Is Nader going to screw up another election?

[Walloon]

@DKW

I don’t care how sick you are of hearing this; had the recounts been completed, it’s Gore’s election, pure and simple.

Florida Recount Study: Bush Still Wins

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN. . .

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

[Marley23]

Other studies found Gore won due to differences in recount methodology.

[Walloon]

Less than a month before the presidential elections in 2000, 14% of registered voters were still undecided, several times the percentage of votes that Ralph Nader eventually got. If Gore failed to convince enough of that 14% to vote for him, it was his fault, not Nader’s.

[Rubystreak]

@Apos

[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?

If you are, good for you. All I’m hearing on this thread is about compromising, and voting against Bush for whatever Dem runs (you don’t even know who it is yet, so how can you already be saying he’s the better man?) so Bush will lose. That doesn’t sound much like idealism behind the votes. It sounds cynical and defeated to me.

And you fringe people don’t have anyone you like because you won’t get involved in the real process?

Ah, here we go. What is the “real process” exactly? Please enlighten me. Is working to register voters (of any party affiliation), writing letters, staying informed, getting involved in grassroots movements enough “involvement in the real process” for you? Or is going along with prevailing views and simply voting for one of the Big Two duopoly what you are trying to promulgate here?

Sorry to break this to you, but third party politics IS part of your beloved “real process,” even if it’s inconvenient or distasteful to you.

Also, am I really “fringe” because I voted Nader a few times? Is it “fringe” to evaluate each candidate as a individual and vote for the best man? If so, fine, I’m fringe and proud, but somehow I really don’t think so. Sticks and stones, buddy.

[Marley23]

All I’m hearing on this thread is about compromising, and voting against Bush for whatever Dem runs (you don’t even know who it is yet, so how can you already be saying he’s the better man?) so Bush will lose.

Either Democrat is better than Bush, that bit isn’t too complicated.

[dropzone]

So Nader’s in? Hmmmm, is Bo Gritz in again? Maybe he can balance the vote.

[erislover]

Your principled vote, Rubystreak, helped ensure politics went to the right, not the left. If this satisfies you, so be it. I would think your principles would compell you to do what you could to move politics to the left, but then, I would think one so fond of democracy would already have compromising well in hand (nothing could get done otherwise, of course, unless politicians compromise). I guess I’d be wrong.

[SentientMeat]

Rubystreak could argue, erl, that his/her vote pushed politics to the left in the long run: The age-old dilemma for a party is that if it waters down its core values too much in pursuing the centre, its core support might drift off in protest. Rubystreak’s vote arguably ensures that the next Democratic President must enact policies slightly further to the left of those which otherwise might have been enacted.

[erislover]

If one chose to argue that, I’d like to see the historical evidence, or at least a persuasive presentation of how long it will take.

I’ll be out of town this week; if the thread is dead by this coming weekend, I’m not going to raise it unless there are dangling questions not already addressed in my posts.

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

This has been a fun thread to read. Were someone with a clean slate, with no preferences or pre-concieved notions to read this thread, they’d say Rubystreak makes the most sense.

I’m not getting involved in this one, except to say that it’s amusing that the very posters who were jumping for joy when it was announced that Roy Moore might run are now dissing the third party idea. I guess it depends on whose ox is getting Gored.

[JRDelirious]

@coffeecam

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.

Right. As the system stands, “first-past-the-post” vote-counting encourages pre-election coalitions, whose consequence is the 2-party system. In the case of single-person at-large offices (Prez, Governor, US Senator) you’d likely have to switch to “instant-runoff” or “preference” voting to get the stimulus for smaller parties in the USA.

BTW, “Proportional Representation” in most locations where it is used requires either doing away with the single-representative district, or adding at-large seats to those elected by single-representatives. As things stand today the US Constitution precludes this at the Congress level.

[BobLibDem]

I’d be interested to see how many states Nader gets to be on the ballot for. I personally doubt he can mobilize enough volunteers to get whatever number of signatures it takes to get on some states’ ballots. Even if he gets on the ballot, he has a rather small number of dedicated supporters and doesn’t figure to draw a lot of attention. Many 2000 Nader voters are sorry they didn’t support Gore, having four years of Bush is going to sober a lot of them up and they will help elect Kerry. My wild guess is that Nader loses 90% of his 2000 vote total and 90% of those folks go over to Kerry.

