Look, nobody here, as far as I can tell, has said either that he does not have the right to run or that “it’s not fair.” These are exceptionally childish readings of the matter. Of course he has the right, and of course it is fair. The question is more about what he wants to have happen to the country. Sure, one has to have some admiration for Don Quixote tilting at windmills, but when it’s your windmill, you’re gonna get pretty pissed. And Nader is tilting at my windmill. My country is fucked right now, and if he had not run, we would not have the asinine fool in the office of the President that we do. There are no two ways around that.
I do not argue that Gore did not do plenty to mess things up for himself, but he also did enough to win more overall votes, and win more intended electoral college votes as well. Things went wrong, and one of the reasons he is not in the office right now is Nader. His symbolism just isn’t worth enough for me to not shout my opposition.
Does he feel that he has a chance of winning? If so, he is completely out of touch. If not, what is the point? To make a principled stand? Are his principles worth the costs to me? Do his principles get to outweigh mine? Fuck that.
And this “Just put up a candidate that will easily beat Bush” is so much childish nonsense. Were it that simple, we would. Bush has IIRC the largest war chest any candidate has ever had. His numbers may be dropping, but there is no clear sense that enough people are ready to get him out of office. Unless you like Bush and what he has done during the time he has had to worry about being re-elected, we must hang together or we shall surely hang separately.
I’m sorry, I don’t recall Nader going down to Florida and throwing every monkey wrench he could into the Florida recount process. Or coming up with the butterfly ballot. Or finding spurious ways to keep Florida voters off the rolls. Or losing spine and saying “Let the Supreme Court decide” instead of challenging Jeb Bush’s every move.
Additionally, these election returns show that there were almost 51 million people who were registered to vote, but then didn’t in November 2000. Did they all suddenly have dentist appointments? Did they all just sleep in and then watch reruns on television? Or is it possible that they registered to vote, thinking there would be a candidate worth voting for in the presidential election, only to be disappointed when the time came?
Gore had 51 million potential votes he could have mobilized, above and beyond those (like me) who found both him and Bush distasteful and voted for Nader. There’s no use crying about how Nader’s votes should really have been Gore’s when there was a whole mass of votes beyond that to be had.
Maybe the Dems should rethink their policies. If they can’t appeal to large segments of the American electorate, then why not conclude that they don’t deserve to win on the national level.
That’s a curious analysis. If the Dems can’t garner the votes they need, I see it as an indication that the American people don’t want them. That’s the way elections work. You have to convince enough people to vote for your candidate. It’s really that simple. You don’t get anyone’s vote for free.
Lord help me, I’m about to use a sports metaphor to make a point about politics, but isn’t that a bit like blaming the last batter who struck out for blowing the whole game?
You’ve contradicted yourself, erislover. First you said that Nader can’t win; fine, he can’t. But now you say that voting 3rd party is voting “without regard to whether or not your vote will impact who wins,” whilst simultaneously whining about how Nader lost the election for Gore. Which is it? Does voting for Nader have no impact on who wins, or did he lose it for Gore?
This is the hypocrisy inherent in people who make much over Nader running for president. Is he a negligible moron who isn’t worthy of consideration, who can’t win and should just disappear? Or is he a dangerous extremist who is going to “steal” the election from the Dems? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways, ya know.
:rolleyes: This is a really sickening, ridiculous, cynical way to look at voting. No, voting is not playing blackjack. Sorry. You don’t really, actually vote for someone because you think they’ll win, do you, erislover? If so, you have no place in these discussions, because you’re still voting for Prom Queen, not president.
If there’s one thing that general Presidential elections have shown, it’s that half the country simply doesn’t care enough to vote. So the question then becomes thus: Why should we care about the people that don’t vote? If they don’t vote, they don’t matter, and since the percentages will always remain the same, why don’t we just factor them out of the equation? Those votes weren’t there to be had, they simply weren’t there. The truth of that is borne out every four years come election time.
Airman Doors, ever consider that people don’t vote because they think all the candidates are dishonest scumbags who don’t care about them? (and would they even be wrong to think that?) Or that they can’t make a meaningful distinction between the candidates because the lines between Dem and Pub have become so blurry of late? A lot of people see no good reason to take time out of their day to vote. They don’t think it matters, they feel powerless and small, and it’s hard to convince them otherwise.
Maybe if we had a candidate that had the right mix of integrity, experience, charisma, intelligence, and a solid platform, more folks would get off their asses and vote. Does such an animal exist anymore? Just a thought.
Well, sure, you can say that. But this cite has some actual numbers for you. It’s pretty remarkable, isn’t it? The largest voter turnout in the last 45 years was actually in 1960, with a whopping (note the sarcasm there) 63% and change. It’s only gotten worse since then.
