Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

The Nader Factor 239

Posted by michael from the misplaced-anger dept.
TolkiEinstein writes "The NY Times is running an article on The Nader Factor that details the threat level old Ralph represents to John Kerry. Nader has made it on the ballots of 30 states, and polls show he could influence the outcome of 9 states where the race is a dead heat. While Nader argues that he isn't a spoiler, a Zogby poll suggests that if he weren't on the ballot, 41 percent of his supporters would go to Kerry and 15 percent to Bush. Ironically, this is why some of the prime movers in getting him on the ballot have been Republicans. As per the article, Terry McAuliffe - the democratic party chairman - says he should 'end the charade' of a campaign being kept afloat by 'corporate backers.' Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Nader Factor More

The Nader Factor

Comments Filter:

  • Betraying what he ran for last time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ApharmdB ( 572578 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @06:26PM (#10540634)
    Ralph is betraying what he ran for last time, which was to help build a viable third party, by running as an independent. The Green Party was smart enough not to run him again or else become a one-candidate party. Also, they recognized that with the number of people who say he spoiled the last election that he would be more of a liability than an asset. The Greens are winning some local elections and with time might become a viable national party by working from the ground floor on up.

    • Re:Betraying what he ran for last time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DShard ( 159067 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @07:10PM (#10541008)
      The Greens are winning some local elections and with time might become a viable national party by working from the ground floor on up.

      Which is the only way you'll get an alternative party. You can't win at the national level unless you have enough local support to mean something. I think there is plenty of room for a third party if enough groundswell can be had.

      That being said, while I appreciate the greens view of how to form a proper party, the greens are running with associating themselves with a narrow issue. I think a party who spoke to a sweeping view of individual empowerment, pro-democracy and government ethics would do well in on both sides of the aisle, namely a party of the middle, without the rhetoric or corporate sponsership.

    • He is trying to move the Dem Party Leftwards (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @07:58PM (#10541388) Journal
      He is trying to defeat Kerry, thus forcing the rich liberals to fund think tanks and foundations to build a Leftist Propaganda Machine to match the rightwing propaganda machine (google "tentacles of rage" for a good explication of the Rightwing propaganda machine).
      Once the LPM is underway, it can put out memes about leftist ideas to match the rightwing ideas that have dominated political discourse over the last 35 years or so. But if Kerry is elected, that LPM will be much slower to grow.

      Just as necessity is the mother of invention, desperation is the mother of donations.

    • Re:Betraying what he ran for last time (Score:5, Informative)

      by chandoni ( 28843 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @08:21PM (#10541567) Homepage
      I agree with you there. I think Nader was influenced by Camejo to use a "attack the Democrats to try to move them to the left" strategy. This would have been complementary to David Cobb and the Greens' "build the party by focusing on local candidates" strategy (not to be confused with Cobb's earlier "safe states" strategy, which he abandoned after talking to Greens who supported him).

      What I blame Nader for in this election is that his campaign has treated the Green Party almost as badly as Democrats have treated Greens (and Nader): his supporters knocked Cobb off the ballot in Utah and Vermont, and tried unsuccessfully to do so in California. That won't help either campaign, or the Greens in the long run. Some of Nader's supporters seem more interested in tearing down the Green Party and trying to "start over" with a new party, or just fighting over the little power the Left has these days. This infighting pretty much destroyed the Socialists, and many of the same people are now attacking the Greens through Nader's campaign.

    • Sequencing is not how people work politically. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Friday October 15, 2004 @08:55PM (#10541796) Homepage
      This time around the Greens are trying very hard to avoid being called spoilers by endorsing Kerry in contested states. This, despite how the Democrat platform has more in common with the Republican platform than the Green platform. This had little to do with avoiding a one-candidate party but real differences of opinion on when the Greens were deciding to run anyone for president and whether to run a 50-state campaign.

      Part of the support the Greens got in 1996 and 2000 came from the awareness raised by Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns--campaigns that were endorsed by the Green Party.

      Politics doesn't work according to the sequencing you're mentioning. Working together on specific issues is a great way to get things done, but first local, then national simply isn't how the Greens got the attention they now have.
      • I tend to agree.

        Lighting needs a macro plan on how it will get all the way from point a to b.