I can’t see Nader getting in the debates. If Bush tries, it will be quite transparent that his real aim is to give credibility to Nader and draw votes from Kerry. It would be so transparent that he dare not try that stunt.

[John_Mace]

@John Carter of Mars

I’m not getting involved in this one, except to say that it’s amusing that the very posters who were jumping for joy when it was announced that Roy Moore might run are now dissing the third party idea. I guess it depends on whose ox is getting Gored.

Yes, it does (2/14/04):

@erislover

If he announces a run, I will personally contribute money to his campaign. Long live the spoiler vote.

I’d also like to remind everyone that “I told you so” in that very thread:

@John Mace

I hate to rain on this parade, but it looks like a challenge from the left is more likely. And this would be in addition to the candidate whom the Greens field.

[sinical_brit]

Hey - heres a thought - if Nader really did “screw up” the election and the wrong man got in, why doesnt someone:

A. sue Nader, - if he hadnt run then Gore may have got in.
B. sue your forefathers, - if US electoral system worked you wouldnt be in this mess,
C. sue the american people for regularly voting actors and oil tycoons into positions of power ( depending on what kind of cardigan they are wearing, of course ).

Go on you know you want to…

sin

[John_Mace]

Slight hijack here, but I think this thread needs some new energy:

Prdection time!!

1. How many state ballots will Nader get on?

2. How many debates with Bush and the Democrat nominee will be participate in?

3. What percentage of the popular vote will he get (he got 2.74% in '00)?

My take:

1. 40
2. 0
3. .75%

[Mehitabel]

Dude! 40 states?! Of which country?

Here’s mine:

1. 15 states, the bluest and/or the ones with at least one party wack enough for him to piggyback on.

2. One. Early on. Of course, he’ll end up getting more publicity by getting politely but firmly barred from the rest (of which I predict there will be under eight total).

3. 0.50%, mostly from Vermont

And sinical brit, I’ll have you know we have put a great many lawyers and even a nukular engineer once. So there.

Heh, BTW, THE DAILY SHOW is new tonight and they’re riffing on Nader. They also label him “the New Nadir”. We oughta sue.

[Mehitabel]

Dude! 40 states?! Of which country?

Here’s mine:

1. 15 states, the bluest and/or the ones with at least one party wack enough for him to piggyback on.

2. One. Early on. Of course, he’ll end up getting more publicity by getting politely but firmly barred from the rest (of which I predict there will be under eight total).

3. 0.50%, mostly from Vermont

And sinical brit, I’ll have you know we have put a great many lawyers and even a nukular engineer once into the Oval Office. So there.

Heh, BTW, THE DAILY SHOW is new tonight and they’re riffing on Nader. They also label him “the New Nadir”. We oughta sue.

[John_Mace]

@Mehitabel

Dude! 40 states?! Of which country?

You’re probably right. If I had to do it over again, I’d go with ~15, too. If I was really motivated, I look at the various req’ts among the states. I think in CA you need 150k signatures, for example, and other states you just have to register and pay a modest fee. But 40 is way too much.

[Sterra]

@SentientMeat

Rubystreak could argue, erl, that his/her vote pushed politics to the left in the long run: The age-old dilemma for a party is that if it waters down its core values too much in pursuing the centre, its core support might drift off in protest. Rubystreak’s vote arguably ensures that the next Democratic President must enact policies slightly further to the left of those which otherwise might have been enacted.

I think that George Bush is a good example of this. He really hasn’t done anything for the social conservatives except give them money and act like he is socially conservative. Likewise for the fiscal conservatives any president in recent memory would be better than Bush. Socalized healthcare would have probably resulted in a smaller spending increase than what Bush has done. For Bush because he has had pretty solid support no matter what from republicans he mainly just has to focus his spending increases around giving buisnesses more money in order to get the amount of money he is getting for reelection.

[Walloon]

Sterra, corporations have been prohibited from donating to federal election campaigns since 1907. And the amount they can donate to political parties (i.e., “soft money”) has been severely limited by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.