NEWS: The Answer To Our Problems Is Here: Nader

Duverger's law

Wow. I learned something today. Thanks!

Yay!!! Knowledge is good

This, actually, carried out correctly, could be a spectacular idea. Glamorizing our political officials is really what we need, especially since more people vote for American Idol than for President. And really, who's more an American Idol than those who shape the country?

Another idea would be to have a series of debates, almost like a TV series, put on throughout the spring or summer, in which each week, two or three candidates debate issues for a good hour, hour and a half before three more take the podiums the next week, for a good eight or so weeks, maybe more. The more recognizable candidates could be spattered about throughout those less so, so that it doesnt seem like they're given more credence than others. This could be on prime time, on a major network, with heavy advertising, and maybe each week an unofficial cell phone poll could be conducted for favorites, who won the debate, etc.

American culture has spiraled down into a completely media-based society, where advertising, ratings, and money alone drive what people are interested in. People watch "America's Got Talent" because commercials tell them to watch it. Same with drivel like "Dancing With The Washed Up Celebrities No One Cares About Anymore." Commercials don't tell people to get politically active. Debates have no real place in this culture, and thus politics are becoming increasingly less important to young (white) people in the United States because candidates just aren't marketable to youth as they are. The way to save the American democratic system is to use it to both take part in and undermine this new cultural structure. Hell, we could get Paris Hilton to be the host. Who doesn't like Paris Hilton? Eh? I mean, uh, Izzy? Who doesn't like her? /tugs collar

I would also like to point out that even if every one who Nader had voted for Gore, it would have not changed the electoral vote in ANY state...and like NickFaust pointed out Gore won the popular vote.

Wrong, again, 21,000 people voted for Nader in New Hampshire and Gore lost by 7,000 votes.

Nader (or any other candidate) could never foil the plot of these "mettling kids."

"If voting could actually change something, it would be illegal."

Get out there, do your part, and hide in those booths! Feel the unbridled power surge through you as you dump your decision-making ability and dignity into the hands of someone you've never met, who doesn't give a hog's shit about you! OOO, it feels so GOOD! What a DIFFERENCE you're making! Voting is *snicker* POWER!

</sarcasm>

don't beat yourself up, man. i was at the 2000 democratic national convention protest, i went to the nader speech in long beach, and i voted nader with pride. 7 years later i respect my decision at the time, but am despondant at the way things have turned.

To give the EC its due, can you imagine the mindbending clusterfuck that would be a close election on a national election? Any math geek will tell you, big numbers get very, very fuzzy. Elections--even honest ones, are pretty messy things up close.

Plus, then I wouldn't get to circle "Electrical College" at least twice per semester.

Personally, I think the Electoral College could work just fine if the way they assigned votes from a state was just (at least sort-of) proportional. Rather than winner-take-all.

The number of Electors for a given state is the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Instead of assigning those Electors as a lump to the state, have them cast their electoral votes according to the way the corresponding districts went, with the extra two going the way the state went as a whole. If a third-party candidate won a few districts, he (or she) would get a few electoral votes - rather than needing to win a whole state to get any.

As it is, you can lose a majority of a state's popular vote, while winning a majority of districts. And thereby winning all of the state's Electoral votes. While virtually every stage of the electoral process in the U.S. is plurality-driven, the Electoral College assigns a majority - an artificial majority.

An (overly-simplified) illustration follows:

And Nader (or Kucinich, or Paul) could still take some votes, without fucking up the outcome as a whole so much.


Whaddaya think?

I think it makes too much sense to be implemented.

lol +1

Does the old argument that the two parties are the same still valid in 2007? Does anybody believe we would be in Iraq if Gore won? I only got 50 more years max on Earth and I don't see the system changing before I die. Time to make do with the lesser of the evils party. Democrats don't listen to the far left because they know they will probably ditch them for a Nader anyway. I have given up on abandoning the Democratic Party and am now deciding to back it.

I think I've posted it here about a dozen times, but the only impact a third party candidate has is to draw votes away from whichever of the two parties is closest to his beliefs.

Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose candidacy drew off enough Republican votes to allow for the first Dixiecrat President since the post-bellum days. And race relations suffered for it.

Hard to say whether Perot being absent from the 1992 campaign could have won it for Bush I. Perot being on the ballot certainly didn't hurt Clinton's chances. Likewise with John Anderson in 1980 (though he was kind of Reagan-lite-and-still-not-Carter).

I really don't think Bush vs. Gore is a realistic example of why the two parties aren't the same; Bush is an exception (exceptionally evil in my opinion). If another candidate for the Repubs was in office it would be much harder to say they are vastly different.
(I'm not ignoring the fact that Bush didn't act alone).
I feel that the two parties only seem so polar to each other in this case because the current administration has been exceptionally fucked in ways that make every other party look very much more sane. (Though under the microscope this is arguable because of all the weak politicians pandering to the political winds for whatever their personal reasons).

My opinion overall is that the Rs and Ds aren't very different when you step back and look. They are both pretty close to center compared to the lesser known candidates who stand for any kind of real change in the way we live and think in society.

I'm still tossed-up on whether voting for a third party truly hurts things in the long run.
I mean if you don't vote for the party that really stands for what you want to see accomplished, how can you expect to ever see it happen? How can I expect to ever see a Green pres if I don't vote for him myself? Isn't this the way its supposed to work in theory?
It may take more than just staunchly voting for your party, but to not do so out of fear of "spoiling" seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy!

I love Ralph Nader threads almost as much as I love Ron Paul threads.



That is all.

Maybe they should mate.

Some day I want to run for office under the slogan "Vote for me. You could do a lot worse."

Neocolonial? Pro-business i get, but neocolonial? Is the American Corporate Media pushing to overturn that awful bolshie revolution you lot had? Let's hear it for Elizabeth the Second, Queen of the 52 American Colonies!

Oh yeah, he and Johny the Midget Stormtrooper would have gotten on like a house on fire.

Don't make us 'liberate' you.

Right on Comrade! The People (pls remember to always capitalise the People, they are important and are as one) can't be trusted to make important decisions and smell the bullshit, especially in the USA where most of them don't even vote. A communist state where the caring and honest cadres of the Party (also always capitalised to make it clear that there is only one Party) make all the decisions for the People is necessary.

Of course the Party's cadres also run everything so we can shoot all those nasty efficient capitalists who have made the west so wealthy and degenerate. When the cadres run the USA I can guarantee to you that they will not be polluting the environment to make people rich and happy, they will only be polluting it after heartfelt discussions about the core requirements of the People and the Party and with many tears for all the dead trees and furry creatures.

On and don't worry about people like Uncognitive. The Party has ways of dealing with dangerous believers in democracy.