal interests and moving the Dems further right, where they start to become indistinguishable from the Republicans. In that case, why would you want Kerry instead of a Republican, if Kerry is essentially a watered down Republican who ignores the heart of his party? Soon all the candidates start to look and talk the same, which is why some people want to vote third party-- they want someone who represents their interests all the time, not just when he wants their votes.
Can the Democrats win by going back to basics, being a party that sits firmly left of center, just as the Republicans sit firmly right of center? I don’t see the Republicans feeling like they have to go out on a limb and move left to woo the moderate Democratic vote. By sticking firm to their base, not ignoring them during campaign time, the Republicans have moved the climate of this country to the right significantly. Though I find their philosophies abhorrent, I applaud them for this and say, shame on the Dems for giving the Republicans so much power over the national agenda. The Dems are running scared, and they deserve to be. Why don’t the Dems pull back, stop letting the Republicans make “liberal” a dirty word, and turn elections into a real ideological contest instead of a popularity contest?
I’ll tell you why-- they don’t have the balls. Whether you like Nader or not, you have to admit he has a set of brass ones.
All that said, I might still vote Dem in this election. I’m undecided.
I’m sorry, but I think this is a pretty naive analysis. In our two party system, the center is roughly described as the position between the right and the left. Problem is, when the right is winning, the “center” is also shifted right, when considered to its previous position. If you remember the 2000 election GWB played to the center, too; in fact, it is this very play to the center act by both parties that got some greens so irritated in that they felt there was no difference between the two candidates! While I’m sure that irritates Nader voters, their plea for democrats to move further left is pie in the sky thinking. The center has to move left first. Nader cannot accomplish this as a green party candidate or an independent candidate. He simply has no conception of how politics works and seems focused on being an ideologue. While a failure to compromise can, to some people, seem a True and Just cause, it makes for terrible politics. Meanwhile, America goes further right, and the center moves farther and farther from Ralph&Co. who’s only virtue is apparently that they don’t feel they can be blamed for the election results (with a great deal of, but not complete, justification in some ways, don’t get me wrong).
It takes hindsight to see mistakes and patterns. Without an analysis of what happened, the path forward is not clear. In this case, the path forward seems obvious to anyone willing to just look at what actually happened. It is always known that wing and independent voters can make or break a campaign. If Nader voters are satisfied making the campaign for the right, then I have little to say to them. They can vote as they wish. I would only hope they understand not just what their vote naively says (Go Nader!), but what effect it actually has (Bush wins).
It doesn’t take balls to be stupid. Poltics is a clash of ideologies, and the way forward always involves compromise. This is as true for democrats as it is for republicans as it is for libertarians as it is for greens. Those that fail to see this, when democracy is almost intrinsically based on compromise… well, I don’t know what to say about them. I don’t like to consider them. My posts aren’t addressed for them.
Whatever influences your decision, please try and take what I’ve said to heart. I’m all over the GD and BBQ Pit threads and were it not for a concurrent philosophical debate right now I’d be a one trick pony on the matter. There’s a ton of threads on this and I’ve tried to present the information in all of them.
A vote is not just cast for a popularity contest. I thought this, too, I really did, there is testimony by myself on these very boards that say so, and I have to admit I was totally and unfailingly wrong. I am one of those non-voters who was totally fed up with “the system”, even more so than the Naderites who wanted to make a third party mean something in a room seemingly dedicated to otherwise indistinguishable PubDems. Well I’ll tell you what, this presidency, combined with the reading I’ve done on voting systems in the meantime, has shown me otherwise in ways I cannot explain away. I was wrong. It matters. It is not a popularity contest. It is an action undertaken to hopefully align political power with one’s goals. If a vote for one candidate actually works against that in effect even if it doesn’t seem like it should on principle, I think people should take notice and rethink their position on the matter.
OK, this thread has gone in many directions. However, as a registered voter, would you refuse to sign the Nader petition to get him on the ballot? I will refuse to sign a petition for Nader. I live in Ohio. I have admired the work of Ralph Nader and have worked for some of his organizations. However, I really do not want to see him this way. Perot tanked in 1996. I really don’t want to see a 70 year old Nader attempting to storm the Presidential debates.
Ohio: One of the 2 biggest swing states in 2004, the 2nd being Florida. Prepare for a barrage.
The real question is would you berate somebody trying to get signatures for Nadir? What would be the method?
Isn’t this what a lot of Green party supporters last time around were hoping – that a strong Green candidate would force the Democratic party to swing left in order to gain far left voters?
The Democrats can ignore the far left, or they can try to win their support. If they do the former, they have no right to expect their votes. Since the 2000 election I think much, much less of the Democratic party than I used to because it has become clear that they feel they somehow automatically deserve all leftie votes no matter what their platform is, and that votes that went to Nader rightfully belonged to Gore. Well, they didn’t. If the Democratic party wants to ignore the far left then that’s their choice, but if they do they have no business complaining about how the far left “abandoned” them.
I’ve been thinking Nader is kind of dumb for wanting to run again, but if he forces Kerry/whoever to “placate” the far left (with more than lip service, which may be unlikely) then I’ll thank him for it.
I would not berate them. I’d simply explain that I will not sign it. I think Nader will pull far fewer voters than Perot in 1996. I’m really not looking forward to watch him try to crash the debates. If Nader had a serious shot at the Presidency, he would be invited to the debates.
BTW, I also believe that Sharpton and Kucinich should be excluded from any future Democratic debates.
They may have…“useful things to say…” but they’re not going to get the nomination.
And that’s fine. Just as each person gets his/her own vote for whoever he/she thinks is the best candidate, a person can decide to support or not support a candidate’s effor to get on the ballot. As long as you don’t bash those who do support him and do want to see him on the ballot.
