Ok, I’ve flamed away in the Pit, using emotions and gut feelings. Now that I’ve calmed down some, I have an honest question to ask, with the hope that I can get some good factual answers.
pldennison said, in the Pit:
and
Now, it seems to me, that even before this deadlock, it was clear to most everyone that Nader had virtually no chance in this election, all crazy possibilities aside. Now, with a revote (that, for the record, I wouldn’t support) a possibility in Florida, pldennison has said this:
Why, if these Naderites believed in their cause so much, as you had earlier suggested, should we think that they would change their votes now? This doesn’t seem to follow with me. They knew he had no realistic chance BEFORE the election. Why does knowing that he won’t win now change anything?
I voted for Nader, but not because I wanted him to win.
Basically, since Gore was guaranteed to win my state (NY), I figured I would help Nader get his 5% for Federal funding in order to create a valid 3rd party alternative who would be given a fair chance in the election process, not censored from our view (but that’s a whole other debate).
They’re saying that there are probably people in Florida who did the same thing, assuming Bush/Gore would win anyway. Now that they realize the closeness, they would vote for who they wanted.
If Bush actually won my state, I’d be wishing for a re-vote so I could change my vote to Gore.
Much of the Nader voting was predicated on the idea of getting him his national 5% to qualify for matching funds. Well, at this point, it’s apparent that he won’t get 5% nationally. So, if there were a re-vote held, there would be no reason for the “5% contingent” to vote for him again; they’d probably switch their votes to Gore.
c_goat, I’m guessing if you lived in Florida you never would have voted Nader. I wanted to vote for the Green Party (whose candidate is regrettably Nader) for the same reasons as you, but I realized how divided Tennessee was and I voted Gore. I mean, how many pro-Naderites could there possibly be in Palm Beach Co.?
I think the idea of changing votes on a re-vote is almost as silly and pointless as tossing around the thought of actually doing a re-vote.
I find this just amazing. Look back on the other Nadar threads, and you’ll see dems saying “see, if Nadar hadn’t run, those votes would have gone to Gore, and Gore would have won” and the Gore and Bush folks swearing up and down 'Oh, no, you can’t assume that the Nadar voters would have voted for Gore over Bush, they might have voted Brown or stayed home or or or or or" …
Well, first of all, it’s a question, not a statement, so no, I’m not going to retract the question.
Second of all, since we have in this thread one Nader voter who says he’d do the same no matter what, and one who says that given the Florida circumstances he’d change his vote, I’d still like to see you answer it.
I stand by every other statement I made that you quoted.
Well, Palm Beach voters already voted once, expressing their choie. Given the chance to actually determine whether Bush or Gore is going to be the next president, the situation is in no way similar. I don’t suppose that Nader voters there really want Gore to be president, but most probably would relish the chance to keep Bush from being president.
The stakes involved are so vastly different that the two situations are in no way comparable. In any event, a re-vote is simply ridiculous, just because no one can predict what changes will occur.
Well, as I’ve already stated, I find the idea of a revote to be ridiculous, and if it happens, it would be a true mockery of democracy. But I don’t see how the stakes involved are any different. Either way, Bush or Gore is going to be president. One of the two was going to be president in the first election, and that situation wouldn’t change in a revote. If you TRULY believe that a Nader vote ISN’T a wasted vote, I see no reason NOT to vote for him in the revote.
As I mentioned in another thread, the only way I see to resolve this question is to revote nationwide, with only Bush and Gore on the ballot.
Someone told me that you just can’t do that. So I guess we’ll be stuck with whatever the powers-that-be decide.
The reason I voted Nader is that, after studying the issues, I decided that he was the candidate I most wanted to be president. The actual possibility of that happening didn’t enter into my decision.
Had Nader not been on the ballot I would most likely have voted for Gore
I agree that Gore probably cost Nader a lot of votes.
By the way, the outcomes of sporting events are not determined by the people who watch them, so that analogy doesn’t stand and is irrelevant.
Peace,
mangeorge
Well, I voted for Nader, but I advocated the Ivin’s rule, so it goes without saying that I would change my vote in a second to Gore if I knew it would make a difference. And, in fact, I never would have voted for Nader if I lived in Florida.
However, my guess is that those voters who did actually vote for Nader in the end, especially in swing states like Florida, are ones who were pretty committed to him (like oldscratch) and would not sway all that easily. (Note that the number of votes Nader actually got was lower than polls before the election had him getting…although admittedly the margin of error on a candidate pulling few percent is larger too.) On the other hand, it wouldn’t take many of them switching to shift things the election on a re-vote.
I heard on the radio today that whomever gets to be president should appoint Nader as ambassador to North Korea. That way he could see first hand what impact policies like his have had on that screwed up country.
Ambassador to Mexico, even. They have nice, high tariffs, just like he likes 'em. He should be made to drink the water too, so as to efficaciously evacuate what he’s so obviously full of.
[All right, guys, jokes are fine and all, but Great Debates really isn’t the place for them.]
Retrospect is a wonderful luxury, isn’t it?
First off, Hawaii, possibly the most shamelesssly Democratic state in the country (there’s been some noise about shaking things up, but don’t kid yourselves, the donkeys ain’t going away anytime soon), was pretty strongly in Gore’s court, so I wouldn’t mind sticking with my pick if there was a revote. However, I’d stick with my choice regardless, because, in my opinion, neither Gore nor Bush deserves the presidency. Furthermore, I’d be hard pressed to find an election were there were two lesser deserving candidates on the major tickets (and yes, this includes Clinton vs. Dole).
And let me be the first to say that I’m appalled by the amount of abuse heaped on Nader AND Buchanan voters simply because they followed their conscience. Listen, I’m as opposed to Bible-slappin’ reactionaries as the next person, but Buchanan’s addressed some compelling concerns that the corporate-financed centrists couldn’t be bothered with (say, the federal reserve deliberatly maintaining an unemployment level to prevent inflation). If millions of voters could overlook Bush’s blatantly obvious flaws for the good he could do, why not Buchanan as well? Is it really inconceivable that a bunch of voters in Florida would want to choose him?
Forget it. I made my choice and I’m sticking to it. Don’t blame me, I voted. And that’s more than I can say for about 46% of the electorate.
(Sheesh, I never thought the day would come where I’d be defending Pat Buchanan. Politics really does do weird things to people’s minds. )
Hmmm…Last time I looked, North Korea wasn’t being run by people who were crusading for citizen involvement in the governmental process and against the domination by powerful interests who seek to stifle that involvement. But, hey, maybe you know more about North Korea than I do!
Yes, if therre were a revote, I would still vote Nader.
I am in Ohio and it did go to Bush.
There were little over 113,000 votes for Nader.
I am not sure if that would’ve made the difference if all had “defected” to Gore.
I would not vote for Bush or Gore and neither would 50% or more of the U.S. obviously.
)