He has formed a presidential exploratory committee, according to the latest reports.

But really, this is a bit over the top. I don't blame Nader for the 2000 result - if he wants to run to stand up for what he believes in, more power to him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Someone please throw sulphuric acid in his face before this malevolent fool does even more damage. We already have him to thank for Bush beating Gore in 2000.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Someone please throw sulphuric acid in his face before this malevolent fool does even more damage. We already have him to thank for Bush beating Gore in 2000.

---

The U.S. is ruled by a powerful right-wing minority. Something like 36 percent of American voters pledge regular support for the elephant party running big money election campaigns. The corporate-sponsored news media tells Americans what they believe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
We already have him to thank for Bush beating Gore in 2000.

---

quote:

---

Matthews then raised the charge that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election by taking 1.63% of the votes in Florida and that he'd violated a promise not to run in any contested states. Nader replied that he'd always said he would run in all 50 states and insisted that "Gore won in Florida."

Nader also argued that his own candidacy helped Gore overall. "By pushing Gore to take more progressive policies, unlike what Lieberman wanted to do, social scientists concluded that the Green campaign got more votes for Gore," Nader stated. "Every time he went out after the oil, drug, insurance companies, his polls went up."

"A lot of people think that pulled him away from the center," Matthews commented.

"It's a false assessment," Nader replied, suggesting that rather than trying to preserve their monopoly over progressive voters, the Democratic Party should have stolen his 2000 platform.

"Wouldn't the old Democrats have taken it away and gotten more votes?" he asked. "Living wage, full universal health care, restructuring of the tax system, giving more voice to ordinary folks. They didn't. That's the reason they lost."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
If they were so dumb and short-sighted that they couldn't see that Bush would be far, far worse than Gore, wouldn't you say they got what they deserved?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bliter:
Isn't this counseling, to do something just a tad criminal?

---

It's not a matter of "rights". This is an election. People who'd vote for Nader should rather have a Democrat (maybe even Kerry) than a Republican (especially Bush). So in voting for Nader they help the Republicans: welcome or not, rights-respecting or not, that's the reality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
We already have him to thank for Bush beating Gore in 2000.

---

It doesn't matter whether Nader gets votes, since he cannot win, and he cannot get enough votes to cause a swing in the Democrats' platform either. All a Nader voter is doing is pleasing him- or herself. But voting is a social act. And it does matter, to society, whether the Democrat gets votes, because the Democrat might win.

Not that there isn't a case for alternative candidates, but the baggage attached to Ralph as an individual(his refusal to consider a "safe states" campaign option that would put an alternative candidate out there but not give that candidate the blame if the Democratic ticket were defeated, the personal enmity Democrats and a lot of other progressives feel towards Ralph for his inflexibility on campaign tactics, and the success of the "Ralph elected Bush" meme) would, in my view, totally negate his ability to be a spokesman for the progressive views he has championed in the past.

I think the Greens should nominate someone else this year. If nothing else, they should nominate somebody who is actually a MEMBER of the Green Party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Someone please throw sulphuric acid in his face before this malevolent fool does even more damage. We already have him to thank for Bush beating Gore in 2000.

---

Nice. I don't recall Nader being involved in taking minority voters off the rolls in Florida in 2000, but I don't follow American politics that closely. Wouldn't it have been better to use your sulphuric violence on Bush than Nader? After all, Bush is/was the problem.

[ 01 February 2008: Message edited by: Briguy ]

By that reckoning I'd have to vote for Pauline Marois because she is ever so-slightly-less-right-wing than Charest, instead of working on Québec solidaire. No thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
I do, however, blame those idiots who voted for him on the basis that "there's no difference between Bush and Gore". If they were so dumb and short-sighted that they couldn't see that Bush would be far, far worse than Gore, wouldn't you say they got what they deserved?

