Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

Nader Off Virginia Ballot 261

Posted by michael from the keep-on-plugging dept.
rwiedower writes "Nader's not on the ballot in Virginia. This means he's off the ballot in 16 states: AZ, CA, GA, ID, IN, IL, MD, MI, MO, OK, OR, PA, NC, SC, TX and VA. Is it time for Ralph to call it quits or does every vote count?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nader Off Virginia Ballot More

Nader Off Virginia Ballot

Comments Filter:

  • Missing Option: (Score:5, Funny)

    by identity0 ( 77976 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @04:54PM (#10182622) Journal
    I don't care as long as there's an CowboyNeal option, you insensitive clod!

  • What's that phrase I'm looking for? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @04:54PM (#10182629)
    Oh yeah - "Jumped the shark."

  • Nader is just an attention whore (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ageoffri ( 723674 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @04:55PM (#10182633)
    The only thing Nader is good for these days is confusing democrats to vote for him. I'd love to see him on the ballot but really overall he just doesn't matter.

    • Yeah, and since it looks like Bush is going to win, you'd better vote for him because otherwise you'll be wasting your vote.

    • Nader (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mark_MF-WN ( 678030 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:24PM (#10185332)
      I think Nader's heart is in the right place, but he's starting too big. It's too soon to break the two-party system at the presidential level.

      America's left leaning voters need to start by putting a few more members of the green party into congress, and into their state municipal governments. Once there's more of a tradition of voting outside the big two, voting for someone like Nader wont just be a wasted vote. It sucks, but that's the reality.

    • Nader is a zealot, he will stick to his philosphy regardless of the cost. You would think open source/linux folks would be able to recognize this type of behavior.

      I think your anti-W hatred is blinding you. I did not support Nader in 2000, I am not supporting him now, but you guys who are pissed off at Nader are so friggin stupid. Nader has uttered a lot of nonsense but he was right on the mark when he said (paraphrasing) that Gore/Kerry are not entitled to any Democrat's vote, that they have to earn it.

  • Not really. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aeinome ( 672135 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @04:56PM (#10182646) Journal
    Judging from what I've seen of Nader in the past, he's not going to "call it quits". He seems to just want to show people that there is not just a Democratic vote or a Republican vote; quitting would undermine his entire reason for being in the race. I'm sure he'll still have his little 2% taking away from the Democrats come Election Day.
    • We really need to switch to a runoff (preferably instant runoff) election where you can vote for third parties without it being considered a protest vote.

      • Re:Not really. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Phillup ( 317168 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:25PM (#10182941)
        I would agree, if there was someone I actually wanted to vote for.

        As it is, for me, this will be 20 plus years of voting against someone.

        Something is seriously wrong with a system that comes up with Bush vs. Kerry (or Bush vs. Gore, etc...) as the "best" candidates for president.
        • With proportional voting ("instant runoff"), the parties wouldn't have as much control over the candidate pool from which we choose. So more people could run, an opportunity for more diversity. Reducing political parties to a mere endorsement role, by permitting only the activities of any other private membership club, would make them even less disproportionately powerful. Prohibiting any bribes to candidates, either direct or soft-money through their party, by allowing donations only to a simple equally di

    • Re:Not really. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rob Riggs ( 6418 )
      And give the rest of us with no party affiliation a reason to vote! Actually, this year I am in the ABB camp, so Kerry/Edwards gets my vote. But last election cycle, even with the Nader votes, Gore would have lost my state.

      The two-party system sucks. I'm not a lesser-of-two-evils type of guy. I don't see either party looking to shore up the public domain, protect my liberty, or move this nation forward. Both candidates are more interested in advancing their own parties than in doing what's right for t

      • Re:Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by captnitro ( 160231 ) * on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:33PM (#10183022)
        I understand your point about the electoral college was a little bit different, but I'll tag along because it's a good time to mention it.

        In the last four years, I've heard more people talk about reforming the electoral voting system. They proclaim the virtues of direct election without realizing the incredible drawbacks.

        We have a senate and a house of representatives in the United States not just for fun, it's because there are states which have miniscule sizes. But, by virtue of geography, tradition, or community, or law, they are designated as one state. California is a state, so is Rhode Island. California gets more votes in the House because they have more people. But Rhode Island gets the same number of votes as California in the *Senate*: 2.

