Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

Nader off Florida Ballot 141

Posted by CmdrTaco from the this-means-something dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nader off Florida Ballot More

Nader off Florida Ballot

Comments Filter:

  • WTF? (Score:5, Informative)

    by pi_rules ( 123171 ) * on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:35PM (#10269042)
    This story is a week old. Last I heard Jeb declared the ruling invalid and Nader's on the ballot.

    • Re:WTF? (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 )
      I heard something similar. I can't remember where, but it was a source that doesn't report rumors. I think the elector (can't remember her name, but the same one who played favorites for Bush last time around) put it on anyway.

      There's no way Jebbie is going to let his brother lose Florida. That family is so busy being right, they don't care what rules they break.
      • Hmmm. Must have been a conservative that modded it down. While he had some interesting info, he added his own opinion. If there's one thing a conservative can't stand, it is someone else's opinion. Now watch, and this will get modded to troll too, because some other conservative will see it and be unable to take the criticism.

    • Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Quarters ( 18322 )
      No, it's new as of today. The Governor can't over-rule the state Supreme Court. He tried, with some vague threat of hurricane Ivan being the reason he was thumbing his nose at the high court. Today justice won out (thank God) and Gov. Bush got the legal smack-down he should've gotten in 2000.
      • Justice lost! I am voting for Nader as he is on the ballot in my state, but if I was in Florida, I would be very angry. Nader has a right to run for president, and this ruling is an attempt by the Democratic party to strip him of his rights. Just goes to show you that both Dems and Pubs can't be trusted.
    • Jeb declared

      Well, whatever ol' Jeb declares...

      Since when is the Governor the head of the judicial branch?

      Regardless, the ballots have been sent out overseas and Nadar is on the ballot. Even if he isn't a candidate. Due to hurricane problems they rushed them out before anything was even official.

      Personally I think that the hurricanes are signs that we shouldn't even let Florida vote this time around.
  • Dear Editors: Like, read the submittals ONCE, if you please.
  • C'mon, guys, that's really embarrassing.
  • This happened last week. Since then Florida's AG has launched an appeal which automatically gets Narer back on the ballot for the mailins due to be sent out by Saturday.

    • Re:Old News (Score:3, Informative)

      by russeljns ( 806466 )
      But now he's off for good. [nwsource.com]

      • Re:Old News (Score:2, Informative)

        by CodeMonkey4Hire ( 773870 )
        Actually he's not off for good. As the article you linked to says, they have simply postoned the mailing of ballots until this has been resolved in the Florida Supreme Court. They will decide whether he is on or off.
    • Anything to do with Nader is old news. As Gertrude said of Oakland, "There is no 'there' there."

    • Re:Old News (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:43PM (#10273993) Homepage
      This happened last week. Since then Florida's AG has launched an appeal which automatically gets Narer back on the ballot for the mailins due to be sent out by Saturday.

      Last week was a preliminary injunction, this is the hearing. Nader is off and the Florida supreme court has issued an injunction preventing any more ballots being sent out without their permission.

      The Bushies did try to do an end run by ignoring the first injunction and sending out as many ballots as they could, but only a few were actually mailed and those are likely to end up being cancelled. The net effect is likely to be damage to Bush since the four counties that sent out the invalid postal ballots are ones where the GOP controls the returning officer - i.e. republican areas.

      This whole Nader issue is a GOP shell game. Nader does not have the support of 100,000 floridians that it takes to get on the ballot through petition. He is unlikely to poll that number nationwide. In fact he is unlikely to even qualify for the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning.

      The 'reform' party does not have a significant national membership, Nader has had four years to form a 'leftwing cretins who want to hand the election to Bush' party and has not done so.

  • Sad day (Score:2, Interesting)

    by alatesystems ( 51331 )
    Dupetown, USA, but it still warrants a response.

    I think it is a sad day in politics if you have to be affiliated with a party in order to run for office, especially President. The constitution protected our right to hold public office before these judges "modified" their interpretations of it for "our own good".

    I think the ballot should have as many people as want to run, perhaps with a petition saying x number of people will vote for me, like 5,000 or so.

    This is already how many states do it, but this s
    • I think it is a sad day in politics if you have to be affiliated with a party in order to run for office, especially President.

      Umm you dont, you have to be affiliated (or gather enough signatures (which he did not) to be on the ballot. People can still write him in.