        To be viable as a national party, it is necessary to demonstrate how a presidential candidate compares to the others, and how - what may seem like local issues - express themselves in a national debate. Locals may be interested in preserving the Sacachawacken valley river, and they need a presidential bid in order to understand that they have a lot in common with other locals seeking to prevent the ubercorporation

  • McAuliffe likes Nader being in there (Score:3, Interesting)

    by w3rzr0b0t5 ( 816100 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @06:28PM (#10540650)
    I'm wearing my tinfoil hat again, but the signals I'm receiving from outerspace tell me that the DNC and Clinton puppet Terry McAuliffe like Nader being in there.

    I doubt you could convince me that Hillary Clinton is pushing for a Kerry victory. There's no way the most ambitious woman in the world has given up on running against Guiliani in '08.
  • Democratic slant that is. Take this latest one as an example:

    "Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph"

    What proof o they have for this?! It's just a smear campaign by the Democrats. Just look at what Dems have been doing to Nader... all those frivolous lawsuits, constant misinformation's... Dems should be ashamed.

    Two lawsuits try to keep Nader off ballot [sptimes.com] And this is just in one state, Florida! They've been using the same dirty tactics in other states as wel

    • Re:Every political story on Slashdot has a Dem. sl (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Friday October 15, 2004 @06:57PM (#10540875) Homepage Journal
      "Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph"
      What proof do they have for this?! It's just a smear campaign by the Democrats.

      It's just the Democrats learning from Karl Rove: attack your opponent's strength, not his weakness. Nader's whole raison d'etre is that he's not "beholden" -- so accuse him of it, and defuse his strength.

      On the other hand...

      Don't vote for the "better" of two evils, vote Nader in 2004! Evil is still evil and there's very little difference between the two major parties.

      I say, don't vote for the "better-known" of the less-evils. If you're going to vote on the left side of the aisle, vote for the Green Party candidate -- David Cobb [votecobb.org]. We told Nader to take a hike at the Green Party convention.

      Personally, I'm hoping that on November 3, we're looking at the map and smiling at the votes that Badnarik [badnarik.org] "stole" from Bush. If third parties on the left *and* the right are changing the outcome, maybe people will see that it's time the Big Two got put out to pasture.

    • Re:Every political story on Slashdot has a Dem. sl (Score:4, Insightful)

      by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @02:04AM (#10542988)
      My question to you, and every other Nader supporter: are you on crack?

      Kerry and Bush came down on different sides of virtually every single issue in the debates. Taxes. Abortion. Foreign policy. Health care. Iraq. The environment.

      But other than that, yeah. Both parties are the same.

      I'm sorry, but I cannot respect your viewpoint. The Bush administration is simply a catastrophe. First of all, they fucked up on 9/11. They were warned about al Qaeda, instead Bush chose to antagonize North Korea and China and spend billions on National Missile Defense. The Afghanistan invasion was the right move, but since then the nation has fallen into the hands of warlords and drug lords. The invasion of Iraq has been a massive catastrophe. We've managed to kill thousands of civilians, destroyed our image abroad with Abu Graib, and given new motivation to anti-US terrorists worldwide. Plus, Bush has ruined the country financially by spending massive amounts on Iraq while cutting taxes on the richest of the rich. Oh, and let's not forget that this president who promised to be a "uniter, not a divider" has pandered to the radical fundamentalist Christians and Neocons and left the nation more polarized than it has been in a generation. By any objective standard, the Bush administration is a massive, catastrophic failure and he's one of the worst presidents in a century.

      Maybe Kerry ain't perfect, but he's better. A lobotomized chimp would be better than Bush (and smarter). We've got to make realistic choices. Between bad and worse, I'll take bad. That's life. You have to make tough choices- it's part of being grown up and mature. Don't like it? Tough shit, that's life. Suck it up and deal.

      • "Kerry and Bush came down on different sides of virtually every single issue in the debates."
        Did they?

        "Taxes."
        Bush: Let's cut taxes massively.
        Kerry: Let's cut taxes merely hugely.
        Both: Let's keep the overall tax structure the same.

        "Abortion."
        Bush: I'm opposed to abortion, and I worked to ban partial birth abortion.
        Kerry: I'm opposed to abortion, but I wouldn't work to ban it.

        "Foreign policy."
        Bush: I led the war on terror. The Patriot Act is good.
        Kerry: I will hunt down and kill the terrorists. The Patrio
    • It's hard not to be slightly biased to the democrats. As a european I find it mind boggling that a guy like Bush can become president, basically do everything his opponents feared he would do (and much worse) and still convince about half of the electorate that he's doing an ok job. Clinton lied about a woman, Bush lied about a lot more.

