Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Politics

Ralph Nader Back On The Florida Ballot 161

Posted by timothy from the divergence-of-views dept.
Makoto916 writes "It's official. The Florida State Supreme court has ruled in favor of 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader. He is now back on the ballot, and just in time since absentee ballots were to be mailed out tomorrow (Saturday). This is certainly a victory for those of us who believe that the country is better off when alternative political voices aren't suppressed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ralph Nader Back On The Florida Ballot More

Ralph Nader Back On The Florida Ballot

Comments Filter:

  • Alternative political voices? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:44PM (#10282226)
    Lemme guess, you're Republican and want Bush to win Florida?

    • Re:Alternative political voices? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by aelbric ( 145391 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:13PM (#10282390)
      Strange that it was the Democrats that tried to have him removed from the ballot....

      http://www.katv.com/news/stories/0904/173778.html [katv.com]
      • I think that's the point. Nader takes votes away from the Democratic candidate, so Democrats want him to be removed because it gives more votes to Kerry. On the other hand, a Republican would be more likely to want Nader on the ballot since it makes it more likely that Bush will win re-election. So the AC's post indicated that the original poster was Republican because they think that third party candidates are important, despite (my thoughts) the fact that no third party candidate stands a chance in our


        • > I think that's the point. Nader takes votes away from the Democratic candidate, so Democrats want him to be removed because it gives more votes to Kerry.

          Unless of course they just stay home in disgust. It's hard to imagine a Naderite voting Democratic after the Democrats forced their man off the ballot.

        • approval voting (Score:3, Informative)

          by j1m+5n0w ( 749199 )

          ...and that's why we need approval voting [wikipedia.org], or some similar system. (Yeah, I know I'm being redundant [slashdot.org])

          -jim

    • I am not a Nader supporter, Bush or Kerry are far better choices than Nader IMHO. However Nader should have his shot just like anyone else. The whole idea that Nader screwed Gore or will screw Kerry is bulls**t. 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 i
      • Of course what else should we expect from career politicians.

        Good question. Let's see... how about them enslaving our grandchildren, and not even for the reward of being slavemaster (evil or not, you can at least respect that). They'll do it because some corporation donated just enough money to the campaign, in all the right, untraceable ways to guarantee them some key election victory. Or maybe because the real powers that be, who keep politicians as lapdogs, finally give the word that it's time for the
      • I agree that even Bush is better than Nadar,if only because Nader sticks his head further in the sand than Bush. Any statistical analysis will tell you that Nader gave Bush the election. Hell, the offical difference was 500 votes in Florida alone. Even if you say the 95% of the Nader voters would have stayed home and of those who did turn up at the polls, 95% voted for, say, Mickey Mouse rather than Gore, with only half those being punch clean though (no hanging chads!). Gore still would have won by a c
        • You are not seeing the forest. The election turned on 500 votes in Florida. That is not Nader's fault. The Dems who made the butterfly ballot had a greater effect. There are many other things that had a greater effect. Dems are cherry picking one small thing that went against them and are trying to unfairly blame it all on Nader. The greatest thing that went wrong for Gore was the Gore campaign. The fact that the election was so close that statistical error and noise decided the election is entirely his fau
          • Your right about one thing Gore didn't get enough votes to get Gore elected. He only got over half the votes, but in this country you need a majority in a majority of the states (well the electorial college).

            Your so busy looking for the forest, you've run smack into the tree right in front of you. Odd that you use the 'noise' example, in networking signal noise is a reality that must be minimized, so then you are saying that Nader should have been minimized?

            Sure the butterfly ballot had problems, but it

            • Again, Nader, chads, butterfly's, etc. All trivia. The problem was Gore. It is Gore's fault that he ran such a poor election campaign that the election was essentially a tie, actually I guess that is just as much Bush's fault. You can fantasize all you want about 1% of Nader supporters voting for Gore, last I heard 2000 Nader supporters were 25% Dem-leaning, 25% Rep-leaning, 50% unlikely to vote, no one really knows what would have happened. Nader was also a pretty weak 3rd party candidate. Other recent Pre

              • Actually I do not think any president since Reagan had half the votes, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, all were elected with popular minorities.

                So, while Gore got more votes than Clinton or the Bush(es), you believe that he ran a bad campaign. I can't say that he ran a poorly, It wasn't my Campaign, it's awefully hard to make a run for President of the United States, I wouldn't pretend to understand the complexities, but apparently you do. Did Ralph 'Pied-Piper' Nader run a good Campaign? Seems to me, h

                • This almost certainly is my last post of this thread. You must be a Green Party member (at least simpethetic), you dislike Nader now, but hold to the same story (the 'green party' line of 2000). I understand the anger, ...