      To Sum up:
      if your in a party you are on the ballot
      if you are not in a party you have to gather signatures to be on the ballot
      if you are not on the ballot you can still be written in

      I think the ballot should have as many people as want t

      • Re:Sad day (Score:2, Interesting)

        by alatesystems ( 51331 )
        Nader is a risk for Bush and Kerry. A lot of people are mad at Bush right now, and a lot of left-leaning people might also vote for Nader instead of Kerry as Nader is seen as more of a "Centrist".

        In response to your write-in comment, write-in's are only counted in a manual recount AFAIK, and we all saw how fun that was 4 years ago.

        I personally don't care about Bush, Kerry, or Nader, as I'm going to vote Libertarian [lp.org] for Badnarik [badnarik.org]. I'm not biased towards either "major" candidate; I'm biased against both. So

        • Re:Sad day (Score:4, Insightful)

          by N3WBI3 ( 595976 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:14PM (#10269541) Homepage
          Nader is a risk for Bush and Kerry. A lot of people are mad at Bush right now, and a lot of left-leaning people might also vote for Nader instead of Kerry as Nader is seen as more of a "Centrist".

          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..

          • Still, if you think Nader "handed [Bush] the election in 2000" you are showing your own bias as well. The 50% of the electorate that didn't bother showing up to vote, provided the narrow margin that allowed Bush to walk away with his unearned victory. The shady officials that struck thousands of African-Americans from the eligible voter pool, contributed to the Democratic party's defeat. And of course Gore's own complacency in giving such a halfhearted campaign, provided no inspiration for the nonvoters
            • Because, of course, all those 50% would have voted for Gore. And, of course, the approximately 10,000 votes Bush lost because the press called Florida for Gore when the polls were still open in the conservative panhandle don't count at all.

              Sheesh, man, get over it and start living life again. Gore lost Florida. He lost in every recount done, even the one by the NYT. Gore LOST Bush WON. You need to get past your denial so you can get on with your life.
              • Come on it's all the same result every year. The top vote getters are always democrats and republicans. Then goes...

                Ralph Nader

                Mickey Mouse

                Howard Stern

        • Who told you that write-ins are only counted in a manual recount? It's a perfectly valid way to vote, although there are confusions that can arise if the voter writes-in a candidate and also checks off / punches in / flips the lever / raises his hand / whatever for the same candidate (obviously if he votes for two different candidates the ballot is invalid.)

          Personally, my guess is that a majority of Nader voters are at least literate and can probably manage to write or type "Nader", even if ./ can't.

          The L

        • You may be mad at Bush right now. You seem to be in the minority judging by the latest tracking polls.
      • if you are not on the ballot you can still be written in

        This is really a most important point, I think, as many people just choose from among the options presented.
    • Well it is the DNC that wants Nader off the ballot. Not the Republicans. It really is simple math. No one that votes for Nader would vote for Bush so taking Nader off the ballot in Florida means more votes for Kerry. If all the Nader votes in Florida had gone to Gore he would have won Florida. It was that close. So the people that hate Bush and or support Kerry feel that every vote for Nader is really a vote for Bush. So they are trying everything they can to keep Nader off the Florida ticket. On the other

  • A shame (Score:3, Insightful)

    by russeljns ( 806466 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:41PM (#10269104)
    If the Democratic Party doesn't want people to vote for Nader, it should give them a reason to vote for Kerry (as opposed to voting against Bush). They're really screwing Nader.

    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.

    • Re:A shame (Score:4, Insightful)

      by reedster ( 675006 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:37PM (#10269863)
      Whats worse, Democrats wanting to keep Nader off the ballots to help Kerry or Republics lining up in force to get Nader on the ballot to hurt Kerry. I think they both need to step away from the issue here. I do believe Nader should do like the other candidates do and get signatures from his own registered voters like the Dems and Reps do. Does anybody really think there is enough registered Reform party members to get Nader on the ballot in any state. I sure don't, therefore he shouldn't be on the ballot at all which is definitely more in line with the dems thinking.
      • I wasn't trying to excuse the Republican efforts. I agree that Nader should not knowingly accept a single signature from Republicans trying to hurt Kerry (he claims he is not, though he may well be).
        But I don't think you should have to be registered with a party to sign a petition. After all, most people who will end up voting for Nader are independents and don't want to affiliate themselves with a party.

      • I think they both need to step away from the issue here.

        Actually, former Green Party supporters of Nader in 2000 have surrendered [vote2stopbush.com] to the ugly realities of the 2 party system and decided that "Anybody But Bush" is more important than a doomed stand on principle.