      Personally I think America really deserves another four years of Bush (and the associated prolonged economical problems). They've been arrogant, dominant and foolish. Four

  • 30 whole states???? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @06:55PM (#10540862) Journal
    Why does this guy get all kinds of press when he is only on 30 states ballots. When Michael Badnarik is on 48 states and libertarian party has a far larger percentage of votes.......

    Ohh yea Nader takes votes from Democrats and is a tool for the Republicans.

    never mind.

    • I just wish the best libertarian minds (Gary Becker, Jim Buchanan, Eddy Prescott) and all hadn't sold out to Bush.

      Oh hell, it's off-topic, so sue me.
    • Why does this guy get all kinds of press when he is only on 30 states ballots. When Michael Badnarik is on 48 states and libertarian party has a far larger percentage of votes.......

      Nader got more votes in 2000 than the Libertarian Party.

      Also, Nader has a long political career in the public spotlight, and he actively pursues press coverage. Who's Badnarik other than this year's LP candidate? What national coverage does the LP seek? As best I can tell, they make some noise every four years about not bein
      • Nader got more votes in 2000 than the Libertarian Party.

        He also got about 100 times the press coverage. If Harry Browne or Michael Badnarik had received the same amount of press as Nader got in 2000/is getting now, their vote totals would have been much higher. AFAIK, Slashdot is one of the few major websites that even mention Badnarik.

    • Re:30 whole states???? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by overunderunderdone ( 521462 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @09:52AM (#10543983)
      Why does this guy get all kinds of press... and libertarian party has a far larger percentage of votes.

      For three reasons, none of which requires a tinfoil hat to understand.

      1) Because your second statement is simply wrong. Nader got over 7 times as many votes as the Libertarians did last election cycle. 2.8 million votes to 400K.

      2) Related to the first: Because his vote was large enough to play the role of a spoiler and toss the election to Kerry. The Libertarians probably draw a little more from both parties so they're not obvious spoilers and even if they were they came in behind Buchanan who would be a more obvious spoiler on the Republican side (If Buchanan's vote had gone to Bush he would have won the popular vote)

      3) Because Nader is already a well known and (formerly) respected (by liberals) national figure. Everyone knows who Nader is and what he believes in. Who the hell is Badnarik? what does he stand for? No one knows. Libertarians are a tiny, largely irrelevant party... nobody gives you much press nor SHOULD they. I don't consider it a conspiracy when the business pages give more coverage to McDonalds and Burger King but ignore Bob's Burgers at 132 Main Street. If Bob wants start a national franchise he can't just whine about how unfair it is that nobody knows who he is... he has to market himself, find funding, maybe recruit a celebrity spokesman. It's going to be tough, even if he gets funding and can compete on the same playing field with BK and McD he's going to be a distant third for a Loooong time.

      I find the incessant Libertarian whining ironic. They seem to be expecting a handout rather than achieving on their own merits. Leave that to the Socialist Workers party that actually believes in that crap. Nobody owes you coverage or respect... you have to EARN it. PROVE your relevance. Show a little of that darwinian rugged individualist backbone and stop blaming others for your failures. Perhaps next time recruit a celebrity candidate (like Nader) or fabulously wealthy self-funding candidate (like Perot) that can help you to break through. Maybe focus on actually winnable local and state races to build credibility slowly. Instead of thinking a State Rep from Alaska is a credible candidate for President maybe have him run for state senate, then try for the U.S. House, then U.S. senate, or state governor... THEN for President. Running a complete unknown who's only relevant experience is losing a race for state rep. doesn't earn you the right to complain about not being taken seriously. In fact I think it gives the rest of us the right to complain that the LIBERTARIANS aren't taking this seriously.
      • The LP has nearly 600 locally elected officials [lp.org]. Click on the link for a full list.
        • I was going to acknowledge the fact that Libertarians do try to actually get people elected... it's just that when they succeed in electing someone dog catcher (or don't succeed in the case of Badnarick) they think the next logical step is President.

