Nader off Florida Ballot 141
Rory writes "This could be it for Ralph Nader. A Florida judge has issued a preliminary injunction, ruling the Reform Party is no longer a party, thereby knocking its candidate, Ralph Nader, off the Florida ballot. The devil is in the details, and Florida has too many electoral votes for this not to have serious impact on the national election, if this preliminary ruling holds up on appeal."
A shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm surprised. They're just trying to hold on to power using whatever legal means possible. Perfectly natural behavior.
Doesn't make it right though.
Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hail from one of the less populous Western states, and we haven't had a presiential candidate, or his running mate, set foot in the state for years. Seems like you just get the five states with the most electoral votes, and ignore the rest of the country.
Re:Sad day (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok so how is this bad for Bush? Look the fact is it was the democrats in court pushing Nader off the ballot but if you want to think Bush is happy the man who handed him the election in 2000 is off the ballot you are letting your bias influence you judgement..
Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) because the Electoral College allows the *individual states*, not the popular vote, to elect the President. This actually *helps* keep California and New York from completely dominating, say, Wisconsin.
2) because the winner-take-all system in place favors a two-party system, which shifts political coalitions and compromise out of the government and into political parties, creating a more simple, stable government. This is at the expense of choices for voters, naturally.
3) because a close national vote like 2000 will never be considered valid. 2000 was statistically a tie (49.3% to 49.8% in favor of Gore -- about 500,000 votes out of 100 million). Most states and local governments have some 1% difference rule that mandates a recount for a close race. Imagine the debacle in Florida, but scaled nationwide. Yeah, we're talking total chaos. Now imagine a recount of the Electoral votes. 538 -- nice and easy. Although whether an individual vote should have been one way or the other might be called into question, you cannot question the final tally.
Now, I happen to think that number 2 is a bogus reason, but I agree with the reasoning behind 1 and 3. To that end, I think the Electoral College should be *reformed*, but not eliminated. I favor eliminating the possibility of winner-take-all, and setting up a system where each House vote is determined by popular vote within that district -- states still get to draw the district lines per census -- and the two senate votes are determined by state-wide popular vote, coupled with a strictly mathematical process (i.e. no Electors, no two-votes one not in home state, etc.). Possibly an auto-invalidation rule for close votes within a particular district could help, but I can see enough problems that I wouldn't push hard for it.
Such a system will help keep the little states from being stomped (a win in the district of a 3-vote state is worth 3 votes rather than one), while giving third parties a better chance of at least *affecting* the election by drawing electoral votes.
Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other, more pertinent, news, Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] is on 49 ballots [badnarik.org]. 49, not the low 30s like Nader.
At the end of the day Nader doesn't matter because people have already watched him lose before. Cobb doesn't matter because he can't decide whether he's really a candidate or not ("Vote for me, unless you'd rather vote for Kerry, I mean, vote for me"). Peroutka doesn't matter because he's a religious nut.
Badnarik matters. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is against the war. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is against the Patriot Act. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is not wasting the American people's fucking time with silly accusations about who did or not do what during Vietnam or which memos are fake.
Your conscience called, it wants its vote back.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...let Badnarik [blogspot.com] debate...
Re:A shame (Score:4, Insightful)
George Will (Score:2, Insightful)
In contrast, our system encourages the majority party to ram everything they can think of through because in 4 years they could be the ones in the minority, powerless to stop the other party from doing whatever THEY want. Instead of trying to find common ground, we demonize. 51% of the electorate ignoring the wishes of the other 49% isn't compromise, it's what's tearing this country apart.
Is Bush next? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Why is it important that your president represent the minority in your country and not the majority? I fail to see the reasoning behind this, why are the people in wisconsin more important than the people in new york?
It might make a little bit sense that the large states doesn't completely dominate the senate, but in most cases the votes in the senate isn't about what military bases to close - it's about issues that are equally important to all.
2)Your system was created a long time ago, since then there has been serious advances in the theory of democracy - as it turns out the rest of the world has abandoned your system in favor of more democratic ones. Ever wonder why the europeans countries consistently turn up voter turnout in the high eighties to low nineties, while your america has problems racking up a 40% voter turn out?
Do you think that a system where most people don't feel they are represented becomes more stable than one where people do?
3) first off, there is no way to tell what the numbers whould have been if there had been a 90% turnout. Secondly your statistical argument is flawed as another poster pointed out.
thirdly, if we were to discuss votes for senate or house of representatives your argument is even more flawed... the fact that all elections are close is a GOOD THING! it makes it worthwhile to cast a vote... for most people in USA today, voting is verifiably a waste of time.
besides... why do you even wan't a system where it is important how the district lines are drawn? doesn't it sound like a flawed democracy to you, where something like that is important?
If the black voters want to be heard in an american election they all have to go live in the same place, otherwise their vote is unimportant. Is that a good property?
Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the US census, as of July 1, 2003: [census.gov]
Resident Population California: 35,484,453 4.8
Resident Population New York: 19,190,115 1.1
Resident Population Wisconsin: 5,472,299
From Project Vote Smart: [vote-smart.org]
Electoral Votes California: 55
Electoral Votes New York: 31
Electoral Votes Wisconsin: 10
Electoral Votes Per Person:
California: 1.5x10^-6
New York: 1.6x10^-6
Wisconsin: 1.8x10^-6
Give me one good reason why my vote should be worth more than a Californian's just because I was born in New York, and why a farmer's in Wisconsin is worth more than mine.
-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]