        I have mixed feelings on it.

        In some ways I am disgusted over so many deluded people that can't/won't/don't want to recognize just how badly the current administration is fscking things up.

        So much so, that if we got 4 more years of Dick Cheney a

      • ... Whats worse, Democrats wanting to keep Nader off the ballots to help Kerry or Republics lining up in force to get Nader on the ballot to hurt Kerry.

        Actually I think the whole idea is BS. Nader has said a lot of screwy things but one thing he has right is that Gore/Kerry are not entitled to any democratic party member's vote. They have to earn it. If Gore/Kerry can not get the vote of a person who is inherently inclined to favor them then that is their own damn fault. Blaming Nader is just a patheti
    • The electoral system as it is today isn't right. It simply breaks down when you have more than 2 candidates. A vote for a third party candidate is mathematically identical to a vote for a major candidate on the opposite end of the political spectrum, because they are unable to voice support the major candidate on their side.

      The way to fix the system would be to allow people to support multiple candidates. The most popular fix is to use instant runoff voting. If we had that, which we won't because both majo

  • Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:45PM (#10269154)
    As a student of History, I understand why the Electoral College exists. What I don't understand is /why/ we're still using it.

    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.
    • As a student of History, I understand why the Electoral College exists. What I don't understand is /why/ we're still using it.

      Well as you have history down why dont you read the constitution. The Pres is not a represenative of the people he is a represenative of the *states*. If you banned the EC do you think anyone would bother with ID, or ND? No matter what you do someone in a given election will be ignored..

      • Nobody's bothering with either ID or ND anyway. They've only got 7 electoral votes between them, and they're both so strongly Bush that Kerry isn't even bothering to campaign there.
        • Fine MN and WI would be compleatly ignored...
          • But you can see why, for example, someone in ND (which hasn't seen a presidental candidate stop by in 3 election cycles) might think the EC was a bit outdated. MN and WI aren't likely to be bothered with either. You need more than 10 EVs AND be a swing voter state to get attention this round. PA, IL, and NY will be getting heavy candidate attention, but if the EV count is close, ME may be the FL of 2004. It's the closest race.
            • MN and WI aren't likely to be bothered with either.

              Having lived in NY neither candidate never came (because of the EC). Living now in MN (A smaller state) I can tell you I have seen Bush here 4 times and Kerry here at least three times being a stones throw frim WI I can tell you the same is true there.

              So yes MN and WI are getting pleanty of attention. And none of this addresses the fact the constitutionally the president was not ment to lead the people of the US he is intended to lead the *UNITED* sates

            • You need more than 10 EVs AND be a swing voter state to get attention this round.

              So explain why NM (5), OR (7), IA (7), CO(9), NV (5), NH (4), and WV (5) are getting so much attention.

              PA, IL, and NY will be getting heavy candidate attention

              I think your list is just a little bit off. Outside of the RNC (held in NYC for other political reasons), NY is getting no attention from either party, and last I saw IL is off the campaign list as well (they're both solidly "blue states". PA is still in play tho
    • It's more like the 5 states that are actual close races. There's not much campaigning for NY, CA, or TX, but they're the three biggest. If we drop the electoral system, you'll be even less likely to see candidates come through. Instead, they'll concentrate on areas with more voters.
      • Which wouldn't be that different from the way it is now - the only places they really campaign are swing states with a significant number of EC votes. So Oregon, Florida, and Pennsylvania would lose; California, New York and Texas would gain; North Dakota and Idaho probably wouldn't even notice. If anything most states would probably gain at least some attention if the EC went the way of the dodo.
    • George Will wrote a recent column [msn.com] arguing that "winner-take-all" electoral college voting fosters a two-party system that requires compromise to get anything done; especially compromise within the parties, as they have to build broad enough coalitions to win statewide races. If it were a direct election, a candidate could, in a 3 way race, come in 2nd in every state but still win by having just more than a 3rd of the vote.

      I don't particularly agree with the analysis, but it's thoughtful. He also suggests t

      • George Will (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sneakers563 ( 759525 )
        I think George Will is insane. Intelligent, but insane. How anyone can look at the American political system and contend that it fosters compromise is beyond me. Look at a parliamentary system where one party rarely has an absolute majority. Those parties are forced to find common ground and compromise with others in order to form a majority government.

        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 mino

      • If it were a direct election, a candidate could, in a 3 way race, come in 2nd in every state but still win by having just more than a 3rd of the vote.

