Ralph Nader should invest his time and money better

[Speed of Sound]

shouldnt ralph spend his time running around lobbying for electiral reform instead of running for offices he'll ever own? he'd get farther.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

His ego is too big. He just needs to shut up and go away forever.

[PBrunsel]

Nader has done his part in helping consumers. He just needs to retire.

Although I disagree wuth him on everything, I admire Ralph Nader's rise from a poor household of Lebanese Immigrants to being a national figure and a very wealthy man.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I agree with PB: I admire him greatly for his work in consumers, and respect his desire to do what he believe is right. But this year seemed more like legacy-building than it did running to make a real difference, and he could have very well cost the Democrats the election again.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well Nader would not have been such a controversial figure in 2000 or 2004 if more people understood the electoral college. It is true that he didn't help Gore much in Florida and New Hampshire. It is reasonable to see him as a factor in those two states. Hindsight is 20/20.

However, voting for him in states like Utah, Montana, Alaska, Rhode Island and possibly even California makes sense. I understand the anitpathy towards him on the part of Democrats. But I think some of the animosity is misplaced. I saw a documentary on Air America, a network which I do like. One of the hosts was very rude to Nader. I think that was a bit unproffesional.

Perhaps people are a bit too willing to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. I think Nader could have addressed the spoiler question a little better. But his book "Crashing the Party" is one I would highly reccomend.

The Democrats would do well to take more responsibility for their own shortcomings. Plus the fact that Bush did as well as he did because many people are easily fooled.
The main thing is that Democrats need to pay more attention to liberal voters. For example, many Americans opposed the Iraq war. Taking the liberal vote for granted and spending all your time, money and especially rhetoric on a few swing voters in a few swing states is bad politics.
(I also think that whether Bush stole Ohio in 04 is open to debate).

Umm, they were mad at him because of Florida, not because he got votes in DC.

[MODU]

Nader has gone the way of Paul, Perot, and Buchanan.  None of the 4 will be on a future presidential ticket.

[Joe Republic]

Nader has no chance at anything any more.  Nobody will take him seriously any more.  Those on the left hate him for what he did in 2000 (e.g. BRTD), those on the right hate him anyway, and everybody else just sees him as an unelectable loser.

[MODU]

Nader has gone the way of Paul, Perot, and Buchanan.  None of the 4 will be on a future presidential ticket.

Probably true. Ron Paul might have one more presidential campaign left in him but only if he decides to retire from Congress. He is one person who could receive more than one alternative party's nomination.

Possibly.  And if Perot became interested again in politics (not running, but backing), that also help a lot.  For all his little quirks, Perot was correct on a lot of things.  Of course, I could see the Dems using that against the third-party, saying something like "Perot is using Paul as a puppet so he can secure government contracts for his company."  hahaha

[Speed of Sound]

The electoral college makes it possible for a third party candidate to run a 'safe state' strategy. If the Democrats had their way the electoral college would be replaced with a popular vote. This would make it impossible for a third party candidate to run a 'safe state' strategy.
Ironically, it would strengthen the all ready gigantic advantage that the two parties have.

I agree that simply replacing the electoral college isn't going to do it. But what could it is Instant runoff voting. instant runoff voting would allow people to vote for 3rd parties without throwing away thier votes. For those of you who don't know what instant runoff voting is, the idea is basically that you rank all the people running in order of how much you want them to win.(Note: you could possibly not put a # behind a certain at all if you don't want your vote having any chance of going for that candidate.) When the all the '#1' votes are counted up, if no-one has a majority, they would eliminate the candidate with the lowest amount of votes. Every ballot that had that person as #1, they would then go to their 2nd choices and add those on to the current tallys. This would continue until somebody had a majority of the votes.

EXAMPLE: The totals in a random schoolboard member race:

          Joe Johnson: 50 votes    36%
              Mary Doe: 45 votes    32%
         Jim Robinson: 43 votes    31%

        With no majorty, Robinson would be eliminated. When they look at everyone's ballots who voted for Robinson, 23 of them had Mary 2nd, 15 of them had Joe 2nd, and 4 had no-one 2nd. That means you would add 24 to Mary's total, 18 to Joe's total, and 4 votes would not go to anyone.

               After Jim's elimination:

               Mary Doe: 68 votes   51%
          Joe Johnson: 66 votes   49%

       With 51% of the vote, Mary Doe would be elected. Notice that without this system, Joe Johnson would have been elected with less than a majority, plus everyone who voted for Jim Robinson would have had no say in whether they would have wanted Joe or Mary if their candidate dodn't win.

I really love this system. a good website to go to if you want more examples or if you want to participate in or make some fake Instant runoff elections, go to http://www.demochoice.org/

[Jake]

Why should the people who voted for Jim Robinson have another choice. They chose a candidate, he lost, get over it.

[Speed of Sound]

electing people without a majority is ludicris. Besides, if I voted for Robinson, but I didn't like Johnson, I should be able to also cast a vote against him. That is what this system basically lets you do. You're just afraid because you know that a majority of 3rd party voters would vote democrat, so instead of constantly lose, you prefer to silence the opinions of others. Thats the way the  top republican officials have worked, thats the way they'll continue to work.

[Jake]

No, the system should be one vote for one person, not one vote for Jim, but if he loses one vote for Tim, but if he loses one vote for Arnold.  And actually, third party votes in 2004 split almost evenly right down the middle between Republican leaners (LP, Constitution) and Democrat leaners (P&F, Grn, Nader, and the various socialist parties). In no state would third party votes tip the balance one way or another unless all LP, Grn, and Nader voters went for Kerry in NM.  In 2000, only Florida would switch hands if 3rd party votes were distributed to each major party. Plus, a IRV system would mean a Bush 41 win in 1992.  So, obviously, you are wrong to claim that a majority of third party voters would vote Democrat. Only in 2000 has this been the case, 1980, 1988, 1992, 1996 are all years where more third party voters would've voted Republican instead of Democrat.