For me to believe what you said you’d have to convince me that in the last 45 years we haven’t had a single candidate that wasn’t a “dishonest scumbag”. And your contention that the lines between the parties has blurred holds no water either because the voting pattern has trended downwards for the last 11 elections, even when the difference between the parties was as vast as Nixon and McGovern.
Fact is, approximately half the people in this country simply don’t care, for whatever reason you’d care to surmise, and the statistics bear that out. So I repeat, if they don’t care enough to vote, why should anybody waste their time trying to curry their favor?
It’s also because of this that a guy like Nader can play the spoiler. With a smaller voting bloc to be spread amongst all the candidates (roughly half the eligible voters in the country), Nader’s 4% magically becomes a whopping 8%. And since no conservative is going to vote for Nader, virtually all of those votes come from potential Democrat voters.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. I’m not voting for Bush, and so I’ll vote Democrat holding my nose. But I will not vote for Nader, because I want my vote to help someone win, not to help some egomaniacal man spoil another election.
Under electoral systems like the US, 3rd party candidates should rarely run. There are better mechanisms for advancing their agenda.
Exceptions include centrist parties, who won’t act as spoilers, since they draw votes from both sides.
Other exceptions include revolutionary 3rd parties hoping to cause a crisis, yada yada. As this scenario is likely to be bogus, I’d discount it, however. Also, if one party is on the verge of collapse, a third party might be able to swoop in and pick up the pieces.
I couldn’t seem open this link but I’m wondering if this number is correct. I believe there are only 250 to 300 million men, women and children in the entire U.S. population. 51 million registered non-voters would mean that out of every 5 or 6 people in the country, children included, one was a registered voter who didn’t vote. And if only half the registered voters voted, that would mean there are 102 million registered voters in the country, or 1 out of every 2 to 3 people, children included. This all sounds inflated to me, but of course I could be wrong.
And if he had homered, we would have won the game! Wait, how does that apply. What we have here is batting practice, no wait, that doesn’t work either. Hmmmm. This baseball analogy doesn’t lend itself well to considering the problem.
How about this: We have a set of variables, all of which contributed to the outcome of the election. Would you be surprised if people got angry when the ersatz Democrat who designed the butterfly ballot said, “I’m going to do it again!” Perhaps you might expect outrage when Florida said, “Once again, you know what, let’s restrict access to a specific portion of the population.”
All the problems (batters) must be corrected, but Nader is seemingly the only one with the capacity to self-correct and the quality of free agency. His influence also spread beyond Florida. Do you contend that votes going to Nader did not hurt Gore?
The percentage hasn’t remained the same, has it? You quoted that yourself in a later post. the voter turnout for 1960 was 63%, and has gone as high as 55% in recent memory.
“If they don’t vote, they don’t matter.” How fucking elitist is that?! Why is it that they don’t care to vote? Does it take too much time away from the football game or Internet chat time? Or is it possibly because they’re not convinced their opinions matter much in the first place? Give us political parties that actually make an effort to consider voters’ opinions - that show us our votes and our voices matter to their politics - and I guarantee you people will get out to vote.
You can’t assume things will always remain the same if you don’t look at the factors behind what’s going on. Which you’re not doing.
Olentzero’s point is well taken. Just because some hasn’t voted in previous elections does not mean that a candidate shouldn’t seek that person’s vote. And don’t forget alll the 18 yr olds who have never had the chance the vote. Surely you are not suggesting that candidates ignore the potential new voters who might not vote unless someone reaches out to them.
Wow! Remembered after all these years. Glad I was able to help at least one person see the light, although Chronos, I believe, had the best post in that thread. Far more eloquent than mine, and I think he should get most of the credit.
It’s not elitist at all, merely a simple statement of fact. Politicians listen to voters’ opinions, not the opinions of non-voters. And why should they? Non-voters can’t affect them. Voters, on the other hand, can kick them out of office in the next election should they become sufficiently upset.
You have it backward - getting out to vote is the FIRST step that people have to take if they want to change the system. Show that you’ll cast a vote, THEN threaten to take that vote elsewhere, and you might effect some change. The Greens (and the Libertarians, and the other larger “minor” parties) could definitely become a force for significant change if they could mobilize a significant percentage of the non-voting segment of the population, but so far they haven’t managed to do that.
Unless the candidate plays dirty pool and tweaks the election in his favor. Like Florida. Additionally, non-voters can affect them should a third-party candidate come along and address the issues and concerns that would make non-voters want to vote.
Well, let’s see. Who am I going to threaten to take my vote to if it’s just the Republicans and the Democrats running the show?
