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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

The Hidden Swing State? 290

Posted by michael from the la-la-la-la-can't-hear-you dept.
rwiedower writes "What if all the Nader voters lived in a single state? Kerry would have to court them and their electoral votes just like he pursues union workers in Ohio and senior citizens in Florida. Now, in the two weeks before the election, Nader's 1% might well be a deciding factor. And Nader voters, sick of being told that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, have formed a loose coalition demanding to be treated for what they are--a swing state."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Hidden Swing State? More

The Hidden Swing State?

Comments Filter:

  • Um...reality? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gothic_Walrus ( 692125 )
    Yes, there might possibly be enough Nader voters throughout the country to make up a state's worth of votes.

    They're spread throughout the country, though. It doesn't matter what they believe...they aren't a swing state.

    Really...are they going to take all of the Nader votes and count them for one state? Hell, how about we give him Rhode Island?

    That won't happen. Remember our Constitution?

    Nader voters aren't a swing state. Case closed.

  • I signed the petition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:06PM (#10568058) Homepage Journal
    UNLIKE the headline, this isn't necessarily about Nader or Cobb- while they are pushed in the 2nd "e-mail your friends", the general push of this petition is to let Kerry know that a large number of people voting for him have other agendas- like actually letting families survive, preserving the environment, rejecting corporate control over our lives and so on. I urge anybody who has ever supported a third party candidate in their lives and who doesn't support Bush to sign this petition- let's get a slashdot of signatures on this list!

  • "thenadorfactor.com" (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kronovohr ( 145646 ) <kronovohr@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:11PM (#10568114)
    This link should be http://thenaderfactor.com/ [thenaderfactor.com] instead -- "thenadorfactor.com" isn't resolving (nor even registered)
    • The home page at that site indicates that the Bush campaign is donating money to Nader's campaign, presumably to take otherwise-Democratic votes. Perhaps the Kerry campaign should help fund some other candidates as well, such as Pat Buchanan, or Pat Robertson.

  • Libertarians? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SecretMethod70 ( 569755 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:12PM (#10568129)
    What about the libertarians? They're not claiming to be akin to a swing state, they're basically trying to CREATE [freestateproject.org] a swing state!

    • Re:Libertarians? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rwiedower ( 572254 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @03:35PM (#10569012) Homepage
      This is probably why the Kerry folks might take the Naderites more seriously than the Badnarikians. The whole purpose of the Free State Project is to have less government pandering and intervention. The libertarians don't want promises from Bush or Kerry, besides the idea of respecting everyone's rights. The Nader folks, on the other hand, do want the government to step in and legislate solutions to problems over the environment, corporate law, etc.

      • Re:Libertarians? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @04:29PM (#10569558) Homepage Journal
        The Nader folks, on the other hand, do want the government to step in and legislate solutions to problems over the environment, corporate law, etc.

        And we also want the government to get the fuck out of people's personal lives-- there should be no constitutional "clarification" on marriage,
        decriminalize drugs (Though there is debate on full-legalizeation, and soft drugs vs hard drugs), cops shouldn't be infiltrating political groups, the Patriot Act contains many unconstitutional acts which need to be rolled back today.

        And yes, when a company is selling you a vehicle and they call it 'safe', 'safe' should mean that the vehicle really is 'safe', and it's not just some marketing term.
        • Um, those are Libertarian ideals, not necessarily Naderish ideals. I would assume that most Libertarians would subscribe to the caveat emptor [wikipedia.org] theory of marketplaces, where car companies could say whatever they want to about their product, but would be judged by the market. (E.g. if GM was caught lying about its vehicles, less people would buy them as opposed to having the goverment legislate a solution).

          Not that I agree with either stance, but being pro-consumer is at odds with the Libertarian stance in ma
    • What about the Christians? They're not claiming to be akin to a Bush state, they're basically trying to CREATE [christianexodus.org] a Bush state.

  • time for a real fix (Score:4, Insightful)

    by egomaniac ( 105476 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:13PM (#10568143) Homepage
    It's time to start pushing for vote reform. America has the dumbest voting system on the planet, one that only works when there are only two candidates. As soon as you have more than two, you have this crap.

    I would vote for Nader if it weren't for the fact that it would essentially be throwing my vote away. I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who feel the same way. Stop bitching about it and do something. Write your congresscritters and tell them about the joys of other voting systems, such as instant runoff and approval voting.