---

Then perhaps the Democrats need to take a good hard look in the mirror and ask themselves what they need to do to speak for these voters. For the past 6 years, the Dems have said, "you need to vote for us in order to stop Bush." 2 years ago the American people gave the Dems a majority in both houses of Congress. Since then, the Dems have failed miserably on that point, and this is in a political climate where Bush is extremely unpopular. If not now, could you imagine the Democrats ever standing up to the Republicans?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Then perhaps the Democrats need to take a good hard look in the mirror and ask themselves what they need to do to speak for these voters.

---

quote:

---

By that reckoning I'd have to vote for Pauline Marois because she is ever so-slightly-less-right-wing than Charest, instead of working on Québec solidaire. No thanks.

---

quote:

---

2 years ago the American people gave the Dems a majority in both houses of Congress. Since then, the Dems have failed miserably on that point, and this is in a political climate where Bush is extremely unpopular. If not now, could you imagine the Democrats ever standing up to the Republicans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
We already have him to thank for Bush beating Gore in 2000.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
While it goes without saying that Ralph Nader has as much right to run as anybody else, I really hope he will stay out of the race this year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Then perhaps the Democrats need to take a good hard look in the mirror and ask themselves what they need to do to speak for these voters.

---

No arguement at all there, and I AM a Democrat. That was one of the reasons I had been working for Kucinich, before corporate power arranged for him to have strong challengers in his own congressional primary in order to force him out of the presidential race and close the discussion.

But the other issue that remains is electoral reform. Our left needs to put that first, before any talk of a third party. Without it, third party efforts will always keep petering out into nothing.

Until we have instant runoff voting, until we abolish the Three/Fifths Compromise-based Electoral College and finally count the votes of each U.S. voter equally, third party efforts are doomed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
But the other issue that remains is electoral reform. Our left needs to put that first, before any talk of a third party. Without it, third party efforts will always keep petering out into nothing.

Until we have instant runoff voting, until we abolish the Three/Fifths Compromise-based Electoral College and finally count the votes of each U.S. voter equally, third party efforts are doomed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by melovesproles:
If Clinton wins the Democratic nod I hope there is a strong progressive third party campaign, either Cynthia McKinney or Nader.

---

All that would do is drive votes away from the Dems, and ensure a Republican win. Ugh.

quote:

---

There is a reason why Anne Coultier is supporting Clinton.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agent 204:

Interesting that you advocate IRV rather than a more proportional system. Is that because PR doesn't work as well in a congressional system as it does in a Westminster-style system? I could see that being true, since congressional systems aren't really equipped to deal with loss of supply.

---

To clarify:

I advocate IRV for the presidency. A single executive office of that nature can't properly be awarded through PR. It would also be the logical choice for governor's races in the U.S.

PR would make more sense in legislative races, perhaps with two forms of PR, one for each chamber in a bicameral legislature or for Congress. This would enable both political and racial/ethnic/regional voices to have their say in the legislative process in the way that FPTP will never do.

quote:

---

...drive votes away from the Dems, and ensure a Republican win. Ugh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

The consequences for the world of having Bush as president over the last 7 years instead of Gore are literally about a billion times greater than the consequences of having Jean Charest as premier of Quebec instead of Pauline Marois.

---

I wonder at what point anyone might consider the fact that Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 because they ran shitty campaigns with crappy candidates.

Pat Buchanan ran in 2000 but you don't hear Repblicans whining about it after the fact. They didn't have to because they listened to the critique, ensured that most of their base stayed with them and ran a candidate who could win.

I'm sick and tired of listening to Democrat hacks and their supporters trying to blame Ralph Nader for the fact that they are a shitty uninspiring party that runs shitty uninspiring candidates in shitty uninspiring campaigns.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
I'm sick and tired of listening to Democrat hacks and their supporters trying to blame Ralph Nader for the fact that they are a shitty uninspiring party that runs shitty uninspiring candidates in shitty uninspiring campaigns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
Would Edward's message been as progressive or as well received if Nader hadn't run?