A shade of distinction, John Anybody wants anybody else on a ballot because he admires their character or philosophy, that’s one thing. Wanting someone on a ballot for reasons of political cynicism, is quite another.
The one thing the Tighty Righties got, it’s bucks. Oodles of bucks. If a Nadir candidacy will cause grief to the Dems, as sure as God made little green apples, some of that money will get to him.
[QUOTE=erislover]
I’m sorry, but I think this is a pretty naive analysis. {/quote]
Sticks and stones, my friend. I don’t feel naive; I feel principled. I make my voting decisions on a case by case basis and you’re really not going to convince me or any die-hard third party person to do otherwise by calling us naive.
This is a tautology. You are saying the right is winning, so the center moves right. But how does the right win? How did we go from the Clinton years to this? Has it nothing to do with the way the Right has maneuvered the Dems? I think so, and as a result you have the Nader Backlash of 2000. Your posts and many others on this thread have convinced me that the Dems learned nothing from this except to insult, cajole, and dismiss the Greens, which further alienates the very people whose votes you claim to want/own.
It was more than a play to the center that was similar between Gush and Bore. Their similarities in background and financing are striking and scary. Add to that the fact that Al came off like a dithering dime store Indian and GW played up that folksy charm, and there goes your election. The play to the center was obviously a huge mistake for Gore; why hasn’t anyone learned that?
I think this is a false assessment of the situation. The Greens don’t want the Dems to move further left; we want the Dems to move back to where they were before the Republicans made them ashamed of being liberals. The center was moved right by the very effective strategies of the Republican Party; if they can do that, why can’t the Dems do it in the other way? I mean, the 'Pubs stole the center right out from under Gore’s nose. Sad, really. Why blame Ralph for that?
I’m not arguing the point that Nader can be president, but he already has changed the course of elections, according to you anyway. Why pillory him? Why not take his platform away by wooing his constituents? Because the Dems are too afraid of losing the elusive (and perhaps imaginary) Undecided Centrist Voter.
Why do you approve of wooing centrist swing voters but scoff at the idea that the Dems should woo the leftist voter who went GO NADER! in 2000?
Personally, my vote doesn’t say GO NADER or bush wins. It says, “this man would make the best president of all my choices.” If everyone voted this way, American politics would be a totally different ballgame. But it seems that we’ve been snookered into thinking that we only have 2 choices, and we have to choose the least repulsive. Doesn’t that bother you?
Ah, more name-calling. Is he being stupid, or is he providing an alternative for people who just do not want to vote for the Democrats or Republicans? Some people really don’t feel represented by those two parties, ya know. Can you comprehend the possibility of someone actually wanting to vote for a person who doesn’t revolt them as an ideologue or a human being? I am not saying that I feel this way, because the Dems have yet to pick their guy, but it certainly is possible, and it’s nice to know I don’t only have 2 choices.
It used to be. It’s supposed to be. Now it’s a lot of prevarication, waffling, clever soundbites, performing for cameras, and catering to special interests.
What compromise are you exactly suggesting I make? I should vote for your guy because he’s the lesser of the two evils? Why should I, if there’s someone else running that I don’t think is evil at all? Or better yet, why can’t the Dems run someone I can respect? And maybe they will; it remains to be seen. That’s as much compromise I can make.
All you’ve done is insult me and my beliefs, called someone I admire stupid, and told me to compromise my values. I’m glad you don’t work for the Dems, or you’d have made my decision for me. I’m not convinced by you, but thankfully, it’s not up to you to do that job.
The 2000 election sure was. I voted for the ugly, nerdy guy. Yay for me.
I have never been a non-voter. I treasure my vote and all that was done by suffragists to get it for me, not to mention all the people who have died to insure my right to choose my leaders. I take it very seriously, believe me, and I do my homework when it comes time to go to the polls. I just don’t think I should have to vote for someone I wouldn’t sit down and have a cup of coffee with because I think he’s a dirtbag, just because he’s less of a dirtbag than the other guy. Seriously, if a Dem or a Pub ran I guy I could endorse, I’d vote for him, but I will remain a registered Green because I believe that this country needs a viable third (or fourth or fifth) party.
Politics has become a game of corporate sponsorship and shallow gamesmanship. Call me naive, call me stupid, but I want my vote to mean more than towing the party line or choosing the lesser of the two evils. That, I guess, is the end of that.
Of course you are right. But I don’t think this is the debate. I’ve been listening to news analysts all day talking about Nader “stealing votes” from the Dems as if the Pubs and Dems have a right to all the votes cast and anyone else jumping in is an interloper. I find this attitude much more pervasive, more distatesfull, and more of a concern than the few people who might, as an act of cynicism, promote a 3rd party candidate. In the end, I actually trust people to vote for the candidate they favor.
I know you’ve been pushing this conspiracy theory for a long time, but I haven’t seen any concrete evidence that it’s a significant factor, if it’s a even a factor at all. If you want the the Dems to win, get a candidate out there who can capture the electoral votes necessary to win. If you want the votes of the Nader supporters, offer them a platform for which they will want to vote.
You often suggested in other threads that Republican money was flowing into Dean’s campaign. Your cynical side should be cheering, as it looks like that was money down the drain. (And don’t tell me you don’t have a cynical side. 
)
[q]Personally, my vote doesn’t say GO NADER or bush wins. It says, “this man would make the best president of all my choices.” If everyone voted this way, American politics would be a totally different ballgame.[/q]
Ever think that maybe most people ARE voting that way? And you fringe people don’t have anyone you like because you won’t get involved in the real process?