    And more importantly, the third parties should present a unified front on this if they ever want to win an election. Libertarians, Greens, hell even Communists, the first and foremost issue for you should be the voting system. We need to abolish this two-party crap and allow our voices to really be heard.
    • Your voices CAN be heard.

      One of the big problems, is for too long people have limited their voices to the ballot box.

      That's just not good enough. You're not going to trick/fool enough people to change their minds in order to have anything come even close to a majority. You actually have to change hearts and minds. And that involves a lot of work, and a lot of..well..to be honest, disappointment.

      The other big problem that well..in particular the Nader people have is that they tend to miss the forest for t

    • Re:time for a real fix (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fjornir ( 516960 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:51PM (#10568580)
      Have you called your congressman to support H.R.5293 ? IRV is being considered for all federal offices NOW. Spread the word on this. Tell your friends. Ask them to tell their friends. The 2008 elections could, concievably, be held in an IRV format.

      I submitted the scoop on this to /. this morning, because I thought it was important enough to get some coverage. And the contrasts between IRV and the systems used by Debian are quite interesting. Unfortunately it was rejected. So, help spread the word.

      • I was under the impression that the Constitution left it up to the states to determine how to vote - and that was part of the 2000 election mess, because Florida didn't do a very good job. In Vermont there has been noise about Instant Runoff, and some favorable studies. But AFAIK, nothing has really been done, and at the moment, I don't understand that. We have a very strong Progressive party and a not-insignificant Libertarian presence, so I would think that at least Democrats (and Progressives) would be i
        • Nor does Condorcet have a 'friendly' name, especially for states that started selling 'Freedom Fries.'

          I agree with your post, even the part above but I guess you shouldn't tell the populace where the idea of the separation of powers is coming from (hint, it's from a philosopher with a 'friendly' name, Montesquieu [wikipedia.org])
          or for that matter what the nationality of a lot of the philosophers who influenced your constitution was...
      • I think the legislation is a bit light in the description of instant runoff voting. It doesn't describe what should happen in the event of a tie. I'd find it quite possible to find that a pair of candidates received no votes in say, Alaska. Or possibly a very slim number. Hell, do write in votes count?

        Also, it seems a bit odd to push for election reform like this without ditching the electoral college. Seems hypocrticial. The fact that the bill is so short implies that the authors don't expect it to go any
        • Also, it seems a bit odd to push for election reform like this without ditching the electoral college. Seems hypocrticial.

          Hardly. Representative Jackson also introduced another bill, H.J.R. 109, which would change the constitution and disband the electoral college.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @03:33PM (#10568988)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Welcome back Bush (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chriso11 ( 254041 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:28PM (#10568322) Journal
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It allows you to recoginize a mistake when you make it again.

    or another way of looking at it is:
    A vote for Nader is the triumph of hope over experience.

  • ObSimpsons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thelenm ( 213782 ) <(mthelen) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:28PM (#10568323) Homepage Journal
    Time for the obligatory Simpsons quote from Treehouse of Horror VII [snpp.com]:

    Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles! [audience gasps in terror]
    Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
    Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
    Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
    Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!
    • I am _SO_ voting for Kodos.

      Kang is a flip-flopper! Kodos will stay the course, remain resolute, and keep his focus on the war on terror. A vote for Kang is a vote for terrorism; don't let the terrorists win!

      "Hey terrorists...terrorize *this* *BLAM!*"

      I dunno...if Kang wings, I think I'm gonna have to move to Ork.

  • The real hidden swing state (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:28PM (#10568334)
    What about the 50% of eligible voters that don't vote at all.

  • Can't do it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:48PM (#10568544) Journal
    The optimal electoral strategy is to attempt to invade your opponent's territory on the political spectrum, stealing his supporters while keeping your own. A candidate can be as far upleft as Nader, but they stand to lose more votes by pissing off the opposition's supporters than their own, so to win they must hide their true colors. It sucks but that's how our shitty electoral system works.

    Nader's best chance at the presidency is to join the democratic party and act like a 90% republican after he wins the primaries, by doing his best to avoid talking about the on the split issues. Then once/if elected, he can do whatever he wants.

  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by crmartin ( 98227 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @02:57PM (#10568641)
    The mice have formed a loose coalition to demand that the cat respect their wishes and wear a bell; King Canute has demanded that the tides cease to turn; and Al Gore has asserted that he's the real President, Electoral College be damned.