                  The only anger in this thread is yours. I am not a green, I have never supported Nader. I am an independent who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, whoever I thought would do the better job. Nader was never one of those. Reread your posts, you are in denial over Gore's failur
                  • I'm going to break my word and say...

                    playing "what ifs..." is hard and usually pointless. "What if Gore had a better campaign", "What if Gore was President on Sept 11? [moderateindependent.com]", "What if {blah, blah, blah}". Mostly because it's hard to understand cause and effect when talking in such broad terms. You keep saying that Nader had no effect on the 2000 election. You won't even commit to saying that there is even a chance. However, statistical analysis tells a different story. Weather forcasting, Hurricane projecti

                    • You keep saying that Nader had no effect on the 2000 election. You won't even commit to saying that there is even a chance.

                      You have fundamentally misunderstood my first post and the followups. My point is that the election was so close that it was essentially a tie and decided by "noise". Any single element of "noise" including Nader is insignificant compared to the far larger factor, the Gore campaign. Nader may have been the straw that broke the camel's back but focusing on that straw and ignoring the
    • Lemme guess, you're Republican and want Bush to win Florida?

      Nader has made it onto the ballot here in Wisconsin also (where the polls indicate a very close race), but he is running as an independent here. Unfortunetly, many people seem to have missed that detail and will likely vote for him with the idea that they are voting for a third party candidate, trying to push the numbers up to the that all-important 5 percent needed to reach *real* party status. I've already personally talked to two people who
  • It doesn't make much of a difference in any case. It's looking like Bush will win Florida with or without Nader on the ballot. The only difference is possibly by how much. Still, we have a month and a half until the election, so anything goes.
    • It's looking like Bush will win Florida with or without Nader on the ballot.

      That forcast, while possible, is not blindingly obvious one way or another [electoral-vote.com] to me, yet. Unless you're one of those assuming that George's brother figured out how to rig it last time, and will figure it out again?

  • Suppressing voices? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by echeslack ( 618016 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @09:50PM (#10282262) Homepage Journal
    This is certainly a victory for those of us who believe that the country is better off when alternative political voices aren't suppressed.

    I don't think that not being on the ballot means your political voice is being suppressed. Plenty of people don't make it onto the ballot, but they are still free to express their ideas.

    • "but they are still free to express their ideas."

      Only so long as those politicial views are categorized as "Republican" or "Democrat." "We've got both kinds of music..." Ever wonder why voter turn-out sucks?

      Nader is a natural-born citizen older than 35. IMO, that's all he should ultimately need to be on the ballot.

  • 1234, i'll start a flame war! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by real_smiff ( 611054 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:01PM (#10282316)
    ok, i don't know shit about American politics apart from my half-arsed following of newspapers but isn't this going to take votes away from Kerry? i.e. it's a move to hurt democrats not help democracy. this is bad, i want Kerry to win and save the world see. i could well be talking from my rear here, as i'm sure i'll soon find out. (ignore my sig, it's out of place on this thread).
    • it's a move to hurt democrats not help democracy

      Ok so more choices are bad for democracy because it hurts the guy you agree with.. Great way to start a flame war

    • Re:1234, i'll start a flame war! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Veridium ( 752431 ) on Saturday September 18, 2004 @03:04AM (#10283566) Homepage
      i want Kerry to win and save the world

      IMO, this is what is wrong with the 2 parties. They offer us messiahs, not presidents. The republicans tell us we should vote for Bush so he can save us from the terrorists. Pardon me, but if a terrorist was aiming a weapon at the president, Bush would hide behind an innocent person and shout "bring it on" from behind them, just like he's done internationally. His mouth writes checks that the lives of braver men than him have to cash. Then the democrats tell us that we should vote for Kerry so he can save us from Bush and save the world. Pardon me, but Kerry is a professional career politician. He isn't going to save the world, and while he might "save" us from Bush, who will save us from him?