[Brandon H]

I think NH also would have switch from Bush to Gore assuming ALL of Nader's votes went to Gore. (Some would not have voted at all and some would have voted for Bush, so you can't say for sure.)

IRV is better than what we have now, but had problems. http://www.electionmethods.com . (Sorry if I sound like a broken record as I have said this on a few other threads.)

In early 2008, Nader needs to hype a big announcment and the media will begin talking if he will run for President. Then Nader has it and gives a big speech promoting several third party candidates. Hopefully the media would continue the coverage, but it's doubtful.

[Speed of Sound]

No, the system should be one vote for one person, not one vote for Jim, but if he loses one vote for Tim, but if he loses one vote for Arnold.  And actually, third party votes in 2004 split almost evenly right down the middle between Republican leaners (LP, Constitution) and Democrat leaners (P&F, Grn, Nader, and the various socialist parties). In no state would third party votes tip the balance one way or another unless all LP, Grn, and Nader voters went for Kerry in NM.  In 2000, only Florida would switch hands if 3rd party votes were distributed to each major party. Plus, a IRV system would mean a Bush 41 win in 1992.  So, obviously, you don't know what you're talking about to claim that a majority of third party voters would vote Democrat. Only in 2000 has this been the case, 1980, 1988, 1992, 1996 are all years where more third party voters would've voted Republican instead of Democrat.

First fo all, im not so sure that youre completely correct on that, but in any case, the IRV system is about fairness for all parties, not political gain for one or the other

[Jake]

IRV would be a token gesture by the major parties to keep 3rd parties from ever growing large enough to challenge them. It effectively prevents any third party from winning a state, much less an election.

[Max Power]

IRV would be a token gesture by the major parties to keep 3rd parties from ever growing large enough to challenge them. It effectively prevents any third party from winning a state, much less an election.

Actually, Perot could have won Maine in 92' with IRV.

[Speed of Sound]

IRV would be a token gesture by the major parties to keep 3rd parties from ever growing large enough to challenge them. It effectively prevents any third party from winning a state, much less an election.

Actually, Perot could have won Maine in 92' with IRV.

exactly, thats what the system is all about

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Democrats would do well to take more responsibility for their own shortcomings. Plus the fact that Bush did as well as he did because many people are easily fooled.
The main thing is that Democrats need to pay more attention to liberal voters. For example, many Americans opposed the Iraq war. Taking the liberal vote for granted and spending all your time, money and especially rhetoric on a few swing voters in a few swing states is bad politics.

This is the same thing I've said for years.

Clinton won in '96, but he blew it for the Democrats in the long run. Totally blew it. After 1994 he had a perfect opportunity to run against the Contract With America's many failures, but he squandered it. A golden opportunity, gone. Gone into thin air. And it's never coming back.

He should have run as a real progressive populist, but instead he actually moved far to the right, with welfare "reform", school uniforms, and other rightist ideas. He would have won by a bigger margin if he hadn't caved to the Rethugs on everything.

I could not and did not support Clinton in '96, because of this.

[MODU]

Clinton won in '96, but he blew it for the Democrats in the long run. Totally blew it. After 1994 he had a perfect opportunity to run against the Contract With America's many failures, but he squandered it. A golden opportunity, gone. Gone into thin air. And it's never coming back.

Yet he and some of the Dems take credit for the federal economic conditions during Clintons term, which occurred due to Congress and the Contract with America.  Ahhhh . . . the ol' political catch-22. 

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Yet he and some of the Dems take credit for the federal economic conditions during Clintons term, which occurred due to Congress and the Contract with America.  Ahhhh . . . the ol' political catch-22.

I don't see what there was to take credit for. The economy in 1998 was a disaster, because of the Contract With America, despite what the media kept saying. If not for the ".com" industry, the whole country probably would have gone bankrupt.

[MODU]

Yet he and some of the Dems take credit for the federal economic conditions during Clintons term, which occurred due to Congress and the Contract with America.  Ahhhh . . . the ol' political catch-22.

I don't see what there was to take credit for. The economy in 1998 was a disaster, because of the Contract With America, despite what the media kept saying. If not for the ".com" industry, the whole country probably would have gone bankrupt.

Then you haven't been listening to Gore plus everyone else talking about the "surplus" (which really wasn't a surplus) under Clinton.  Between the Congress being against the President and shutting down the government, and the force to stick to a balance budget, the "surplus" would have never existed.  This is one of the reasons why I like when the two branches of government are lead by different parties (forced checks-and-balances).

[skybridge]

The Democrats never handled Nader well. How can they blame him for costing Gore the election when even they say he played by the rules and Bush didn't? Then instead of recognizing that in 2000 the majority of voters clearly wanted to continue on a liberal path, they almost voluntarily abandon their base and allow the opposition to bully them into self-defeat. What a winning strategy!

In 2004 Nader's campaign represented more of a statement than a serious run for the presidency. But it's up to Ralph what he wants to do with his remaining time. Let's not pretend we know what's best for him.

[Democratic Hawk]

Ralph Nader is just a bleeding nuisance candidate

Dave

[True Democrat]

In 2000, only Florida would switch hands if 3rd party votes were distributed to each major party.

New Hampshire would have also switched to Gore.  Also, many close states like New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin, and possibly a few others could have switched to Bush because of Buchanan.

[Speed of Sound]

it may have made the 2000 election election even MORE interesting