Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Confession: I voted for Nader (and will probably do so again) der

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Munch, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Confession: I voted for Nader (and will probably do so again)

    :eek:

    That's right folks, I voted for Nader. A man I despise. A man I feel is being selfish and shortsighted. A man who I would prefer get zero presidential votes.

    But why, Munch?!? You of democratic virtue and logic extraordinaire?

    Well, gather 'round folks, and I'll tell you a tale. A tale that begins in the backwater of Indiana, a place (daylight saving) time forgot. A place where the "Welcome to Indiana!" signs should have a subtitle of "Please set your watch back 83 years".

    You see, Indiana is a strange place. We've had a Democrat in the state house of many, many years. We have 1 Democrat and 1 Republican for Congressmen. Yet we've voted for a Republican for president for the last bazillion years, a trend that is going to continue. A vote for Al Gore in 2000 wasn't worth much. And I knew that.

    So did everyone else in the country. And that created the craze known as VOTE TRADING. Essentially, website were set up (nadertrader.org, voteswap2000.com, etc.) wherein Nader supporters in key swing states (Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, etc.) hooked up with Gore supporters in solidly Republican or Democratic states that had no chance of switching alligience (Indiana, Texas, New York, etc.). They agreed to essentially trade votes.

    So I was connected with someone in Michigan who gladly agreed to vote for Al Gore for me, and I voted for Ralph Nader. The Al Gore vote was much more valuable in Michigan, and the Nader vote was incredibly valuable in Indiana, since I had to write it in.

    If similar measures are set up this year, I'll do it again.
     
  2. Intolerance

    Intolerance IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I love democracy.

    ps: The electoral college system rocks!


    edit: I can see how the Gore vote cast for you would help you, but how would the Nader vote you cast help the other person (who cast the Gore vote in Michigan)? What is his motivation?
     
  3. advil

    advil IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    the other guy could vote his conscience (nader?!?) but still vote for the guy most likely to beat bush (gore). probably other rationales too, but that's the most obvious one to me.

    i can see the need and desire for vote-trading, but it screams of the need for voting reform more than anything else, to my eyes.

    *instant run-off voting, instant run-off voting*

    a simple thing, that would solve many many problems, yet threaten our 2-party system so we'll probably never get it.
     
  4. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Because Nader isn't trying to win, he's trying to make a statement. Getting 5% of the total vote ensures your party campaign financing in the next election. 1 vote cast in Indiana is just as valuable as a vote cast anywhere else. Write-in votes help even more not because they count more (they don't), but because the party can then say that they mobilized enough to encourage write-in votes - strengthening their argument to get on the ballot the next time around.

    If Nader truly was serious, and wasn't being selfish this year, he would have signed on with the Green Party - who he was aligned with in 2000. There's a national infrastructure to the group, it already has campaign funds in the coffers, and it can mobilize to get on the ballot in most states.

    I'll say it again for anyone who feels that an additional vote for Nader is going to help the party - fractionalizing the left only strengthens the right.
     
  5. Lone_C

    Lone_C IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Grr....just another reason why I despise the current Electoral college system; if your state consistently votes D or R your vote is next to meaningless (aside from this 'vote swapping'). Why can't we at least award the electoral votes proportionally, by congressional district, like Maine and Nebraska do?
     
  6. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Not a bad idea, Lone_C. I actually went through the Election data a couple months back and tallied electoral votes like that; with the winner of the popular vote getting the 2 senatorial electoral votes.

    Bush still won by the same margin. I haven't bothered to do the same for previous elections; might be interesting though.
     
  7. Pier

    Pier IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
  8. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Pier, the myth that Bush stole the election has been thoroughly debunked.

    Unless you count unsubstantiated claims by the NAACP that voters in predominantly black polling districts were denied the chance to vote and Black and Hispanic voters were purged from the rolls. Or that Pat Buchanan pulled in over 7,000 votes somehow in a district filled with elderly, mainly Jewish voters.

    It's a moot point really, had Gore won one more state (like TN), he'd be the ******* in charge now. Bush won, quit whining about it and do your best to put some other loser in office.
     
  9. Pier

    Pier IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    I still think they were stolen. A Republican Supreme Court covered up.

    Sorry, but since I'm not a US citizen I'mnot allowed to vote, so I'll have to watch how slightly less than 300 million people believe they live in democracy.

    You have only 2 parties that matter.
    That's one (1) more than a communist state, or that were in Iraq.
    So your twice as democratic??