      The point I'm getting at is, neither one of these guys offer substance. They offer us hyperbole and fantasy. Let's look at 9/11 and why it happened honestly for a second. Did it happen because Bush got elected into office? Hardly. It happened because of shoddy foreign policy for decades. Foreign policy which was carried out by both republicans and democrats. If Kerry gets elected, is he suddenly going to say "gee, maybe we shouldn't be forcing our will on people on the other side of the globe" and just stop doing what makes people around the world hate us to the point where they will give their own lives to kill some of us? Not a chance in hell. He's going to carry on business as usual and America will continue to be targeted. The difference will be in some domestic policies and the image and type of hyperbole used to justify international intervention.

      Please my fellow Americans, you need to shake yourselves out of this stupor. You are not going to save the world. We aren't a nation of supermen. God did not rise us up to benevolently rule the world through violence and economic sanctions. Get over yourselves before it is too late. Please. Come to your senses.

      I refuse to vote democrat or republican in this or any election. I encourage everyone who knows that both parties are wrong to research the third parties and decide for themselves who best represents them.

      • The point I'm getting at is, neither one of these guys offer substance.

        Not quite. Both Bush and Kerry offer a substantive policy for government.

        It's just that neither of them will tell you straight out exactly what that policy is.

        If either one of them strayed from their handlers' advice on what to say and how to say it, then they'd lose the election.

  • Push for a truly democratic voting system. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jagungal ( 36053 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:09PM (#10282368)
    Again as a gladly non-US voter this discussion amazes me.

    If you really want a victory for alternative policical voices then push hard and jump and down for a democratic preferential voting system. This way you could have 10 or more candidates and the person that was ultimately most popular would win - not the person that splits the least number of votes.

    If you had a preferential voting system then you might be discussing the merits of a first vote for Nader instead of worrying about loosing a vote by voting for him. Your second and third votes may be the ones that ultimately count.

    As an Australian voter, where everything is Preferential, I cannot imagine having to use such an archaic "First Past the Post" system as they use in the US. I am also amazed there is not a major movement for change there.

    If you don't know what a preferential voting system is .. have a read ..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting/ [wikipedia.org]

  • Nader has lost it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moof1138 ( 215921 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:36PM (#10282527)
    I once sort of respected Nader (pre 2000), even though I didn't agree with him. Now I am shocked at how low he has sunk. Not only is he taking in tons of money from the Republican Party, and letting them run ads for him, knowing full well that they are using him to as a tool against the Dems., but now he is running on the freaking Reform platform to get on the ticket after the Greens dropped him. How anyone can imagine Nader to be a progressive while he is cozying up with a the party of a racist neanderthal like Pat Buchanan is beyond me.

    I don't see how he could get any votes now - he has spit in the face of anyone on the left by courting the worst on the right, but nobody but those on the left could stomach like his views.

    • Not only is he taking in tons of money from the Republican Party, and letting them run ads for him, knowing full well that they are using him to as a tool against the Dems., but now he is running on the freaking Reform platform to get on the ticket after the Greens dropped him.

      Read Counterpunch [counterpunch.org] articles on Ralph Nader. They've recently published articles on these issues and frame the debate in a more balanced way by examining where the Democrats and Republicans are getting their money from (as well a

    • Ehhh, I don't think the fact that Nader is on the Reform Party ticket means he's cozying up to Buchanan*. Look at the people who have run under their banner over the last few years: Perot, Ventura, Buchanan, now Nader. You see any common thread between these guys? Nope, neither do I. For whatever reason (probably Perot's money) the RP became a kind of refuge for disaffected politicians who weren't happy with either of the Big 2 or with any of the existing, more coherent third parties. (The Greens or t
      • * Who, BTW, is becoming less Neanderthal by the day, or maybe it's just that the current Republicans make him look reasonable by comparison -- I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with anything the guy said, and now I agree with him about half the time.

        I don't think that he's really changed much about what he's been saying since the last election. He's always been an isolationist kind of guy.

  • It is good to have two parties with two center seeking candidates that appear indistinguishable from each other, and split the vote evenly between them. It is good if everything congress can agree on has already been passed into law, and everything else before congress is gridlocked. Agreement on a quantity (taxes, spending, etc.) is when exactly half think the quantity is to high, and the other half thinks it is too low. Some people see our two party winner take all system as dysfunctional, when it is r
    • I don't think so because I've head it said that if two people are in total agreement only one is making the decisions, or something like that. That seems true enough, so applied to the U.S., that means that probably the media and corperations are making all the decisions for the public and they don't care. I just think that we are slowly becoming more and more like ancient rome, with a love of spectacle and little care for anything that really means something. I hope that we are merely at the bottom of a

    • Agreement on a quantity (taxes, spending, etc.) is when exactly half think the quantity is to high, and the other half thinks it is too low. Some people see our two party winner take all system as dysfunctional, when it is really mature democracy near equilibrium.