---

Probably. It's arguable that Kucinich had more influence on Edwards' embrace of populism than Ralph did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Personally, I think you're full of shit, because the Clinton - Obama - Edwards campaigns this year has been some of the best campaigning and debating I've seen since Bill Clinton's first run for the WH.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:

Secondly, let's pretend I'm a US voter who wants a universal health care plan and an immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Which one of the two "fantastic" Democrats should I vote for?

---

[ 01 February 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
I'm sick and tired of listening to Democrat hacks and their supporters trying to blame Ralph Nader for the fact that they are a shitty uninspiring party that runs shitty uninspiring candidates in shitty uninspiring campaigns.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the same collection of idiots is about to select Hillary Clinton who will, I'm certain, lose to John McCain. Then they can spend another four years blaming Ralph Nader again instead of looking in the goddam mirror.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Clinton promised both in last nights debate, and it's on the debate record, but she'll withdraw from Iraq a bit slower than Obama. She said (again on the debate record) that on her first day in office, she will instruct the Pentagon for plans to leave Iraq.

---

When I said a plan for universal health care and withdrawl from Iraq, I meant: a plan to ensure that the US government provides universal health coverage for all US citizens and a plan to get US forces out of Iraq.

As we all know Obama and Clinton both support universal health coverage that won't cover anyone. And support withdrawing US forces from Iraq while keeping the US in Iraq.

To be fair to myself, however, I'm not sure I am the one causing the confusion.

[ 01 February 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]

But Ralph's presence in the race is the one thing guaranteed to make sure that neither happens.

You have to understand the almost psychotic rage the man inspires in a lot of Dems to really appreciate this. It's irrational, it's insane, but when these people see Ralph on the ballot, they lose their grip on reality and, well, get close to demanding that caustic chemicals be thrown in the man's face.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
It's true that the Democrats have a lot of changes to make and a hard look to take at ourselves.

---

quote:

---

You have to understand the almost psychotic rage the man inspires in a lot of Dems to really appreciate this. It's irrational, it's insane, but when these people see Ralph on the ballot, they lose their grip on reality and, well, get close to demanding that caustic chemicals be thrown in the man's face.

---

quote:

---

Ralph has stood for good things, but his presence in electoral politics now basically stops the discussion he wants to start.

---

I don't want to rehash the ancient debates you and I have had on this. You know as well as I do that a third party now would simply guarantee that the MOST reactionary forces in U.S. politics would have unchallenged and unchallengeable power for the next twenty years or more, and that even if a new left emerged after that it would be too late to matter. You simply refuse to accept that this is of any importance, for some reason. You take a view on the matter that only a middle-class white male intellectual living in some personal comfort could afford to take. Workers, people of color, women and the poor can't wait twenty or thirty years in the name of some eventual deliverance.

Some people might say that there is a great untapped pool of people who don't vote because they don't think there's any difference between the Republicans and Democrats. That's nonsense. Virtually all Americans believe there are significant differences between the two parties, although they are not the same differences someone on the Canadian left might see, or consider relevant.

There simply isn't a viable left electorate in the US. Good luck creating one. If circumstances arrive that might bring this about, like another Great Depression, you're more than likely to see the Democrats move over to get their votes, just like they did the first time.

Even in an idiosyncratic place like Vermont, where Bernie Sanders managed to get into Congress, he had to ally himself with the Democrats to get into the Senate.

Established parties have a lot of staying power, even in countries which have proportional representation systems which make it a lot easier for new parties. As Ken said, barring a proportional system, efforts to create a new left party in the US will just benefit the right.

[ 01 February 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Another candidacy by Ralph would simply close the doors forever.

---

quote:

---

You know as well as I do that a third party now would simply guarantee that the MOST reactionary forces in U.S. politics would have unchallenged and unchallengeable power for the next twenty years or more, and that even if a new left emerged after that it would be too late to matter.