        My point is, right now we have Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida -- battleground states. If we implement direct election, then you campaign in New York, Los Angeles, DC, Detroit and Chicago, and you're done; write your speeches.

        The electoral college system exists to protect those states with smaller populations from being forgotten. But with the electoral college, as backwards as it may seem, we're campaigning (of all places), in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida, and places you wouldn't imagine because guess what: their votes count. "And in a country based on the right to be heard, what could be more American than that?"

        • Re:Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:53PM (#10183266)
          First off, you're majorly overestimating the populations of those three cities. But even ignoring that, you're taking logic and throwing it on its ear. You admit that the EC causes the vote of someone in a less populous state worth more than someone in a more populous one. Yet somehow you manage to draw the conclusion that this is a good thing?

          Please, explain this to me. How in the hell is it even remotely fair that someone in Wyoming's vote is worth more than mine, just because he happens to live in Wyoming and I live in California? Hint: it isn't. This is why the EC needs to go.; One person, one vote. The idea that less popular states should have theit votes counted for more to equalize them is utterly asinine.
          • How is the tyranny of the majority good? How was Gore vs Bush good as our only choices? How would it have been better if california and New York decided the whole election for the rest of us?
            • Excpet they wouldn't. The populations aren't nearly high enough, your FUD not withstanding.

              Besides which- how is someone getting 100 more votes (or possibly not) in Florida deciding an election a good thing when it was won by the other guy on the popular level by hundreds of thousands of votes? Thats what the EC causes. Without it, the vote of someone in a rural state would still count- it would count equally as much as someone in a popular state. There would be no tyranny of the majority, it would be
              • Tyranny of the majority afflicted politics in europe leading up to the facist regimes. The problem comes when the system breaks down the potential for abuse of a minority class is probable. This is what the founding fathers were striking a balance against. The EC may not be the best, but it is still better than pluralist elections in a party system.

                The issue minorities are a red herring. They affect _any_ democratic society just being there. I also wouldn't want enviromentalists, animal-rights activis

          • Re:Not really. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @09:02PM (#10185151)
            Actually, you're majorly underestimating the populations of those metro areas. The metro areas of NYC, Chicago, and LA and their surroundings equal the 23 smallest states.

            From the 2000 census [census.gov]
            New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island + Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana + Chicago-Naperville-Joliet = 39,786,945

            Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oregon = 38,406,741

            If you go with a more narrow definition of those metro areas, those 3 cities still come out at 28.5 million. Leave CT and OR off the above list of states.

            Now...is the EC current situation fair? Maybe, maybe not. It tries to give representative power to each state.
            But a straight popular vote would shift the power completely to the cities (Not California or New York, but metro LA and NYC)

        • Given modern communications, why the heck is this even an issue? Can't the candidate just stay home and broadcast his speech everywhere (like Perot did) in a half hour infomercial?

        • Re:Not really. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by blate ( 532322 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#10183359)
          The reason that the states you mention are "battleground" states is that:

          a) They carry a non-trivial number of electoral votes and
          b) They are potentially "swing" states, i.e., both candidates have a chance of winning them

          You don't hear much about Kerry campaigning in, say, Georgia, even though it carries 15 electoral votes, more than twice that of, say Idaho (7 votes). That's because Georgia is going to vote for Bush.

          Now, if the election were decided on percentage of the total vote or, say, by obtaining a majority (>50%) of the vote, then it might be worth it for Kerry to campaign in urban Georgia areas, such as Atlanta, where he might be able to pick up thousands of votes.

          You also have all the little or low-population states who, perhaps, get more than their fair share of electoral votes. The minimum number of electoral votes allocated to a state is 3. So, states such as Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, DC, North and South Dakota, and Vermont each gets three votes, regardless of population. Is that fair? In a sense, each voter in such small states has control over a larger fraction of an electoral vote than does a voter in a large state, such as California.

          But that's how the Founding Fathers designed the system and, at least for the 2004 election, that's what we're stuck with, like it or not. Personally, I'm undecided as to whether, if I had the power, I would move away from the Electoral College system or stick with it. It clearly has its advantages and disadvantages.

          Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.

          Another salient point comes from my own experience as a voter in North Carolina, where I lived during the 2000 election. At that time, there was no way in hell I was going to vote for Bush. However, he was polling at over 60% in NC, so, in essence, my vote was irrelavent. I could vote for Gore, but it wouldn't matter, because the majority of the state would have, metaphorically, drowned me out. How I ended up voting is not germane, but I think you can see the quandry one might be in.

          I think this situation may lead some folks to apathy, i.e., not caring about or getting involved in the system, perhaps to the extent of not voting at all. If you live in a state where you are in the minority in re your political opinions, then your vote really doesn't count for presidential elections. That's just how it is.

          Now, if we moved away from an Electoral College system, then all those "minority voters" (as defined in the previous paragraph) WOULD have their voices heard, since their votes would "count" towards the candidate's total. Somehow, that seems more democratic to me.

          • On the other hand, getting rid of the electoral college would be a hit to the third party camp, because right now the bread and butter of third parties seems to be people who live in strongly partisan states who know their vote isn't going to come close to mattering on the Big Vote, and so choose to use it to help a third party get recognition.
          • Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.

            Not nessearly, because all players (presidential canidates) understood these rules during their campaining. They campained on that idea, that total votes didn't matter. Its a contest, and the rules are set they understood this. Now arguing changing the rules in the future maybe (though peronally I like the system) but arguing that Bush win is le
            • Your point is well-taken. The system is the system and, according to the rules of that system, Bush was the winner.

              Of course, this doesn't address the whole Florida isssue, which is another can of worms entirely. Without descending into an extended argument about hanging chads, the issues experienced in Florida underscore the way that small errors in tallying votes can really affect elections. It's my understanding that *any* voting method, be it punch cards, touch screens, color-in-the-box, or whatever, h
            • The system could still be (and, I believe, is) messed up --- even if every candidate agrees with it. It's not as if the candidates have much choice: They have to accept the rules when they when they run for President.

              Democracy isn't a game with arbitrary rules. The rules should be designed to give every citizen equal representation in government. The current system clearly fails in this respect.
          • I was planning on voting for Nader back then, but due to NC's bizarre election laws, he couldn't manage to get on the ballot, *and* any write-in votes for him weren't counted! In retrospect (based on what I know now) I wish I had voted for Gore, but ultimately it wouldn't have made a difference either way.

            So, yeah, the voting system is totally messed up, on several levels. I'd like to see it reformed (a) so that *every* vote for *any* candidate counts, no matter who it is, and (b) so that third parties hav
        • The Electoral College is the mechanism by which people in less populated states get more representation than people in more crowded states. That's one reason why rural states get more money back from the Fedaral government than they pay in taxes. Such a system had national benefits during the settlement of the country by immigrants and their descendants, as we subsidized the conversion of the continent to American culture and economics. It also worked in keeping the midwest socialist trend down during the C
      • I agree with you a lot. I don't really believe in political parties that much, they do much more bad than good. I did notice that much of your suggestions (more than two-parties, proportional representation) resemble the Canadian political system. Just something I noticed.
      • We don't really have a 2-party system the way other countries have N-party systems. Each party has many (informal) subgroups and we get to elect our representatives in two stages - first we get to select the Democratic and Republican nominees (where there is usually plenty of choice, at least for the not-in-power party) and then select between those two.

        Is that better than a system like the UK where each party internally (i.e. not by open vote) selects candidates to run for specific offices (e.g. seats in
  • No, no it doesn't. Just ask Diebold.

    Has /. gone soft? Aren't most geeks actually "unpolitical"?
  • Reports are that [freerepublic.com] NECN (New England Cable News) has reported that Nader has been disqualified in MA. Another source. [firstamendmentcenter.org]

    Nothing on NECN's website, which is affiliated with that Bastion of Truth, the Boston Globe, so it's not a surprise.

  • Quits? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by addaon ( 41825 ) <addaon+slashdot@gma i l .com> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:01PM (#10182703)
    He's not running to win. He's running to make a point.
    • Is the point "Nader doesn't understand game theory or plurality voting"? Because if so, message received!
    • He's not running to win. He's running to make a point.