      That's an interesting point. However,

      • a) Many issues are not simply a matter of agreeing on a quantity, and there are often more options available than "more of x" or "less of x" (where x usually equals "money for some program" or "taxes").
      • b)
      • For discreet issues, the majority position should have already been legislated. Discreet issues should only be legislated when the majority shifts to the other side and when new legislation can just barely pass. More complex issues will usually have amendments added to sweeten or sour the legislation so that is will just barely pass. A mature democracy should never have any new legislation pass with a large majority.

        Politics is many dimensional but should eventually settle to two parties that split betw

  • This is certainly a victory (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sabNetwork ( 416076 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @10:42PM (#10282560)
    ...for the Republican party.

    --

  • Evil Republicans? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kajoob ( 62237 ) on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:10PM (#10282680)
    I'll go ahead and burn some karma here...

    Isn't it a little peculiar that the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep somebody off the ballot, but yet this gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media? However, can you imagine the shock and revolt the Democrats would spew out if the Republicans were trying to keep a candidate off the ballot?

    Now I'm sure the Republicans would indeed do the same thing under similar circumstances, my point here is about the coverage. If Republicans do it, it's evil and it needs to be on the front page. If the Democrats do it, then it's just good ol' fashion politics, nothing to see here folks.

    Flame away.
    • I don't disagree with your point; Democrats are definitely creating a double-standard.

      Regardless of what they say, Democrats and Republicans are eager to pull any dirty trick they can get away with. They are also eager to catch the other side doing the same.

      Democrats revert to the "angel act" when they notice GOP succeeding in its attacks.
      --
    • I like it when Congress and the President are of different parties.

      And I like it even more when the media and the President are of different parties.

      Democratic president? Gimme talk radio and bloggers.

      Republican president? nytimes.com will yell "emperor has no clothes!" every day for four years.

      "This basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decided whether we should have a government without newspapers, or ne
    • I agree this is all quite snafu.

      But just like the obvious motives of the democrats, I also point out the motives of Jeb Bush and his appointed staff who are all suddenly eagar advocates for getting the Reform Party on the ballot in Florida.

      http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/14/Decision2004/Pl e a_puts_Nader_back_.shtml [sptimes.com]

      Basically the rule is all politicians suck. Don't try to single out one side or the other.

      • > But just like the obvious motives of the democrats, I also point out the motives of Jeb Bush and his appointed staff who are all suddenly eagar advocates for getting the Reform Party on the ballot in Florida.

        I think it's despicable for the Democrats to try to keep Nader off the ballot in various states. And though I wouldn't call the Republicans' attempts to get him on the ballot 'despicable', it's clearly a case of gaming the system, and a symptom that something is wrong with that system.

        • Re: Evil Republicans? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by XO ( 250276 )
          Nader doesn't have enough support to get ON the ballot in MOST states, and the Republicans have been petitioning those states FOR him.

          They know that his presence on the ballot only helps the Republicans.

          And, his support is waning so badly, that he doesn't even have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting on the ballot in more than 2 or 3 states without their help.

          The Democrats aren't specifically trying to keep him off -- if he had a legitimate amount of support to be ON the ballot, then I don't think the

    • In Illinois, the Democrats control the state government and recently changed the law to allow Bush on the ballot. According to state law, the Republican convention must be held before Sept. 1. The Republican convention was on Sept. 3rd, so it was later than it needed to be to legally allow President Bush to appear on the ballot in Illinois. The Illinois Democratic Party response: Change the law by altering the deadline so that the Republican convention would be within the new deadline (Senate Bill 2123).

    • If the system is broken all what you do is also broken from the start.

      There are several ways to fix this (in many countries you have a second round vote between the most popular candidates in case nobody obtains 50% + 1 votes). But as long as you have the archaic, undemocratic electoral college system of indiret election, the participants will have to do this and more in order to advance their cause.

      • The Electoral College, while archaic, is not the problem here. It's how the Electors are elected themselves. Absolutely nothing forces the States to use the "guy with the most votes in one election gets all Electors" system.
    • I'm much more surprised that this [zogby.com] didn't get any mainstream media coverage (and little non-mainstream).
    • Isn't it a little peculiar that the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep somebody off the ballot, but yet this gets little to no coverage in the mainstream media? However, can you imagine the shock and revolt the Democrats would spew out if the Republicans were trying to keep a candidate off the ballot?