---

Your "twenty years" have come and gone repeatedly, and the USA is still no safer from the threat of the "MOST" reactionary forces.

quote:

---

You take a view on the matter that only a middle-class white male intellectual living in some personal comfort could afford to take. Workers, people of color, women and the poor can't wait twenty or thirty years in the name of some eventual deliverance.

---

quote:

---

And you also simply refuse to accept the fact that the fight for electoral reform needs to come first. Why you refuse to accept this second fact is a bonafide mystery.

---

This isn't scare tactics, it's reality. The Electoral College would guarantee it. The campaign funding advantage of the Right would guarantee it.

Would you want to live in the U.S. in such a time?
If you had to live there under those conditions, would you see any hope for gains? You'd have a Republican party holding every office in the country, never being defeated by anyone. You'd have the repeal of the entire New Deal. No one could recover after losses of that catastrophic magnitude.

What part of "resistance would be futile" do you not understand, when looking at a situation like that? You know there's no positive outcome that cold emerge of one party collapsing leaving the other permanently unchallenged.

And I've been supporting electoral reform the whole time, while you were mocking its importance. You KNOW a third party candidate can never be elected while the Electoral College remains in place. Why even pretend otherwise?

And, to clarify, I wasn't even saying that there shouldn't be ANYBODY running for president on a third -party ticket. What I was saying was that Ralph shouldn't be the one that does. Anybody else would be bound to be more effective and less polarizing.

And, fyi, I spent eight years supporting the Greens. We made no meaningful gains in all that time. What does that tell you?

[ 01 February 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
A simple majority cannot overcome a presidential veto.

---

No, but the Dems could have demanded tougher restrictions on funding the war than they ended up and not budged from that position. They're still thinking about "bipartisanship" and working together. There's a reason Cindy Sheehan is challenging Nancy Pelosi in the congressional race.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Our left needs to put that first, before any talk of a third party. Without it, third party efforts will always keep petering out into nothing.

---

I think efforts need to be focused more locally. Surely there are effective politicians elected at local and state levels? With some effort, they could go for and win seats in the House of Representatives. This will build up confidence in other parties, and as these parties grow, they can then reach for the Senate, and possibly the White House. It is a long-term project, however. It's unreasonable to run for President off the bat, lose, and say "we tried" and then give up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
IMHO the reason the US does not have a viable left party like the NDP, is that Americans don't want one.

---

That's a load of crap. When you look at the major issues facing the US, public opinion lines up against the Republicans on almost every major issue. You underestimate the role the media plays in shaping the political culture, and marginalising anyone who doesn't fit into the narrow spectrum the powerful like to impose on people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
Some people might say that there is a great untapped pool of people who don't vote because they don't think there's any difference between the Republicans and Democrats. That's nonsense. Virtually all Americans believe there are significant differences between the two parties, although they are not the same differences someone on the Canadian left might see, or consider relevant.

---

quote:

---

IMHO the reason the US does not have a viable left party like the NDP, is that Americans don't want one.

---

Another reason is that the party system in the US is vastly different from Canada. There is essentially no party discipline whatsoever - once you are elected to congress as a Democrat, there is nothing to stop you from voting like a member of the Socialist Workers Party. Kucinich is a Democratic member of congress and so was Cynthia McKinney.

In Canada, it doesn't matter what you personally believe, if you are a Liberal MP, you are forced to vote in lockstep with your party 100% of the time or face expulsion.

So, in short, why bother creating a 3rd party when its so much easier to just stage "hostile takeovers" of the Democratic party one locality at a time.

Back in the 70s, a lot of extreme conservatives in the US were dissatisfied with the GOP and flirted with creating a 3rd party. Instead they concentrated on infiltrating the GOP and they got Reagan elected as President.

