Just like Perot did in the Clinton/Bush I election. It balances out. However, did Ralph even get 5% of the vote in the last election? I think he has had his big impact (like Perot) and is slowly fading to obscurity. I seriously doubt he would have much of an impact on THIS election…I doubt anyone seriously thinks it’s going to be so close that a few percentage points are going to make the difference.
I don’t think 3rd party candidates should be constrained at all. A lot of times a 3rd party getting on the radar shows the major parties that they aren’t filling the needs of a not insignificant portion of the voting public…like the Green’s did in 2000 (though in retrospect I’m sure they are kicking themselves since it turns out Gore was already on board with their ideas).
In this specific case though (if I were a Green) I would have to look at what Obama (who I think is a shoe in for the Democratic nomination) plans to do compared to McCain (who is also going to get the Republican nomination) vs what Nader would do in the unlikely event he got elected, and go with the candidate that has a chance AND will do the best moving toward the agenda you are in line with. In this case I can’t understand why anyone would vote Green…Obama is already seemingly on board after all.
Well, I’m a Republican, and I’ll say that Nader had everything to do with the 2000 election results. When the margin of victory was so razor-thin in Florida, and when Nader’s positions appealed most strongly to left-leaning Democrats, it doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to conclude that most of Nader’s votes would have gone to Gore, and that this would have tipped the balance of votes to Gore, and he would have won.
The reason why I asked is that this election, the climate is far different, people seem more primed to vote Democrat, so if Nader “stole” votes from the Dems last time, is the situation going to repeat itself or will perhaps it be the other way around?
Put a computer at voting booth. 2. Random sampling… if everyone can go online and verify their vote in the official count and even if only a small fraction actually does so, then any fraud is instantly discovered. Software can detect voting anomalies, and the press would report it if solid proof is easy to come by. People tend not to commit fraud if there’s a high risk of being caught and going to jail.
Are there any Green’s on the board? It would be interesting to get their viewpoint on this. In 2000 Nader and the Green party was filling a definite (perceived) need that obviously they felt wasn’t being adequately represented by either of the major parties (the irony of Gore being with them aside). Today (from my non-Green perspective) I don’t see him or them filling any great need in the electorate…the Dems SEEM to be adequately representing their viewpoint today. True?
Back to the Nader thing . . . I don’t necessarily think it is always a bad idea to vote for a third-party candidate that has no chance of winning. One should take some things into consideration before doing so, however.
If I’m unhappy with both major parties and I want to let them know it in the voting booth, in some cases I can do so without risking electing the greater of two evils.
An example. A liberal in Texas in the year 2004 who is unhappy with the Democrats and even more unhappy with Republicans. This person could safely vote for Nader as a protest vote. After all, Texas is an all-or-nothing electoral state that was sending its electors for Bush. Kerry had no chance of winning. A vote for Nader would have no chance of changing the outcome of the election in Texas. However, doing this in Florida or Ohio would have been a stupid decision since in those states the race was so close.
Vice versa in this situation would work too. I know some conservatives in Texas who voted third party as a protest vote only because they knew Bush had Texas’s electorals all wrapped up. Had it been a closer race they wouldn’t have risked it.
Whether or not a “protest” vote actually accomplishes anything is another question.
It’s a recurring Dem meme that the last 2 elections WERE stolen. And there has been voter fraud throughout the ages even when they used pieces of pottery with a mark on them.
I don’t think internet voting is ready for prime time yet, but I think that adequate safeguards could be put in the system to ensure a minimum of voter fraud type issues. What I’d like to see is a phased in approach where online voting is tried out on a test basis first and the data evaluated long before such a system is implemented. Maybe when they are ready to implement it more people will have access to high speed digital internet access at their homes.
I’m sure the hand wringing neo-Luddites will be along shortly to fret about the evil Republican’s stealing future elections…but we live in a digital age. Eventually it WILL happen…best thing is to do it RIGHT. Not attempt to avoid it forever. The technology exists that can give us a reasonable expectation of a minimum of voter fraud…and seriously, the idea of voting from home is one that I think will transform our democracy. I think it will get a lot more people involved in the process than currently are and perhaps open the doors for more direct democracy in the future.
You are wrong because if someone is able to steal just one dollar from every person, they could buy an election, or equivalently, just buy the President. Personally, I would choose to keep my money over having my vote changed.
Nader has a choice every election. To stay in or to drop out. If he stays in, he stays in in Florida and Ohio. By voting for him in Texas, you’re approving of his decision to have an effect in Florida and Ohio. I couldn’t vote for Nader, even if he represented all my other views perfectly, because he isn’t endorsing the candidate that represents his views that has a chance at winning. He knows it, and I know it. He’s just being stubborn and ignorant.
We are already doing it right. Votes are taken in supervised polling places, where there are officials in place to insure that nobody is looking over the voter’s shoulder with a bribe or a threat. That is simply not possible at home.
I really wish Nader would run for Congress. I’m sure there are at least a couple Congressional districts that would elect him. Then he could have his soapbox and could actually introduce legislation and might actually get something accomplished.
Not going to happen. He deliberately runs for President because he knows he can’t win-this way, he can make his claim that his ideas are superior without actually having to prove it.
I don’t want to keep hijacking the thread so I’ll just say that voter fraud happened in the past and happens today, regardless of these officials supposedly protecting us from bribes or threats. Electronic voting from home, assuming you could make it secure, accessible and reasonably honest wouldn’t all that more risky of potential election rigging than what we have today…and I think it would bring more people into using their franchise than the current system does (which is a plus in my book). YMMV…let’s leave it at that unless you want to start another thread on electronic voting.
Leaving aside the whole captured by the system aspect (I agree with you to a certain extent…which is why I always voted 3rd party in the past), what about Nader’s message is markedly different than Obama’s stance wrt the Green agenda? I mean, afaict Nader doesn’t really have a broad based platform (though if he does, what about his platform is markedly different than Obama’s?)…so we are talking about a highly vertical and narrowly focused political platform.
BTW, isn’t Nader getting a bit long in the tooth? I’ve heard repeatedly that McCain is ‘too old’…but IIRC Nader is actually a couple of years older than McCain.
Nader ran as Green in 1996 and 2000. In 2004, he ran as Independent / Reform. Near as I can tell, he’s also running as an independent this time around. So there isn’t necessarily any correlation between Nader’s platform and the Greens platform.