      It's too bad he's not running to win. Actually, it's too bad so many people are willing to try to game the system rather than vote their consciences.

      A recent poll showed nearly 90% of Democrats being against the war in Iraq. Yet the ticket is two guys who voted for it. What gives? They decided that Kerry has "electability" and Dean didn't. Yet Dean had spunk and conviction, exactly where Kerry is getting his lumps.

      When you have that many people

  • After 4 years of Bush.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:07PM (#10182776) Homepage Journal
    .. I'm leary of anybody whose name rhymes with Vader.

  • Why is he still running? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quinn_Inuit ( 760445 ) <Quinn_Inuit@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:10PM (#10182814)

    Nader ran in 2000 largely on the theory that there was no serious difference between the two parties. 4 years, 2 wars, and 1 Atty. General Ashcroft later, I think his theory has been proved stunningly innacurate to all but his most ardent supporters.

    Personally, I wish he'd just go back to making the world safer for consumers and workers again. He was pretty good at that. Not perfect, but good.

  • Nader should run, but Bill O'Reilly is best choice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by reporter ( 666905 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:11PM (#10182830) Homepage
    Like all other American citizens, Ralph is entitled to run for president. Anyone who demands that he quit is un-American and simply refuses to accept the great Western tradition of democracy.

    By the way, none of the current candidates are worth a hoot.

    I recommend that you write the following protest vote.

    president: Bill O'Reilly [billoreilly.com]
    vice-president: Tammy Bruce [tammybruce.com]

    Though they cannot win because they have not registered for candidacy by the rules of most states, if enough people vote for O'Reilly and Bruce, they will have a profound "Perot Effect". Though Ross Perot did not win, he did force the Republicans to adopt most of his ideas in the "Contract with America".

    If you support the ideas that O'Reilly and Bruce espouse, then please write them on the ballot.

    Feel free to pass this message to as many people as possible.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Hey Kids (Score:3, Insightful)

    by captnitro ( 160231 ) * on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:14PM (#10182857)
    I had a debate about this today, actually.

    He was so insistent that everybody who didn't vote Green was ignorant and controlled by the corporations. He used the word ignorant. Nader will save us, he said. Vote Green. Nader for President.

    "Nader isn't running as the Green party candidate this year, man. He hasn't been the endorsed candidate for more than a year."

    Decisions are made by those who show up.

    To do my daily part of that, I read the news. You can be informed and Republican, informed and Democrat, informed and Green, Brown, Libertarian, whatever. Just be informed.

    http://www.votecobb.org/
    • He was so insistent that everybody who didn't vote Green was ignorant and controlled by the corporations. He used the word ignorant. Nader will save us, he said. Vote Green. Nader for President.

      It's painful for me, as an occasional Green activist, when people still associate Nader with the Green ticket. He was very helpful to the party for the last two elections, primarily because of his name recognition.

      But somewhere along the way (or possibly all the way along), he forgot that this isn't a Perot-style
  • Since Nader is off the ballots in:

    AZ, CA, GA, ID, IN, IL, MD, MI, MO, OK, OR, PA, NC, SC, TX, VA

    Nader cannot win 259 of the Electoral Votes.

    There are 538 total Electoral Votes and you need 270 to win the Presidency.

    If the NECN (New England Cable News) report that Nader has been disqualified in MA is correct, then Nader cannot win 271 votes. This would mean that even if Nader won every state in which he was on the ballot, Nader would still fail to win the Presidency.

    • I only point this out, because you are making the preposterious assumption that Nader could carry all those states. If you are willing to accept that, it's just as plausible, that there will not be a majority for a single candidate for President at the end of the electoral college.

      In the case of a non-majority after the electoral college vote, the House of Representatives votes as per the rules in the XII Amendment. I'm not sure I understand the rules properly, but it looks like each state gets a single

    • Actually, there's this little thing called a write-in vote which could get him popular votes. Of course, you're right in that because the electoral college picks where the state's Electoral votes go, they would never send them as Nader even if he won.

      There are a few states that are doing "split" electoral voting this year (Oregon I think), wherin the electoral votes are split based on the proportion of popular vote candidates recieve statewide.