There's enough to get someone like Kucinich or Ron Dellums elected now and then, but that's about as far as it goes.

quote:

---

That's a load of crap. When you look at the major issues facing the US, public opinion lines up against the Republicans on almost every major issue. You underestimate the role the media plays in shaping the political culture, and marginalising anyone who doesn't fit into the narrow spectrum the powerful like to impose on people.

---

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
That sounds to me like a wordy way of saying "American voters are too dumb to vote in their own self-interest". Well perhaps they are, and if so, that's another point in favour of my argument IMHO.

---

In places where the electorate does have a clue, people like Kucinich and Bernie Sanders do get elected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
The political system is unresponsive to their needs because they won't vote for people who represent their real needs.

In places where the electorate does have a clue, people like Kucinich and Bernie Sanders do get elected.

To paraphrase Cassius, the fault lies not with their system, but with themselves.

---

And how is anyone who does represent their real needs run in the first place? Do you realise the large amounts of money involved in American politics? How is any average person supposed to compete in that environment?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
I'm sick and tired of listening to Democrat hacks and their supporters trying to blame Ralph Nader for the fact that they are a shitty uninspiring party that runs shitty uninspiring candidates in shitty uninspiring campaigns.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the same collection of idiots is about to select Hillary Clinton who will, I'm certain, lose to John McCain. Then they can spend another four years blaming Ralph Nader again instead of looking in the goddam mirror.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
PS: why are you being such an asshole wrt the Dems, knowing they are the only alternative to the !@#$!!! Republicans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Don't hold back, now! (I agree with you, as long as your "collection of idiots" and "hacks" remarks are not aimed at babblers. But I'm sure they're not. )

---

quote:

---

Four states held Green Party presidential primaries on February 5. Arkansas and California state elections officials have incomplete, unofficial results, but Illinois and Massachusetts elections officials do not provide that service.

Arkansas: With only three-fourths of the counties reporting so far, the results are: uncommitted 273; Cynthia McKinney 116; Jared Ball 54; Kent Mesplay 48; Kat Swift 26. Ralph Nader was unable to have his name on this ballot since he hasn’t declared his candidacy. Arkansas Greens have severely criticized Pulaski County (the most populous county in the state) election administrators, for not making Green Party ballots available in many precincts.

California: with 96% of the precincts reporting (but many uncounted absentee and provisional ballots), the results are: Ralph Nader 16,835; Cynthia McKinney 7,124; Elaine Brown 1,259; Kat Swift 843; Kent Mesplay 564; Jesse Johnson 506; Jared Ball 444.

Illinois: check back for better results. The Chicago Tribune reports 1,446 for Cynthia McKinney, 438 for Howie Hawkins, 369 for Kent Mesplay, and 302 for Jared Ball. Thanks to Brian (commenter below) for these returns. As in Arkansas, Green Party activists are making a determined effort to alert the press in Illinois of election day problems. In Cook County and certain other counties, there were many precincts in which elections officials told voters that there is no Green Party primary ballot.

Massachusetts: check back for better results. Fragmentary returns suggest that the race between Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney is extremely close.

---

Moorehead to Blame not Nader I must say though that if I had been in Florida I would have voted for Monica Moorehead since she was clearly the only real anti-imperialist candidate on the ballot.

Silly me.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Years ago there was an Aislin cartoon about Europeans in the NHL. One player to another: "Who's this Schmidt?" Other guy: "New forward. German." Long pause. First player: "German? Is that French or English?"

There is nothing like the Bloc quebecois or the NDP in the US, nor has there ever been; and there has been nothing like the PC-Reform-Conservative succession since the Civil War. Many countries are dominated by two parties (or coalitions of parties), but only in America is there really only two parties. The NDP (and BQ) with us, the Lib-Dems in the UK, the Democrats in Australia, and several parties in New Zealand are all important at national and sub-national levels, and can realistically dream of replacing a dominant party...no such thing in the US.

quote:

---

Melovesproles: there is a reason why Anne Coultier is supporting Clinton

---

quote:

---

Drive votes away from the Dems and ensure a Republican win.