    And what do people say when you want to vote for a third guy?
    "Go ahead, throw away your vote!!"

    Furthermore, the-winners-takes-all principle makes sure that every minority or different voice is systematically silenced and eliminated from representation in the government.

    Well, my opinion. No offense.

    Grr pIER
     
  10. Lone_C

    Lone_C IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    That's one of the main reasons why we need to boot the current Electoral college system; to get third parties involved. The current way things are run encourages only two major parties. Heck, Ross Perot won almost 20% of the popular vote, but not a single electoral vote. The Electoral college system doesn't look out for the best interests of the voters.
     
  11. Munch

    Munch IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    That would certainly explain why that same Republican Supreme Court has acted so quickly to revisit Roe v. Wade. Oh...wait... they haven't.

    No, we're infinitely more democratic. It's not a matter of 1 candidate versus 2 candidates, it's a matter of a choice and no choice.

    Please see: House of Representatives, US Congress, State government, etc. The presidential election is ONE election every four years. Get over it.

    p.s. Last time I looked, the Democratic party is currently undergoing a primary, which consisted of 7 candidates at one point, and currently consists of 4 candidates. You want your choice? Vote in the primaries.
     
  12. dantose

    dantose IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    2,935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    I say switch to popular vote. ther is no need for EC anymore. haven't functioned as they were ment to since washington was in office
     
  13. Pier

    Pier IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    No comment, I don't agree, but don't feel like discussing stuff.
    (Yes, very weak)

    Grr pIER
     
  14. Shug_Ninx

    Shug_Ninx IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    You'll just fractionalize the mid-western states and the east/west coast states. People will get pissed off because the only way that they could vote and cast their opinions was taken away by an always [larger] opposing group. Is it fair to them? You might as well say, "take away statehood" too since destroying the Electoral Collage has taken away much of the reason for it.

    Take a look at our nation. We are not a direct democracy. We have always ruled on representative democracy so that the majority will not rule over the minority with tyranny. Think of what would happen if you took that out. People would question the need for having supreme court judges, or having the need for representatives. You'd have people simply calling a vote and then banning *** marriages and abortions because as of right now, if you took a post count, I think most americans would still vote against for that. But you'd be getting exactly what you wanted, which is rule by majority right? Is that the way you want things to be run?

    The question of whether something is 'constitional' would be throne out.
     
  15. Wuhan_Clan

    Wuhan_Clan IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Then how else, other then under a popular vote could you form a practical system of defining what is right and what is wrong?

    Either way, people get screwed.
     
  16. Shug_Ninx

    Shug_Ninx IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    ....

    You've already answered your own question, and I disagree with that it.
     
  17. Wuhan_Clan

    Wuhan_Clan IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    I didn't phrase myself clearly but I think the country's laws should be based on what the majority thinks is right or wrong. Thats the most practical way about that I can see.

    You're still going to get people in the minority who disagree but that can't be helped. If you have to listen to one group or another, do you listen to the bigger group or the smaller one? To me, it isn't very democratic if you don't go with the majority.

    Under a popular vote, laws have less to do with morals and ethics then with what people want. Popularity is a concrete concept. Morals and ethics are not.
     
  18. Stevinator

    Stevinator IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    wait, so you want the entire united states to vote on every issue, on everything that comes up? no way no how.

    republics are better than true democracies at representing the country...we'd spend so much money on voting, that things owuld be out of control. technically the republic system may not be the most accurate way, but it's definetely better. the United states is a union of states. ech state sends people that represent the states views to congress. each state sends its' votes towards the presidency. this makes things much more efficent, and still very representative of the people.

    oh, and Bush did not "steal" the election. Gore lost more than Bush won-true. but gore blew his lead, ignored the south, ignored much of the midwest and won most of his electoral votes in CA and the new englaand area. if gore had won, many people would've been upset that most of the country had supported bush, there's just a few areas that are so heavily populated that they are over weighted. whenever tehre is a close election people get mad. but it's been four years...time to drop it. so much has happened since then in this country that focusing on that is to ignore the major issues of the day.
     
  19. piff

    piff IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    What if Nadar gets 5% and is unpartied? Does he get it for himself next election, or is he untitled to it?
     
  20. captain_random

    captain_random Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    dude dont go nader last election gore lost to him in WA were i live and everyone here is going democratic and naders vote = help out g w so if u try and get him in office most of americans alreaady hated nader but WA is liberal and thats y green party won, the purpose of this election is to get bush outta office and get rid of his guts for good
     

Share This Page