tecoyah

There is so much I find wrong with our electoral proccess, I don't even know where this sort of thing fits in.


Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, is an independent candidate for president.
(ABCNEWS.com)
Who Backs Nader?
Dems Claim Independent Candidate Gets Backed by GOP to Divert Votes

By Jake Tapper and Mary Hood
ABCNEWS.com

July 24, 2004 — Consumer advocate Ralph Nader's quixotic presidential campaign says it submitted about 5,400 signatures to get on the Michigan ballot, far short of the required number of 30,000. Luckily for him, approximately 43,000 signatures were filed by Michigan Republicans on his behalf, more than meeting the requirement.

This week in Michigan, state Democrats filed a complaint to challenge a majority of those signatures, which they say are invalid. It is one chapter in an odd but potentially history-altering side story of this presidential election: Pro-Nader Republicans and anti-Nader Democrats may now be waging more aggressive Nader campaigns than even Nader's own effort.

‘You Are All Invited’

At an Oregon campaign event on June 26, Nader told the crowd, "You are invited here whether you are a Democrat, a Green, a libertarian, independent, a Republican; you are all invited."

Many Republicans didn't need the invitation and were already working hard to help Nader's signature drives to get on state ballots.

The Michigan Republican Party volunteers out circulating petitions two weeks ago, however, do not want Nader to be president. Rather, they hope Nader will siphon off votes from John Kerry to ensure President Bush's re-election. Nader could have rejected those GOP-obtained signatures, but the deadline to do so passed at 4 p.m. Monday with no protest from him or his campaign.

Just as aggressively, Democratic officials are doing everything they can to keep Nader off ballots, challenging his signatures in Michigan and elsewhere. Friday in Boston, Nader told reporters he had complained about these tactics — which he has called "dirty tricks" — with none other than Kerry himself.

"I said, 'Well, what are you going to do?'" Nader relayed. "He said, 'I'm going to look into this.' I said, 'You better look into this before you're presented with a mini-Watergate scandal.'"

Nader cautioned Democrats, whose national convention begins Monday, that, "It will only be a few days before we hold John Kerry and John Edwards personally responsible for what is going on." Seemingly threatening legal action, Nader added, "It won't be entirely verbal."



I am torn , as in the long run a third party seems the only salvation (if there is one) for the problems in our two party system. It would seem pointless however, if that party is just a pawn of the big boys and used as a tool for political manipulation.

there is more to this article in the link....if you wish to read it.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/P..._040724-1.html

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

FoolThemAll

I received an email from the Michigan GOP directing me to the petition. If I had a working printer, I would've printed out a few. I think it's pretty funny.

I think I'd sooner vote Kerry than Nader, though.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Superbelt

Think of every election since Bush/Dukakis.

Bush/Clinton - Spoiler Perot
Clinton/Dole - Spoiler Perot
Gore/Bush - Spoiler Nader
Bush/Kerry - Spoiler Nader -- Possibly Roy Moore

I think that is our reality for many years to come.
The end of the specifically two party election. Dem, Rep will still always be the winner. But now the big news will be which party will be spoiled by a third party.
I think what we now have to look forward to is the Dems and Reps catering to their far wings to keep them from losing base votes. Moving away from the center all together.
We are seeing it now with the Reps wanting to keep the Constitution party from getting in the race. They heat up their efforts to cut down the church/state barrier. Trying to pass Hate amendments.

Instant Runoff Voting is the solution to negating spoiler effect and letting third parties grow and be heard. It's actually in both parties immediate interest.

Seaver

Yeah, Spoiler Parties keep the Dem/Reps to their farther end spectrum to prevent them from being undercut by their own side (liberal/conservative). Unfortunately you have to remember that the biggest block of voters are right in the middle.

So to reach the middle voters they have to lose their edge, but losing their edge can be like shooting themselves in the foot.

Warf Rat

We don't want or need Nader to win !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________
A day late, and a dollar short.

Journeyman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...ection_results
[For Florida]

2912790 - 2912253 = 537
97421 > 537

But of course, with all the support that Nader gets from the GOP, I suppose if Nader wasn't around all the Nader votes would have went to the Republicans, right? At least a majority, no?

Sparhawk

The only person in America who thinks that votes for Nader DON'T take away votes from Kerry is Nader.