---

I doubt it. It would be a nice thought if the main effect of Coulter and Limbaugh had on the American public was that they motivated people to do the opposite of what they endorsed. But I'm afraid there are a lot of Americans who aren't repelled by them.

I think these two are actually not tactically wrong if you take their endorsements at face value. Whereas the opinion makers on the left usually advocate constantly moving to the center and attack their base for not holding their nose to vote for the candidate or platform which represents 'compromise';the right recognizes that sometimes its necessary to let your side lose in order for matters of 'principle' to be respected by their representatives. They did the same thing during Bush the First over taxes and the Republican party got the message.

Coulter and Limbaugh also know they don't have a lot to fear from Clinton. The Clinton years weren't so bad for Conservatives really, they got to see welfare gutted, the prison industry thrived, a precedent was setting by ignoring the UN and bombing the Balkans, Iraq was squeezed and weakened up, settlements in Palestine continued....ect. And working class Americans who found themselves increasingly squeezed themselves moved away from the Democrats and towards the Republicans who claimed that the Dems wanted to sell them out to Walmart and China(as if Hilary's time with Walmart isn't going to be used in a Republican campaign) and instead promised them the comfort of 'spiritual' and 'moral' politics. The Republican movement came back stronger than ever and the Democrats lost the trust of those who had traditionally supported them. Whats not to like for Anne and Rush, especially since McCain isn't their kind of Rethug, heck he isn't even a fan of torture..

[ 07 February 2008: Message edited by: melovesproles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mercy:
Don't you see? The Americans have two incredibly shitty parties that agree on almost everything. Anybody who has the gall to try and change that is Hitler reborn.

Ralph Nader took a stand on principle. He must never be forgiven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boarsbreath:
We have a two-party system...?

---

Thus voting NDP in Canada makes no more sense, according to your theory, than voting for Ralph Nader in the US.

quote:

---

Thus voting NDP in Canada makes no more sense, according to your theory, than voting for Ralph Nader in the US.

---

But of course it makes far more sense here. We don't vote for "President", we vote for members of Parliament. So, if I decide to vote for Olivia Chow of the NDP, there is a fair chance that she will be elected. As a member of Parliament, she can accomplish certain things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

But of course it makes far more sense here. We don't vote for "President", we vote for members of Parliament. So, if I decide to vote for Olivia Chow of the NDP, there is a fair chance that she will be elected. As a member of Parliament, she can accomplish certain things.

In the Presidential system, the winner takes all. So unless Gore and Bush are identically awful, voting for Nader wastes a vote, and in fact depletes Gore's total.

---

More importantly, I find it unbelievable that the Democrats who "ended welfare as we know it" who relentlessly pushed NAFTA and then the FTAA, who broke their promise to bring in health reform, that bombed Sudan in the hopes of distracting people from the fact that the President lied about screwing his intern, the same Democrats who OVERWHELMINGLY voted to attack Iraq - that THOSE Democrats feel that they are owed anyone's allegiance.

quote:

---

Nader had scored a breakthrough in 2000 - which wasn't impossible

---

I have no problem with Nader putting his name out there. But a VOTER would have known, on the day of the election, that Nader was going to get about 2 million votes, based on the polls, or 1/30th of either Bush or Gore'a totals.

So, there was no possibility whatsoever of a Nader victory.

I also don't blame people for voting for Nader anyway. It wasn't certain at all that his vote would make the difference for Gore, until afterwards.

1. Any vote which is not for an elected candidate.

2. Any vote which does not help to elect a candidate.

Voting for someone based on the probability that they will win is not the same as voting one's conscience, which is fundamental to democracy.

quote:

---

"[American legislatures] should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people
at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them." -John Adams

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by melovesproles:

Coulter and Limbaugh also know they don't have a lot to fear from Clinton. The Clinton years weren't so bad for Conservatives really, they got to see welfare gutted, the prison industry thrived...