          I'm really sorry but Badnarick hardly deserves the little coverage he IS getting. He is a complete non-entity... even by Libertarian party standards. Better luck with candidate recruitment next time.
      • Ok, ok, you may be right. Lets see if any of the main sites seem to be blocking access to someone that is on 48 state balots:

        CNN [cnn.com] = 0
        FoxNews [foxnews.com] = 5
        msnbc [google.com] = 4
        abc [go.com] = 5

        For someone that has made it on 48 states don't you think there should be at least some media coverage? Replace Badnarik with Nader and you will get over 500, replace with one of the two heads and you will get about 4 times what nader gets.

        I think I have been in the news more than Micheal Badnarik. Why is that?

  • Exit polls from 2000 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rheingold ( 2741 ) <wcooley@@@nakedape...cc> on Friday October 15, 2004 @06:59PM (#10540893) Homepage
    You might want to look at the exit polls from 2000 if you don't want to take this data at face-value: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.ht ml [cnn.com]

    Some points:
    * Nader only got twice as many Dems as Repubs; and those combined were only half the number of Independents.
    * Compare Nader's 2% of Dems with the Repubs %8 of Dems--4x as many Democrats voted Republican as voted for Nader.

    What is it Christians don't like to hear? Oh right:


    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thy say to thy brother, "Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    • What is it Christians don't like to hear? Oh right

      • [Matthew 7:3-5, KJV]

      Most would prefer the modern English version:

      3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

      Actual

  • Give me a break here... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @07:05PM (#10540962) Homepage
    I am not a Nader fan, but hearing dems criticize Nader is like listening to neo-nazis bitch about being discriminated against. Yes, he will 'steal' some of Kerry's votes, but the fact of the matter is that the dems have been extremely active in trying to keep Nader off ballots via legal manuevers, rather underhanded if you ask me; not the sort of thing that I would find inspiring in my leaders.

    In the upcoming election I will be voting for Kerry, but seeing dems attack Nader only further demonstrates how sad the state of affairs are in our country when the 2 parties involved need to resort to ridiculous legal strategies in order to secure their voter base. Between republican efforts to remove voters from the voter rolls and other various underhanded tactics involving misinformation (which, imo, is definitely worst), and the dems trying their hardest to keep 3rd party canidates off the ballot, this year's election is anything but exemplary for other countries and sure leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

    The democratic party is, unfortunately, bankrupt in many metaphorical ways, amongst them ethically, progressively, and has lost many of the things that historically made them what they are. Its a sure sign that you need to seriously reassess your party's goals, orientation and voting base if you have to get court orders to remove candidates from the ballot in order to stay in power.
    • Yes, he will 'steal' some of Kerry's votes, but the fact of the matter is that the dems have been extremely active in trying to keep Nader off ballots via legal manuevers, rather underhanded if you ask me; not the sort of thing that I would find inspiring in my leaders

      Hope you're not voting for bush then, because the repulicans are enaging in just as much legal wrangling to try to put him ON ballots.

    • In the upcoming election I will be voting for Kerry [...]

      and yet

      The democratic party is, unfortunately, bankrupt in many metaphorical ways, amongst them ethically, progressively, and has lost many of the things that historically made them what they are. Its a sure sign that you need to seriously reassess your party's goals, orientation and voting base if you have to get court orders to remove candidates from the ballot in order to stay in power.

      Are you sure about that? Apparently voters like

      • I don't disagree with your statements, however this particular election has too much at stake for me to let my idealism determine my vote. I am of the opinion that Bush, given 4 more years, will wreak greater harm upon our country than Kerry; his religous positions alone in relation to science (stem cell research), and their way of just ignoring science in favor of their own ideology is disturbing. There are many reasons why I am voting the way I am, and not going with the most idealistic candidate.

        I am p

        • Thanks for responding. I understand your dilemma even if I don't share it. I happened to come across this speech by Ralph Nader [radio4all.net] where he asks the question I asked (not that he got it from me, I probably got it from him years ago or from some other Progressive). Put aside that this is meant to encourage you to vote for Nader/Camejo. I'd encourage you (and every other /. reader) to listen with an ear to the message of how duopoly power works to oppress. Much of what he says here could work just as well t

    • Yes, he will 'steal' some of Kerry's votes, but the fact of the matter is that the dems have been extremely active in trying to keep Nader off ballots via legal manuevers, rather underhanded if you ask me; not the sort of thing that I would find inspiring in my leaders.

      And in the end, Ralph Nader's democratic coattails will probably help the democrats in the House and Senate more than it hurts them in the Presidency. I voted in 2000 solely so I could vote for Nader, and voted Democrat right down the res

  • The Plan (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rhesus Piece ( 764852 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @07:16PM (#10541063)
    Nader knows he won't win; he must.
    Instead, he is running on the knowledge that if he or anyone else takes enough of the vote from one of the 2 major parties, they will alter laws so as to make 3rd party candidates not be spoilers.
    This, of course, benefits everyone in the long run.

    However, in the short run, a lot of folks won't vote for a 3rd party candidate if there is much at stake. It could be argued that the 2 major parties want people to think there is much at stake in every election, so they always remain the only two real options.

    So, what I propose is that a party (probably the democrats) create legislation before it becomes an issue to eliminate the spoiler thing, or perhaps strike a deal with Nader that "If you don't run, we'll make the process more fair".
    • What do you mean?

      The only spoiler is that people want to vote for someone other than Bush or Kerry, and I think that's great. If more people voted their conscience and voted for what was better, we wouldn't even have to choose between Bush or Kerry! It would be Badnarik vs Nader vs Kerry vs Bush vs anyone else qualified to run.
      • It would be Badnarik vs Nader vs Kerry vs Bush vs anyone else qualified to run.

        And what would be the results? Imagine a hypothetical situation that is more than likely to see WHY our system ends up being a two party system.

        1) Whoever gets a plurality in each state gets all the electoral votes... It would often be that one side or the other by chance or by design has more parties and candidates than the other. In Vermont say 10 progressive and 3 conservative and 5 moderates run. The progressives betwee
    • It'd be nice if that plan worked, but I think it'd be more likely the D's and R's would work to make it harder for third parties to get on the ballot instead.

  • why 3rd parties are bad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jamienk ( 62492 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @07:42PM (#10541274)
    In other systems, if a party gets, say, 5% of the vote, they get 5% representation. That makes it appealing to start parties -- if you get 5% of the vote, you get 5% representation in parlament. In order to lead parlament, you need a majority. If no party has a majority, they need to get other parties to sign on with them. My 5% now comes in handy: I tell the Christian Democrat party that I'll support them for Prime Minister if they let me be the head of a committee of if they help to pass legislation that I support but that they are ambivelant about.

    In the US, the President and Congress get elected by a winner-take-all system. This might be becuse the US was the first country to experiment with how to make elections work -- this method seemed reasonable and there were no experiments to study which election method best acheived good results in terms of the Founding Fathers' values.

    In the US way, it is natural for a 2 party system to evolve. That way, any given consituent maximizes his chances of getting power. If you start your own party and get only 5% of the vote, you get nothing, exept the ability to bargin with your opponents -- to tell them you won't run again if you make room in your party for me and my ideas; they're worth 5%. The system encourages parties to disolve themselves to join forces early to win a majority.

    G Washington saw that two parties were natually forming and this bugged him -- he, like may /.ers felt that each cadidate should be his own man, and fight for his own beliefs, etc. But if I and 20 other candidates do that but one of our opponents gathers many constituents together and represents them, he will win, unless we counter with our own block.

    It is in this sense that Nader is a spoiler -- not because he doesn't have good ideas or because people shouldn't fight or vote for what they believe in, but becasue he is not acting in the interests of his constuents. If he were to bargin with his 5%, he'd get something done -- he could try to get Kerry to promise him Labor Secretary or to put some Nader issue on his agenda.

    As it is now, he will get nothing -- no proportional representation, no Democratic appeasment, no favors. And since he isn't even acting within a party anymore, he'll get no future bargining power for the 3% he may get this time.
  • What about Badnarik?? Granted Libertarians usually don't even get a single percentage point of the popular vote in presidential elections, but he could still very well influence the election. Every poll I've seen seems to completely ignore him.

    I've talked to many Republicans who dislike Bush, but at the same time would never vote for Kerry. If Badnarik took just a quarter percentage point of Bush's voters in key battle ground states, he could potentially change the outcome of the election.

  • Nader is Nader, not a Democrat... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @07:55PM (#10541370)
    I don't understand what the big fuss is. He jumped throught the hoops and played by the rules and he's a candidate. He doesn't claim to be a different kind of democrat.

    BTW, the argument could just as easily be made that the libertarians "steal" conservative votes. I've just never heard it.

  • Please provide more information. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Friday October 15, 2004 @08:12PM (#10541509) Homepage

    While Nader argues that he isn't a spoiler, a Zogby poll suggests that if he weren't on the ballot, 41 percent of his supporters would go to Kerry and 15 percent to Bush.