  • third party blues (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rhettoric ( 772376 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @03:23PM (#10568894) Homepage
    I went to the "slacker uprising" rally at the Univeristy of Minnesota during the 2nd presidential debate. Slacker Uprising is a publicity tour of Michael Moore nominally to increase voter turnout by offering a pair of underwear if you register to vote (Yes I registered, no I didn't grab the undies).

    After the debate, and Moore's appearance on HBO, he began his "speech." I use quotation marks because most of the content was culled from other writers and speakers. The one salient point I thought he did have concerned Nader and the temptation to vote for him. As you can imagine there were quite a few Nader supporters in the crowd that were wavering between supporting Kerry and supporting Nader. There were others that were plain pricks about it, calling Moore a traitor and such.

    Moore expressed the opinion that, because of Nader, the democrats have been pulled much further to the left than they were in 2000. If you compare Kerry to Gore in 2000, the rhetoric has become much harsher and emphises the differences instead of their cheery agreements. The two candidates today have very different proposed solutions to the same problems, and no one thinks for a minute that Kerry and Bush are equally evil (I haven't heard anyone use the tweedledee and tweedledum analogy this time around).

    As someone who voted for Nader in 2000 this argument made a certain degree of sense to me. Is voting for Nader throwing your vote away? I don't think so. In fact I think Nader's support has swung the democrats over enough to my viewpoint that I'm willing to vote for them, hence my decision to vote for Kerry.

    A socialist has never been elected preisdent of the United States, but minimum wage and social security would hardly haave had as much support without them. Those who support Nader don't expect to have him become president, they expect to influence policy of those who *are* elected.
  • Kerry would have to court them and their electoral votes...

    Exit polls showed that Nader grabbed quite a few voters from would-be Bush supporters. He did NOT cost Gore the election. Get over it.

  • This is another fine example of how Ralph Nader and his supports live in a magical alternate universe of political "what ifs", hypotheticals and meaningless caveats. I voted for Nader in 2000 and here is what I have to say to you: Your swing state idea is every bit as silly and dangerous as Nader continuing to assert that there is "no difference" between the two mainstream parties in this election. Like many things on the left, it's a great idea in theory that breaks down horribly in practice. "If we all li
    • I heard a great hour long interview with Nader this morning with a lot of people on both sides of his platform calling in to ask questions. Nader's argument is essentially that Kerry is just as much of a corporate shill as Bush and that Kerry's Iraq policy is just as bad as Bush's, so if you're a Nader supporter the argument that you are making isn't going to carry any weight. When you ask: "Can you really say that the outcome of the 2000 election was worth (y)our symbolic votes of protest?", their answer i
  • The thing about politics is that it is a very developed science.

    From the perspective of the "common man" there is only the end result, Health Care vs No Health Care, Taxes > Taxes, War (This is about america after all)> war .

    But from the perspective of politicians politics is all about having the people of a nation unified behind one set of goals and a single means of accomplishing them.

    This isn't as obvious in democracy because government's are forced to cater to the "common man".

    Because the
  • This looks like another attempt by the DNC to say, "Hey, dont' vote for Nader, your vote doesn't count. If you vote for Kerry I'll give you this candy bar."
    Libertarians seem to be resisting this and gathering steam. I don't want to be absorbed by one of the "real" parties.

    I want change!

  • Well Nader votes arent votes for bush (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @06:04PM (#10570404)
    The polls are showing bush up anywhere from 4 to 9 points. Its not going to be close in the electoral college its not going to be close in the popular vote. As nader pointe out he is not going to have the slightest effect on kerrys chances.

    On the other hand voting for Nader is a real protest to the democratic party. If they aren't representing your views. If you feel we shouldn't have bush and bush lite running. If you feel that there should be a real choice Nader is your man.

    BTW I probably don't agree with you about Nader as I will be voting my conscience for Badnarik.

  • Funny (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @09:55PM (#10571977) Journal
    People always talking about Left, Right, More Left, More Right.

    Anyone tried Forward/Backward? :)

  • It's the issues, Stupid! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by epcraig ( 102626 ) on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @06:36AM (#10573970)
    Nobody who favors the Digital Millenium Copyright Act gets my vote.
    Nobody who favors USA-PATRIOT gets my vote.
    Nobody who favors the war on Iraq gets my vote.
    Nader not being on my ballot, Cobb gets my vote. Because Democrats denied Nader his spot on the ballot, the Libertarians picked up a few votes form me for offices lower on the ballot, because they're not Democrats.

Slashdot Top Deals

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

Close