---

The Bill Clinton years made Fox News what it is. With their ratings going down the tubes, with people turning away from the Limbaughs and Coulters in droves, a Clinton presidency would be a shot in the arm for the right wing reactionaries across the USA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

But of course it makes far more sense here. We don't vote for "President", we vote for members of Parliament. So, if I decide to vote for Olivia Chow of the NDP, there is a fair chance that she will be elected. As a member of Parliament, she can accomplish certain things.

In the Presidential system, the winner takes all. So unless Gore and Bush are identically awful, voting for Nader wastes a vote, and in fact depletes Gore's total.

---

That also means that we cannot expect something that matches our personal ideals. So if it's not what you'd call democracy, because the parties that other people like appall you, you should redefine democracy.

Democracy is like communication: it's easy to think there is some ideal form, just because we can imagine it; but there isn't. It's social, so it's subtle, dynamic, and relative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
But I do think that people should learn from their mistakes. i would be less likely to squander my vote, if the result was Bush/Cheney/Huckabee/MaCain?Romney instead of reasonably acceptable Democrats like Obama.

---

I used to think that way too. Then, after Katrina shattered any illusion that Bush was actually concerned about the well-being of the US, and the problems with GOP candidates and their corruption charges, Americans got angry. They got so angry that 2 autumns ago they gave the Democrats a majority in both houses of Congress. What kind of opposition to Bush have we seen? The US is no closer to withdrawing from Iraq, despite Congress having the authority to reduce the funding for the war. Don't forget that Senator Reid in Nevada is praised by the right as a "moderate," and many Democrats believe in "bipartisan dialogue" with the very same people who have no intention of making things better. These are also the same Democrats who, after taking the votes of the anit-war movement, turned on Sheehan with the same kind of vitriol that came from Republicans. So it's hard for me to accept the case that the Democrats are a "lesser evil" considering their lack of opposition to this administration. Bottom line is, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats represent me on any of the issues, so if I was an American voter I'd be putting my efforts behind a third party.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
What's so fucking hard about having run-off elections, anyway? Most other winner-take-all countries have the technology to either rank your choices or they run 2nd and 3rd ballots.

---

The US would have to get rid of the electoral college first which sounds like a no-brainer but unfortunately the bigger states like it (in theory anyway) since the "winner take all" state by state contests means that a big state can have a lot of clout by being able to deliver 30 or 50 electoral votes in a bloc. Getting rid of the electoral college and having a system where the person who actually wins the most votes wins the election (or if no one gets a majority the first try, there is a run-off two weeks later) would mean it wouldn't matter as much in the overall picture if candidate x gets 49% of the vote in California or 51%.

quote:

---

The Democrats have not learned and will not learn the importance of supporting one's base. It's time for progressive Americans to learn to build better options.

---

I think there is a lot of truth in the idea that the Democrats failed when given electoral power this last time, though I cannot really say that NOTHING is different than if the Republicans still had a majority.

But yes, many Democrats are compromised.

That's one side of the equation. The OTHER side of the equation is that a dozen campaigns have started to the left of the Democrats, and none of them ever get anywhere. Ever.

So, it's not as if one of the two choices has not been tried. They BOTH have been tried, and they BOTH have been found wanting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I think there is a lot of truth in the idea that the Democrats failed when given electoral power this last time, though I cannot really say that NOTHING is different than if the Republicans still had a majority.

But yes, many Democrats are compromised.

That's one side of the equation. The OTHER side of the equation is that a dozen campaigns have started to the left of the Democrats, and none of them ever get anywhere. Ever.

So, it's not as if one of the two choices has not been tried. They BOTH have been tried, and they BOTH have been found wanting.

So, by all means, go organize a left-of-the-Democrats group. But I'd be willing to bet anyone here that it won't get 1% of the vote in any of the next five elections.