    First, framing the debate in terms of "spoilers" means votes are owned and that we should do nothing to challenge an inherently undemocratic system where the two entrenched parties push other parties and independents off the ballot (or make it harder to get on the ballot in the first place). Don't even get started about the exclusion from the televised debates run by the DLC and RNC [opendebates.org].

    Second, Nader has been saying that this Zogby poll shows a three-way split: half of his voters would not have voted at all. The other half is evenly split between those who would have voted Republican and Democrat. Thus only 25% of his voters would have otherwise supported Kerry, not a majority (not that there's anything wrong with that, as I said before, it's fine to compete and everyone is taking votes from someone else). Nader talked about this Zogby poll last night on Letterman's show.

    Ironically, this is why some of the prime movers in getting him on the ballot have been Republicans.

    All of the prime movers getting Republicans on the ballot in Illinois were Democrats [slashdot.org]. That's not irony when you consider that Republicans and Democrats are both fighting for the same corporate dollars and corporations are pleased to have either of those two parties win (hence a lot of large multinational corporations donate to both of those parties and set their agendas). It works well for both of these parties to exclude anyone that would question global corporate hegemony (as many third parties and independents do).

    As per the article, Terry McAuliffe - the democratic party chairman - says he should 'end the charade' of a campaign being kept afloat by 'corporate backers.' Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph."

    Please provide proof of this corporate backing and please supply evidence the Republicans and Democrats aren't taking corporate cash. My guess is that you'll have problems with both ends of this because (as far as I know) Nader/Camejo's campaign takes no corporate or PAC cash and only takes money from individuals (and each individual contribution is capped). McAuliffe is fine with misrepresentation: filling an Oregon ballot rally with Democrats who had no intention of signing the petition to put Nader on the ballot, thus Nader's people would think they had enough participation to get on and then be short signatures when they got the petitions back.

  • Who are these people that would vote for Nader if he was on the ballot, but will vote for Kerry if Nader is not on the ballot? Are there any of them? If Nader was my candidate but not qualified because pro-Kerry people blocked his access to the ballot, would I really be expected to vote Kerry? At least the Republicans trying to disqualify black voters and trashing Democratic voter registrations makes logical sense in an evil sort of way.

    Makes you think, of all the countries in the world, should the USA

  • ABB (Score:2)

    by epcraig ( 102626 )
    The key word in "Anybody But Bush" Is "anybody". Only a minority of those who might vote for Nader will consider a vote for Kerry. They're either voting Green or Libertarian, possibly even Constitution. They're already self-defined as Not-Democrats.
  • ... might be the best way to describe the origin of everyone's complaint about this two party system. I direct your attention to Justice Story's "On the Constitution of the United States" at around page 161 et. seq. Justice story wrote, in the 1820's, that the whole point of the electoral college was to select people who could deliberate on the best candidate for President without the influence of parties, re-election, or other legislative duties. That is why folks who already hold national office are
    • I've been thinking about the Electoral College lately. For in stance, there is no rule saying how a state should select its electors. All of them do this by popular vote, and all but a couple (Maine being one) do it winner-take-all.

      But there's no reason people don't elect the individual electors as the founders envisioned. It won't happen anytime soon, of course, since the current system is so much easier for those in power to manage.

  • Wow, Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Madcapjack ( 635982 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @11:13PM (#10542401)
    You know what's interesting? For the fact that 3rd Parties get so little of the vote...a few percent, there appear to be a lot of supporters of third parties here on /. Now if all those Slashdotters would just go vote for who they wanted to win...
  • PLEASE VOTE NADER or COBB.

    Why?

    4 more years of Bush will galvanize the Left.

  • The spoiler effect (Score:5, Funny)

    by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @01:19AM (#10542871)
    Some could argue that Kerry is stealing votes away from Nader, not the other way around. That if the Democratic Party stopped participating in Presidential elections, Nader would win.

  • In other news. (Score:3, Funny)

    by jotaeleemeese ( 303437 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @05:21AM (#10543416) Homepage Journal
    Bush is going to steal votes from Kerry.

    And Kerry is going to steal votes from Bush.

    Oviously Saddam Hussein got it right, since nobody could steal votes from him.

    I have only one further comment. Duh.

