... as a vote for Bush. We learned the rules of that game in 1992.
There are many better ways to count votes than by the simple plurality defined by the U.S. Constitution. As it exists, I think the system pretty much guarantees a two-party system. Perot got something like a fifth of the popular vote, but no electoral votes. Of course in a single winner-take-all election with no runoffs, that was fair, but it would be nice if your vote for a third party candidate didn't automatically translate into an ef
I'm tired of everyone assuming that the only people who could possibly consider supporting Nader would vote Democrat were Nader not around.
In 2000, exit polls showed his consituency being a little over one quarter people who would have voted for Gore, a little under one quarter people who would have voted for Bush, and half people who wouldn't have voted.
Fudge the numbers to account for the fudge factor all you want, that still doesn't show Nader's constituency as being nothing but leftists and Democrats. But then again, "every fifteenth vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" just doesn't have the same bite.
And then you throw in the electoral college. A lot of people (myself included) lived in partisan states and voted for Nader with complete confidence in the knowledge that our lack of a vote for {insert name of other canditate we would (or would not) have voted for's name here} wasn't going to change who got the votes from our state.
Of course, "Every fifteenth vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, but only if you come from one of 10 states. Otherwise, it's really not such a big deal." really doesn't have the same bite.
It's true, Perot probably did swing the 1992 election. But as close as the 2000 election was, it's still a lot harder to say that about Nader.
I'm tired of everyone assuming that the only people who could possibly consider supporting Nader would vote Democrat were Nader not around.
You're right... I assume he'd also draw from the Deaniacs, the LaRouchites, the Greens, the McGovernites who just came down, confused Canadians, the Communists, the Unabomber Party, the Socialists, lost Belgians, the Reform Party, the Boy Sprouts, the Fred Birch Society, the Orbital Mind Control Lasers, and, yes, sometimes even Republicans.
The Dems have proven that they can be just as ruthless and undemocratic as the republicans. The republicans have turned gerrymandering into an electoral weapon of mass destruction. The democrats have unilaterally decided that if two parties are good enough for them then it's good enough for everyone. They have then proceded to alienate everyone who is not dead center on the political ruler.
If I am only allowed to vote against someone I hate more than I hate the other, rather than voting for someone, the
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.
-- Peer
Every vote for Nader counts... (Score:2)
There are many better ways to count votes than by the simple plurality defined by the U.S. Constitution. As it exists, I think the system pretty much guarantees a two-party system. Perot got something like a fifth of the popular vote, but no electoral votes. Of course in a single winner-take-all election with no runoffs, that was fair, but it would be nice if your vote for a third party candidate didn't automatically translate into an ef
Re:Masculine bovine waste. (Score:2)
In 2000, exit polls showed his consituency being a little over one quarter people who would have voted for Gore, a little under one quarter people who would have voted for Bush, and half people who wouldn't have voted.
Fudge the numbers to account for the fudge factor all you want, that still doesn't show Nader's constituency as being nothing but leftists and Democrats. But then again, "every fifteenth vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" just doesn't have the same bite.
And then you throw in the electoral college. A lot of people (myself included) lived in partisan states and voted for Nader with complete confidence in the knowledge that our lack of a vote for {insert name of other canditate we would (or would not) have voted for's name here} wasn't going to change who got the votes from our state.
Of course, "Every fifteenth vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, but only if you come from one of 10 states. Otherwise, it's really not such a big deal." really doesn't have the same bite.
It's true, Perot probably did swing the 1992 election. But as close as the 2000 election was, it's still a lot harder to say that about Nader.
Re:Masculine bovine waste. (Score:2)
You're right... I assume he'd also draw from the Deaniacs, the LaRouchites, the Greens, the McGovernites who just came down, confused Canadians, the Communists, the Unabomber Party, the Socialists, lost Belgians, the Reform Party, the Boy Sprouts, the Fred Birch Society, the Orbital Mind Control Lasers, and, yes, sometimes even Republicans.
The problem I have with Nade
Re:Masculine bovine waste. (Score:1)
If I am only allowed to vote against someone I hate more than I hate the other, rather than voting for someone, the