      If you want to really see underreported stories, read project censored [projectcensored.org].

      This story doesn't qualify, because clearly there is a different angle to it, which is that instead of democrats trying to ge
    • "...Republicans would indeed do the same thing under similar circumstances"

      That seems like an attempt to achieve political neutrality by conterbalancing your anti-Democrat statements. It is not an actual fact which you have supported with evidence; You gave none.

      Republicans did not try to keep Ross Perot off the ballot in '92. Now, that is not proof that they would not attempt to block a third-party candidate in the future, under other circumstances. However, it is the most closely related historical

  • Vote for what you want -- but consider pairing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mec ( 14700 ) <mec@shout.net> on Friday September 17, 2004 @11:31PM (#10282773) Journal
    Good for democracy.

    The votes belong to the voters, not the candidates.

    Anybody who wants to vote for Ralph Nader can damn well vote for Ralph Nader, and anybody who doesn't want to, doesn't have to. I think all the prospective Nader voters have been exposed to enough advertising and history by now to make up their own minds whether they prefer "vote for what you really want" or "vote for lesser evil".

    Regarding that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" meme goes -- that sounds uncomfortably similar to President Bush's statement: "if you're not with us you're against us."

    One thing that Nader voters can do is pair up. In the last election, Nader Traders paired up Nader voters in swing states with Gore voters in non-swing states. The Nader Traders are back in action this election.

    There's another kind of pairing: if you really want to vote for Nader, but don't want Bush to win, go find somebody who really hates Bush but doesn't want Kerry to win. Make a deal: "I won't vote for Kerry if you won't vote for Bush." Then you go vote for Nader or Cobb, and your buddy votes for Badnarik or Peroutka. The major party outcome is unaffected, and you both vote for the candidate you really wanted -- which helps build the party you really want.

    • Not a chance, both have alienated me. That I hate Kerry's potential only a little less than Bush's demonstrated incompetence is no incentive for me to vote for Kerry, even by proxy.
    • A vote for Nader may not be a vote for Bush, but a vote for not-Kerry is a vote for not-not-Bush.

      The game is pick the winner, and it only allows one winner, so if you only count people playing, you really are either with someone or against them. Bush's idiotic threats and posturing are entirely different.

      Unfortunately, you're right about all the other stuff.
    • Bush's "if you're not with us you're against us" fearmongering is nonsense because the binary choice he promotes is purely imaginary. There are lots of nuances, with "with", "us", and "against" all much more complex than his playground bully talk. But unfortunately, this November there will be several false options on the ballot that will do little other than reduce the pool of people who are deciding between Bush and Kerry. Bush's campaign is run by the most brilliant evil rules geniuses ever. If you don't

  • Who's the fraud? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jagapen ( 11417 ) on Saturday September 18, 2004 @01:53AM (#10283361)
    Nader often says, half-seriously, that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same, corporate party. Before you dismiss him as glib, or an idiot, think about it. The two parties have what seems to be a gentleman's agreement to watch each other's back. Together, they run the debate commission and keep third parties out. They both oppose instant run-off voting, or fusion.
    And how about this? Bush might have missed the deadline to get on the Florida ballot! Read it yourself: http://sptimes.com/2004/09/11/Decision2004/Did_Bus h_camp_err_on_.shtml [sptimes.com] Here they're trying to keep Nader off the Florida ballot because they fear he'll swing the state to Bush, but the Democrats here have a chance to try to get Bush himself off the ballot, and they won't take it...

  • Vote Third Party Dammit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stealth.c ( 724419 ) on Saturday September 18, 2004 @02:24AM (#10283459)
    Americans:
    I'm voting third party, and you should too if you care one whit for the democratic process or the future of this country.

    "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!"
    "Vote for the lesser evil."
    "Don't throw your vote away."
    and the even more misleading: "It isn't throwing your vote away, but it won't change anything."

    are all memes I've grown to hate. They all completely miss the point. Vote for the man you want for the job. PERIOD. Because one day, a non-Republicrat WILL WIN.

    I'm voting third party, at the encouragement of I.F. Stone, who tells me:
    "The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing--for the sheer fun and joy of it--to go right ahead and fight, knowing you're going to lose. You mustn't feel like a martyr. You've got to enjoy it."