        You need a second round, when two best candidates fight each other.
      • "If it were a direct election, a candidate could, in a 3 way race, come in 2nd in every state but still win by having just more than a 3rd of the vote."

        Yes, when a plurality of citizens vote for a candidate and he wins, we call it democracy. Without the electoral college the state-by-state breakdown would be no more than an arbitrary grouping of the election results.

    • Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Randolpho ( 628485 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:25PM (#10269676) Homepage Journal
      Two political reasons, and one statistical reason:

      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.
      • 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...

        I agree but would add that the district-drawing is in desperate need of reform. Districts would be more fairly drawn based on an even distribution of population, period. Continuous, consolidated districts should replace the politically gerrymandered districts we have today. Most districts acr

      • 1 is not true. While it's true that the particular vote breakdown in our electoral college does tend to benefit sparsely-populated states, the same reweighting can be done in a popular vote.

        2 has little to do with the electoral college.

        3 is reasonable -- if there really is a close tie, I want to be sure who won.

      • 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 th

      • 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.

        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


        E
      • You wrote:

        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

        Do you really want the bulk of the electoral college votes to be determined by Congressional districts? Think about it, the Congressional districts are drawn-up to virtually guarantee one party to dominate every ten years. State lines are more difficult to move.

        I think what you really wa

    • 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.

      I am soooooo jealous! We looked into using some of the old blue laws (no visible means of support, public nuisance, rude & disorderly, etc.) to keep them out where I live, but couldn't get any of them to stick.

      Our only hope is, with the level of geographic knowledge among presidential hopefuls falling even faster than it is in the population at lar

    • 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.

      Funny. In my life, I've lived in two of these here midwestern states. We've been getting rained on by these guys lately. Traffic is fun when the 8 or so Bush buses go by. Traffic comes to a stop fast and don't recover anywhere near as quick. I was in work and didn't see or hear what it was like when Kerry came through.

      In the last election, I think we

  • Currently before FL supreme court. (Score:5, Informative)

    by boy_asunder ( 233861 ) <ryancfox@ y a h o o . com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:47PM (#10269186) Homepage
    This is very old news. The case has had about five iterations since then.

    From what I have read, the current status is that the Florida Supreme Court has halted the release of abstentee ballots pending a decision in the case that might come Saturday. So far, both a trial judge and an appellate court have found that the Reform party is not a legitimate state party, and so Nader can't get on the ballot. The Secretary of State has appealled both decisions.

    And here's a Miami Herald story [miami.com], that's, you know, actually from today 'n shit.

  • The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (Score:5, Informative)

    by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Thursday September 16, 2004 @02:51PM (#10269255) Homepage Journal
    Interesting that Nader was trying to get on the Florida ballot as the Reform Party's candidate. Hopefully, this will remind folks that Ralph Nader is not the Green Party candidate for President in 2004!

    That honor belongs to David Cobb [votecobb.org], who is working to build the Green Party from the ground up. Contrast with Nader, who wanted to use the party's (still limited) ballot access to prove a point.

    And according to Cobb's site, the Green Party has a ballot line in Florida [votecobb.org]. Unlike Nader, though, Cobb cares who wins the election:

    http://www.votecobb.org/news/camden [votecobb.org]
    "Cobb said he is asking people to vote for him in states like New Jersey, where polls show Kerry is ahead of Bush by 10 percentage points. In states where the race is close, he said he will understand that some liberal voters would support Kerry instead of him."

    Nader's time as a candidate is over. So long, and thanks for all the fi^W safety [wikipedia.org]!

    • Vote your conscience

      My pragmatism tells me that my vote won't count where I live, but even so, my conscience tells me emphatically not to support the Greens. I can possibly support a couple of the general principles of their platform, such as it is, but I strongly disagree with most of the stated plans for implementation for those, and definitely do not support many of the other principles. I'd rather vote for a candidate that will do less, but conversely less against the direction I want to see the cou

  • Greens are happy, their candidate is on the ballot. I think this was aimed to piss off Kucinich supporters and convince them they have no choice but Kerry.

  • Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JohnnyX ( 11429 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:36PM (#10269852) Homepage Journal
    As other's have mentioned, Nader was ordered off, then an elections administrator put him back on the absentee ballots, then the Florida Supreme Court ordered the elections administrator to not send them until it could rule.