      I'm becoming very disillusioned with the voting system in thi

  • does every vote count?

    Due to the electoral college system, votes in swing states are much more valuable. Hence, note how swing states are getting a monotonous pounding from the big campaigns.

    The knife edge balance in the swing states that is affected by Ralph's fly-weight is the reason he's of such interest.

    Democrats and Republicans alike believe Ralph will bleed more voters away from Kerry than from Bush.

    Hence, you get Democrats angry at Nader, despite his left-friendly agenda that many Dems like, an

  • ... 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.
      • 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 problem I have with Nade

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @05:33PM (#10183019)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:democrats (Score:4, Insightful)

      by blate ( 532322 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @06:06PM (#10183432)
      Hey, all Nader had to do was get enough petitions signed in each state. He didn't. Regardless of what the Democrats think, say, or do, if enough people were in favor of Nader, he'd be on the ballot in 50 states, hands down.

      It's easy to blame things on parties or liberals or conservatives, but sometimes a rose is just a rose. Nader didn't get enough signatures. He loses. That's it.
      • Well, considering that there were people getting into "collection" activities for Nader, only to later find out these same jokers were PURPOSELY "collecting" bogus signatures....yeah, I'd say that there were people actively trying to keep him off the ballot.
    • While I'm voting for brand Y in this election (as opposed to the incumbent. brand X), I would agree. It's NOT right for one side to tell another that they can't be on the ballot.

      Now for the expected counter arguement...

      It's just as despicable and also unethical for republicans to falsely assert their choice for Nader just to have votes subtracted from their primary opponent.

      But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.
      • But I assume the same thing happened when Ross Perot was running.

        A Bush reelection then would have been interesting. I figured that had to have at least promised him a cabinet post (Commerce?) or the ambassadorship to the Court of St. James to withdraw "for family reasons."

  • With those missing states Nader cannot win the electoral vote as far as I can tell. His staff will do the count and if he can't win he'll still stay in to draw votes from the Dems. The republicans cannot afford Nader to drop out if the race is as close as it looks. This puts Nader in a position to get F'ed by either party but if he wants to garner favor with the left he'll drop, if he wants conservatives he'll stay in.
  • ...for Bush, as usual with the left wing minority parties.

  • Correction: Nader is on MI ballot (Score:5, Informative)

    by mooredav ( 101800 ) on Tuesday September 07, 2004 @06:06PM (#10183425)

    "This means he's off the ballot in 16 states: AZ, CA, GA, ID, IN, IL, MD, MI, MO, OK, OR, PA, NC, SC, TX and VA."

    Nader failed to get on the Michigan ballot as a Reform candidate, but he succeeded as an independent [clickondetroit.com].

    In 2000, Al Gore won 51.3% of the Michigan vote, Bush won 46.1%, and Nader won 2%.

  • is a preferential voting system.

    Then every vote would count.

    I still can't believe people are not pushing for this, although I also understand that the major parties would not like it.

    The current un-democratic system ensures that it is always going to be a two party race. Sad really.

    Would it not be better to be able to vote for say Nader first .. then your choice of candidate second. That way the person that people most want is the person that gets in - not the person who splits the votes th
  • .. depending on what state you are in .. LOL ...

    Also depends on weather they use buggy electronic ballot boxes that work questionably...

  • I'd vote for Nader anytime if it wouldn't indirectly benefit the Republicans. This is where the American election system is simply flawed - vote for a small party, and your vote is effectively lost for the presidential elections. I'd much prefer a coalition system like Canada and many European countries have. But I'm not counting on anything changing during my lifetime, since the two big parties obviously benefit from the current system.
  • The MI supreme court has forced the ballot people to include Nader. This was on CNN yesterday, though I'm not about to waste my time going looking for it.
  • It's time for Ralph to return his attention to upsetting the "winner take all" apple carts of the Demopublican parties, without spoiling all the apples in the barrel. With the weaker Democratic Party running the White House on top of a Congress split six ways from Sunday, he'd best focus on getting the public to care about the 2-3, or even 4 new Supreme Justices the next 4 years will see selected. If he can find some real libertarians to promote, we might actually free ourselves from the Party parasites tha

Slashdot Top Deals

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.

Close