    I'm voting third party because Bush and Kerry are exactly the same damned thing. And I am not going to let either head of the Republicrat media hydra turn me, or anyone who will listen to me, into some marionette to be tugged about by the memory of 9/11/01.

    I'm voting third party because it's the only way I can leave that booth this November without the guilty weight of a near-decade of gratuitous bloodshed heaped upon my heart.

    I have suspicions about what things will be like with four more years of these country club politicians. But getting to say "I told you so" is just not worth it this time.


    • > Vote for the man you want for the job. PERIOD.

      No, vote for whatever is best for the country. Sometimes that involves a difficult trade-off between short term best and long term best.

    • Well said. It makes me feel better that someone else out there is actually thinking of the broader picture. Keep fighting the good fight, no matter how much you're ridiculed over your view.

      IMHO, the only "wasted vote" is the one cast out of ignorance. All too often people vote for a candidate simply because their friend, parent, or - God forbid - the TV told them to.

      I can only hope that organizations like Open Debates [opendebates.org] will actually succeed and once and for all provide this country with a meaningful alter

    • "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!"

      This is based on the assumption that most people who vote for Nader would prefer Kerry over Bush. It is not an unreasonable assumption and the main reason the Republicans are so anxious to see Nader on the ballot.

      "Vote for the lesser evil."

      Given our current "only indicate your first preference" system of voting where it is known beforehand that two candidates will get over 90% of the vote, it is, in fact, the correct choice. Given three candidates A, B, and C, a
  • Nader thinks forcing the Democrats to the left is more important than letting them gain centrist control of the government. That's why he claims that Republican and Democrat candidates are the same: they both represent corporations. He's wrong, and he's taking us with him. He'd have the influence he seeks if he just concentrated his campaign on winning even a handful of electoral votes somewhere in the country, and then instructing those electors to vote for Kerry after the polls closed. If he put Kerry ove
    • ... if the US electoral system is completely and utterly broken.

      Perhaps people will come to realize this thanks to his and other candidates efforts.
      • At the cost of 4 more years of Bush? That's a pyrric victory.
      • It is not his fault if the US electoral system is completely and utterly broken.

        Very true. Unfortunately the chance of it ever changing seems extremely slim. Its my observation that electoral reform is something most americans have never thought about and are really not interested. There is plenty of stuff on the net like FairVote.org [fairvote.org], ElectionMethods.org [electionmethods.org] but they don't seem to be having much success in bringing it into public debate.

        As a foreigner in the US, my few attempts at discussing this with peop

  • from the horses mouth (Score:4, Interesting)

    by another misanthrope ( 688068 ) on Saturday September 18, 2004 @11:47PM (#10288809)
    this sums it up nicely from the candiate himself:

    Nader said Democrats should blame themselves if they are unable to beat President Bush because they are not focusing on the real issues that people care about. He cited as examples universal health care, creating a living family wage and ending the war in Iraq.

    ``If the Democrats cannot landslide the worst Republican administration in the 20th century they better look at themselves,'' said Nader.

    ABQjournal [abqjournal.com]
    • Although, technically, this is the 21st century[0]... beyond that, that's ane EXCEEDINGLY wise statement.

      [0]King George II wasn't inaugerated until January, 2001, thus removing all those stupid 2000 vs 2001 arguments, too.
    • > and ending the war in Iraq.

      That's because they don't really want to "end" the war in Iraq -- not any faster than President Bush does anyway.

      In fact, John Kerry said that he would have started it himself had he been in office. He just claims that he would have run the war better somehow.

      So, you see, both major parties are essentially on the same side of this issue. But since it's the correct side, I'm willing to cut them some slack.

  • Research is important! (Score:3, Informative)

    by cyberzephyr ( 705742 ) on Sunday September 19, 2004 @02:07AM (#10289296) Journal
    http://www.vote-smart.org/

    This is an extraordinary website. I admittedly worked for them at one point. But this site has absolutely NO SPIN!!

    Check it out and see for yourselves voters.
  • I've written an editorial on this at my political website [lefterer.com] (please visit it!)

    Hurricane Nader Hits Florida

    CNN reported [cnn.com] in the wee hours of the morning today that a Florida Supreme Court decision has confirmed Ralph Nader's spot on the sunshine state's ballot.

    I'm not quite sure who I'm more ashamed of, the Democrats or the Republicans. The Democrats have fought Nader's appearance on the ballot every step of the way. They claimed his party had been defunct in the state of Florida for many years, which woul

Slashdot Top Deals

"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer

Close