    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:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I can not vote for him, look for his stance on abortion, he is on *BOTH* sides of the issue, just another kerry
    • Yes, Nader matters. The fact that the Republicans are funding Nader matters. Florida is going to be a highly contested race on Nov 2, just like it was 4 years ago. Nader will never win. The best he can hope for is 3% of the vote so he can get federal matching funds. The problem is that a vote for Nader is a vote not for Kerry. Florida is always just slightly GOP, so a vote for Nader directly helps Bush.

      The Supreme Court was correct in ruling him off the ballot. It's good to see that they aren't letting J.

    • I would, but he till he gets rid of his idea that the borders of the United States should no be protected at all, that immigration should be unlimited and that goverment has no business protecting workers I will be unable to vote for him.

      He appears to want most people in the USA to be reduced to near slaves so he and the others in power will have a cheap source of labor.
      • I would, but he till he gets rid of his idea that the borders of the United States should no be protected at all, that immigration should be unlimited and that goverment has no business protecting workers I will be unable to vote for him.

        From his issue paper on immigration [badnarik.org]:

        Peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the US at conveniently located Customs and Immigration stations, subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals. They should not be forced by restricti

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @03:36PM (#10269858)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Here's the thing..... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Dark side, or light side. Pick one. Everybody else did.

      Which did they choose? The Dark Side?
    • I suggest you check out how much money Nader has made off those 'evil' corps he bitched about. Kind of like how almost all the 'preachers' on National TV are worth millions.

      They don't practice what they preach.
    • So if you don't go from 6% to 40-50% in less than a year, then you need to take many years. We know this, but each year you need to support the oppotunity for the growth of a viable third party. This is an example of how NOT to support the growth of a viable third party. If you stop them from doing very basic things such as be listed on the ballot, participate in debates, etc... then how are we ever supposed to foster new options?

      I really hope that Kerry loses in every state that the Democrats used the

  • NPOV. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 3-State Bit ( 225583 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @04:54PM (#10271013)
    It's interesting for me to consider:

    Insofar as those voting for Nader were more likely to be from the "Gore" camp than the "Bush" camp in the last election, and probably are more likely to be from the "Kerry" camp than the "Bush" camp in this election, isn't/wasn't it in the non-Gore / non-Kerry interest respectively to give Nader as many votes as can possibly be taken from the entire left-of-center field?

    For example, I would think giving five thousand dollars to Nader's campaign in Florida would empower the Republican interest more than giving five thousand more dollars to Bush's. (Diminishing returns - Bush already is reaching almost all the republicans, but Nader's campaign is small, and the very very lefts might be swayable).

    As I understand it, the margin between Bush and Gore last year was so close in Florida that if Nader had "taken" even slightly fewer votes from Gore (insofar as Nader's votes probably would NOT have gone to Bush instead), Bush could not have prevailed. Hence the vote-swapping [google.com] among Naderites who were aware of how close swing states would be, but nevertheless wanted their candidate represented. (Vote swapping consisted, as I understand it, of, say, a Massachusetts Gore-ite gentlemanly agreeing with a Florida Nader-ite to vote Nader / Gore respectively.)

    Objectively, do you think that Nader gets any support from sources whose soul interest in his campaign is to "take" votes away from the more moderate (but non-zero-chance-of-winning) side?

    This post does NOT advocate any political viewpoint.
  • "It's a Hobson's choice, a Solomonic decision and it's also a slippery slope," Waas told Davey. "But once it's done here, it's done."

    Well, the opera ain't over until a judge changes the outcome of the election in Florida, that's what I always say.
  • did he just fall off or did it have anything to do with a hanging chad?
  • Wait, if Bush is allowed to register on Florida's ballot a day after the deadline, then surely we can let Nader sign up?

  • Is Bush next? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @12:44AM (#10274266) Homepage Journal
    Bush didn't file in Florida [sptimes.com] as the Republican candidate in time to meet the state's September 1 cutoff. That goofy state prohibits alluding to "September 11" in convention scheduling via a prescient old law. If the Democrats worked from the Karl Rove playbook, without worrying how to manage the country they steal, the whole game would now be over.
  • For crying out loud, the amount of time, effort, emotional energy and money that goes into this spoiler nonsense is just pathetic for a country that calls itself a modern democracy. Either Instant Runoff or Approval Voting would solve this.

    My attempts at discussing this with american friends has generally received blank looks or extreme skepticism. Why does this country have such a stubbon resistance to change? Anyone would think I'm asking that them to use the metric system!

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close