What is this man’s hidden agenda for joining the race now? (When is the cut-off date for throwing your hat into the ring, anyhow?) I guess our founding fathers foresaw enough to put the Electoral College in place, but not enough to safeguard against protest campaigns, like his. You might as well bring back Ross Perot. At least his pie charts were colorful. 
A vote for Nadar is a vote thrown in a trash can. Debate that, SD! :mad:
I have no debate, but a coworker just said: So, crazy old Ralph Nader just entered the race again.
And that pretty much sums it up for me.
Cite? If I believe Nader represents me better than any of the other candidates, why shouldn’t I vote for him?
Probably because Nader has no realistic chance of winning. Thus, voting for him is kind of a waste. If Nader actually won the election we’d see airborne pigs and Satan buying ski equipment.
Because voting is an excercise of political power, not a form of self-expression.
I suspect the Founders would be appalled at the idea of safeguards against “protest campaigns”, whatever that might be defined as. I know I would be.
So this time around, does voting for Nader “steal” votes from the Dems or Pubs?
Several of the earliest elections had quite a bit of electoral scatter to 3rd or even 4th candidates so I presume the founders did not intend to discourage minor party candidates.
Here’s a clue: Look into which party throws him support, just like last time.
Thats the best way to put it. When Eection Day rolls around I could understand voting for Nader if a voter felt he represented what they wanted and he had a even a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. But thats extremely unlikely. He’s not going to win, and I don’t even think he’s serious about wanting to be president which makes it sadder.
Ralph, the presidential race isn’t a platform for you to get your message out. I don’t gicve a rats ass what the message is, either. If you’re running just to get your word out or get your face on TV or just to screw with the two parties, you’re a douche. After the last 8 years even a blind, mentally disabled lemur can see that this election is very, very important. Stroke yourself somewhere else, jerk.
Barring any miracles on Nader’s behalf, if on Election Day when he’s barely a footnote it’d be kind of stupid to vote for him IMHO. You know he ain’t gonna win. Why not use your vote to try and elect someone with a viable chance of winning that is closest to what you want in a president? Voting for Nader in that circumstance isn’t self-expression…its wasting a vote to stroke your ego (see how I stick to MY personal convictions!? F*** you, reps and dems!) and his.
The current US voting system is outdated. We need to implement a internet-based computerized voting system that allows voting for multiple candidates and instant runoffs. That way, if you feel strongly for Nader, you could put him as your top choice and if you decide to add a second choice or third choice, those will count if he doesn’t get off the ground.
As a side bonus for using technology, people can vote whenever it is convenient for them and change their vote up until midnight of election night. We would have instant results that are verifiable (it is possible to design the system so any attempt to falsify results will be discovered). The cost to doing this isn’t particularly high, considering the US is a wealthy nation that touts its democracy. Shouldn’t we have the best voting system in the world?
Because by voting for him, you’re helping the candidate who represents you worst to win.
This is why Republicans support Nader so much, by the way.
I don’t want to hijack the thread too much, but I disagree here. Most people can’t even keep spyware and DDoS trojans off their machines. I don’t think we should trust millions of uncontrolled PCs as voting instruments.
I doubt that this is the case. There are lots of different ways to falsify electronic records, and in something as high-stakes as a Presidential election, a lot of very skilled people will be tempted to do so. I flat don’t trust an all-electronic voting system.
-Bayard, CISSP (Cerified Information Systems Security Professional)
Among the changes that might cause the electoral process to benefit the American People, I think increasing the level of instant gratification holds little promise.
I think a progressive elimination system of runoffs would give us better representation, and still end up with a two candidate choice, and the probability of a true majority candidate. I also think withdrawing your candidacy should not be possible. You put up or shut up, and ride the tiger if you grabbed its tail.
The Electoral College ought to go, though.
Tris
How would people who don’t own a computer (yes, they’re out there) be able to vote? If you say public libraries and so forth, how would it be possible to guarantee no vote fraud?
Very well-said. This should be tattooed on the forehead of every Nader 2000 voter. Because they wanted to ‘express’ themselves, we are now in Iraq. Feel better about yourselves? Tell it to the dead.
I could be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that the Founders wouldn’t have conceived of political parties, at least not in terms of how they operate in the modern era.
“Nader had nothing to do with Gore losing the election!” I’ll take this from Naderites, though I disagree with it. What I won’t do is take it from Republicans, because the proof that they don’t believe it is the fact that their own party threw Ralphie a lot of support both monetarily and politically. Why the hell would they do that if they didn’t think it would make a difference?
While there are things that Nader says that I agree with, isn’t he doing the same thing over and over and getting the same result? Would you want a president that operates like this? Hmmm, maybe we have one?
Any way, if his goal is to affect policy it doesn’t seem to be working… unless you believe that corporate America would have even more power if he was not involved in past elections. I find it hard to believe that he was not instrumental in the neocons coming to power.
Perhaps a change in strategy is warranted. What if he started a campaign to change the election process and allow for run off elections. He might be surprised how much support there might be for this idea. Maybe even from folks from the other side of the political spectrum.
Ralph Nader is not stupid enough to fail to understand the consequences of his actions in presidential races.
Ralph Nader is not stupid enough to have not noticed the support of the Republican Party for his candidacy.
You fill in the blanks.
Tris