---

But but, but but....

Excuses excuses. People who live in the real world, who have to put up with the policies imposed on them by elected politicians, are fed up with such rationalisations.

As for not getting more than 1% of the vote, it has been explained here in detail just how badly stacked the deck is against anyone who challenges the Elite Consensus. Which only proves the point that voting is, at best, only marginally influential.

Also, third party activists and pro-democracy activists in the U.S. should be working for electoral reform, using the initiative process to put reform measures on the ballot.

Finally, there is the model of "The Other Campaign" in the last Mexican election, where the Zapatistas, while not actually fielding a candidate, toured to present the issues the major parties were avoiding.

All of these approaches are bound to have much greater liklihood of achieving something than third-party presidential politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Running for the Presidential position off the bat is not going to work.

---

The Libertarians and Greens have been taking this approach for decades with no success. The media in the United States (and the voters - an American friend of mine asked some younger people in their class what they would do if they wanted a park in their neighbourhood - they said "write a letter to the president") are presidency-obsessed.

This is particularly important for political movements aimed at raising consciousness as well as gaining political power. For instance, Ron Paul may not have come close to winning the Republican primary this time around, but he certainly introduced a lot of people to his message (whether you like it or not) through the medium of running for president.

Moreover, even if running locally were a viable option, why is it any different if say, a Republican wins because of a vote-split on the left in Connecticut's third district? It is the same problem that people blame Nader for.

The REAL problem is that the Democrats have ignored their base. They don't OWN the base, and are not entitled to it. If people prefer one candidate over another, why should they be faulted for that - especially when there are MILLIONS of people who would have preferred Gore, but STAYED HOME.

Finally, would President Gore have been radically different from Bush? Gore's transformation into the darling of the left took place after the 2000 election, not before. While he had been outspoken on environmental issues throughout, he was also a hawkish fiscal conservative. He was one of the few Democrats to support the first Gulf War, and helped push Clinton towards supporting welfare reform.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
The best approach for those who want third parties is to work from the local level up, local government and state legislatures.

---

I missed that step. Sure, successful politicians at that level would be in a strong position to challenge for congressional seats.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkdale High Park:
Moreover, even if running locally were a viable option, why is it any different if say, a Republican wins because of a vote-split on the left in Connecticut's third district?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

Obviously, scrapping the Electoral College and allowing people to vote directly for president with the actual national vote being the determining factor in the contest would be more democratic. But there would be strong resistance to getting the required constitutional amendment passed. The Democrats talked a lot about it after the 2000 debacle but I haven't heard anything about it lately.

---

This is one thing that actually is coming along. I heard about it a few weeks ago when NJ confirmed.

National Popular Vote: A Civil Rights Issue

quote:

---

While it may seem like a Herculean task to do away with such an entrenched and hefty dinosaur as the Electoral College, we aren’t as far off as you might think. Just two weeks ago, New Jersey Governor John Corzine signed a bill making his state the second after Maryland to sign on to the National Popular Vote interstate compact. While the pact, in its current form, is not yet two years old, it has already garnered approval in legislative bodies in Arkansas, California, Hawaii, and North Carolina, with a bill in Illinois having passed both houses and currently awaiting Governor Rod Blagojevich's signature.

---

quote:

---

As is unfortunately the case with so many aspects of our electoral system, it is people of color who wind up disenfranchised and underrepresented. Since most non-white voters (79% of African Americans and 81% of Latinos according to a report from FairVote.org) are concentrated in pre-decided "red" or "blue" states, their districts rarely see a dime of campaign spending. As a result, voter turnout in these districts lags almost 10% behind turnout in swing states.

---

Consider states that are usually close: Florida, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico all have high hispanic populations.

The rust belt (Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania) has a fair-sized black population, as does Missouri.

Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Minnesota, by contrast, are predominantly white swing states.