  • As Green I wouldn't vote for Nader if you paid me: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cappadonna ( 737133 ) on Saturday October 16, 2004 @10:01AM (#10544011) Journal
    I support third parties and fully believe that the only way to take out the two headed hydra that dominates DC is to run non-conventional candidates against them. However, Nader is just as scary, if not scarier than wack jobs like Buchannan and Perot. Nader has alot of ideas that I agree with. But honestly, he has the kind divine authoratian streak that make many slashdotters question our current pResident's sanity. My problem with Nader's run isn't that he'll take votes from Kerry, actually. Its the fact that Nader and his followers are puritanical ideologues convinced wholeheartedly of their own greatness. The fact that Smirk getting back into office doesn't scare them should send chills up the spine of any sane or rational progressive. The scarier problem would be if these freaks ever came to power. One of my biggest fears with Nader is not whether or not Bush wins...its the eerie notion of Nader a president. It would the bizarre bastard child of force-fed political correctness, 1950's style social graces and left-wing Fascism that will define a Nader presidency. Remember that crap ass movie "Demolition Man"? Remember the vegan, androgynous wimp world that they future was? There was no meat, rock music or profanity or sex. Im a vegan and I would cringe at the type of world. This is the kind of whacked out world would be a political wet dream from people like Nader. Talking to a lot of Naderites, there's an eerie dictatorial streak within them. They think just because they may be right, they can shoehorn and ram their ideas down peoples throats. Seeing as many of these guys think Communist Russia wasn't that bad doesn't surprise me. I asked a fellow Green and ardent Naderite how does Nader expect to pass all of his more whacked out notions (like banning video games) without the support of Congress. He said without blinking an eye that Ralph could just pass everything as an executive order. Isn't that the kind of tyrannical bullshit that they get all pissed about with Bush? Its fine for Nader to rule by fiat because "he fights for the people"? Come on guys, lay off the weed! We agree on one point, if Bush gets elected, no Republican would be able to seek office for next 20-30 years, if the nation survives that long afterward. If Nader, or anyone like him, were to get into the drivers seat, he'll set our agenda back twice as far. Even the national Green Parties (they are technically two) told Nader to take a hike. Why? Because Nader basically felt that somehow the GP needed him, He calls us political immature because we as a party had the audacity to nominate an actual Green for president. He didn't notice that Greens are officially the nation's third largest political party and are growing in spite of him. I'm a Green and will continue to be one. But my biggest pet peeves in politics are stubbornness and arrogance. Nader's a threat because he would put Bush back into office. But I would argue Ralph Nader would be just as scary, if not scarier, if he were in power A REAL Green
  • Surely Nader Voters know what they are doing. In fact, they probably put more thought into their vote than those people who vote Republican or Democrat so as not to "waste" their vote. Nader isn't forcing anyone to vote for him. Even if Nader or other third party candidates "can't win" the election, a vote for Nader is a vote for election reform.
  • And he is not a spoiler. He is the only one who is deserving enough of my vote.
    If you don't like it, tough shit. When I get in the voting booth and close the curtains, my vote is between ME and who I vote for. Got nothing to do with you.
  • from TFA: "He's not his own man," Mr. Nader said on Tuesday in a telephone interview from California. "Because he takes the liberals for granted, he's allowing Bush to pull him in his direction. It doesn't show much for his character."

    Is it just me or does this sound like Nader thinks Kerry is too conservative?

  • stranglehold (Score:3)

    by rpillala ( 583965 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @06:19PM (#10552401)

    If a candidate from any party cannot convince people to vote for him, then that's just tough. In the case of the Democratic party there are just so many people working round the clock on this convincing that Kerry gets no sympathy if he can't win by a wide enough margin to withstand Ralph Nader.

  • http://www.votepair.org/ (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yem ( 170316 ) on Sunday October 17, 2004 @11:43PM (#10553908) Homepage

    http://www.votepair.org/ [votepair.org]

    "In vote-pairing, swing-state progressives whose first instinct might have been to vote for Nader, Cobb or Badnarik are paired with Democrats (and others whose first choice for President is Kerry) in 'safe' states where either Bush or Kerry has a decisive lead. Paired voters can communicate with each other and decide to vote strategically: swing-state participants for Kerry and safe-state participants for Nader, Cobb or Badnarik. As a result, the paired voters' support for progressive third parties is recorded in the popular vote and their preference for Kerry over Bush finds voice in the Electoral College."


Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.

Close