Face it, folks. As long as we have a winner-take-all system of government, a third party will never be more than a spoiler. The reason they work in other countries is that seats in Parliament are apportioned based on percentage of vote won. In our system, guess what the guy who doesn't get to 270 electoral votes gets? Zip. Zero. Nada.

edit: added the don't, haha...

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Dwayne

Why cant there be some one who takes away votes from Bush?

Superbelt

Perot almost ran again. And I think Roy Moore is still pondering some type of Dark Horse Run. It will most likely be for publicity to enhance his run at Governor of Alabama.

ubertuber

Correction - you should have said that the only person in America OTHER THAN UBERTUBER that thinks that votes for Nader DON'T take away votes from Kerry is Nader.

Nader can't take votes from Kerry because they aren't Kerry's votes. Those votes belong to the people that cast them, not the two parties - and if the Dems lose again by a margin smaller than Nader's draw, they better start thinking about ways to be more attractive than old Ralphy.

At this point I'm planning on voting Libertarian - but make no mistake, I'd be insulted if you told me that the Libertarians were taking my vote from W. He wouldn't have had it anyway, and as far as I'm concerned he hasn't earned my vote. Just because some of those people MAY have voted for Kerry if they didn't like Nader better doesn't mean that those were Kerry's votes. He should have to work for them like everyone else. Besides, can there be anyone in America that doesn't know that the Dems believe they would have won the last election if not for Nader? If people vote for Nader this time around, you can be sure that is what they meant to do.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

roachboy

while i might agree with ubertuber about the logic of attributing votes for nader to votes lost for kerry--but not about being a libertarian (which is a seperate issue, of course, and probably a seperate thread), what i am curious about is the trail of sources for this particular story---it is most curious----if the republicans were backing nader's candidacy, you would think they would want to keep quiet about it, no? but if the democrats wanted to show that there was something objectively askew about nader's candidacy, then blowing that story would serve their purposes best....

i dont know what to make of this--i have no extra information--but i have been wondering vaguely about this since i first saw these stories last week or so.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

kutulu

Although you are technically correct, it is still a fair analogy to say that Nader takes votes from Kerry.

cthulu23

Roachboy,

The Democrats have been screaming at the top of their lungs about the conservative backers of Nader, but I doubt that it is having much effect on Nader's ambitions.

The man is that rarest of creatures....an American political purist that has somehow captured some public attention. Nader feels that there is a purpose to be served in saying the things that are never said in this country, by either party. The idea that third parties have driven the (forgive me) Republicrats (Demopublicans?) to the extreme margins of their parties just doesn't survive any historical scrutiny. Can you imagine the modern Demos nominating McGovern or the Repubs Goldwater? Bush the militarist's nuclear threats may bring up visions of good old Barry, but Bush the economist has nothing to do with him.

Still, the Democrat's embrace of many American conservative ideas has pushed this country rightward in the last two decades, and it is exactly this that Nader wants to battle. I respect the man for his sheer political courage in effectively poisoning his own historical legacy. Not just anyone is willing to flush every bit of political capitol that they ever earned right down the toilet just to make a point.

With that said, I'm not voting for him this time. I was an active Nader campaigner last time (albeit in Louisiana, where Gore had no chance), but I feel that the stakes are different this time around. 9-11 gave Bush carte blanche in foreign policy and domestic security policy, he (ab)used these powers, and I think that our country has suffered from it. Although I wish that Ralph would give this election a pass, I can't fault the man for exercising his rights as a citizen. As Nader knows quite well, it sometimes takes a hellbent, cantankerous nut to change something.

KMA-628

I've been thinking about this thread lately and something popped in my head tonight.

I'd say it is break even regards to Nader.

For every story I hear about Republicans backing Nader I hear another story about Democrats doing everything they can to block him from being allowed on the polls (i.e. New Mexico).

So it sounds to me like both sides of the fence are playing dirty here.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Superbelt

I wouldn't say it's break even.

One side is doing what they are doing to let the election pan out in a head to head between the two.

The other is doing their business to handicap the opponent so theirs can get an easy win.
Both are playing dirty, but only one is doing it to actually pull someone down.

Still I back Naders efforts to get on the ballot. I think his intentions are noble, to get the parties to open their doors again.

roachboy

let me just say that if i lived in a different state this time, or if this was a different election, i would vote nader. hope this clears up the intent behind the previous post.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite