Nader '08!!

[Jordan]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/nader.politics/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader is entering the presidential race as an independent, he announced Sunday, saying it is time for a "Jeffersonian revolution."


Ralph Nader is running for president as an independent.

"In the last few years, big money and the closing down of Washington against citizen groups prevent us from trying to improve our country. And I want everybody to have the right and opportunity to improve their country," he told reporters after an appearance announcing his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Asked why he should be president, the longtime consumer advocate said, "Because I got things done." He cited a 40-year record, which he said includes saving "millions of lives," bringing about stricter protection for food and water and fighting corporate control over Washington.

Nader's decision, which did not come as a surprise to political watchers, marks his fourth straight White House bid -- fifth if his 1992 write-in campaign is included


Goooo Nader!

[Cbr]

Yeah lets see if he can pull a repeat performance and give the White House to McCain in november.

[Father Max]

Fuck, now it's not a sure win for the Dems.

[Mr. Heskey]

I've never understood third parties. Most of them identify with either the republicans or democrats, just a little more extreme views.

For example, Ross Perot gave Clinton a win in 1992. Nader gave Bush the win in 2000.

[_Joe]

I've never understood third parties. Most of them identify with either the republicans or democrats, just a little more extreme views.

For example, Ross Perot gave Clinton a win in 1992. Nader gave Bush the win in 2000.

He's not exactly a third party, just a third candidate. The Green Party or the Libertarian Party are third parties.

[GALLIENVS AVG]

He's not exactly a third party, just a third candidate. The Green Party or the Libertarian Party are third parties.

Doesn't Nader always run for the Green Party?

[_Joe]

Doesn't Nader always run for the Green Party?

I think he has before, but the article said he's running as an independent.

[JerkyMyTurky]

This is look really good for McCain. Obama and Clinton are hammering each other, causing their supporters to find faults in the other candidate, which will probably linger over in their decision to possibly vote for Nader. It's still very early to tell, but this a boost for the Republicans as Huckabee pointed out.

[Swindler]

I think he has before, but the article said he's running as an independent.

Seems he's not really sure himself right now. From his website:

Ralph told the media today after "Meet the Press" that he will decide within the coming days how he is going to run for President in terms of ballot access. On "Meet the Press" he mentioned The Green Party positively multiple times thus helping put The Green Party out to "Meet The Press's" five million plus viewers.

Ralph also said that he will announce his Vice-Presidential selection sometime in the next week. If people with the Green philosophy want him to seek their nomination, they could show their support by going to www.votenader.org and by donating and signing up on the email list. No matter what he decides he will be communicating The Green Party agenda over the coming months.

Sally Soriano
Nader for President 2008, Campaign Manager

http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/02/24/green-agenda/

[Stanky105]

I've never understood third parties. Most of them identify with either the republicans or democrats, just a little more extreme views.

For example, Ross Perot gave Clinton a win in 1992. Nader gave Bush the win in 2000.

That is a problem with our system, we are forced to vote for the one out of two that is the closest to us, instead of voting for somebody who actually lines up with us. The winner-take-all system doesn't allow you much room to vote for somebody who truly fits you well, because if the opposing side does not do that, then they are guaranteed a win. You end up having a choice between somebody who is kind of close to you vs. somebody who is not, hence the "lesser of two evils."

[Sketcher]

That is a problem with our system, we are forced to vote for the one out of two that is the closest to us, instead of voting for somebody who actually lines up with us. The winner-take-all system doesn't allow you much room to vote for somebody who truly fits you well, because if the opposing side does not do that, then they are guaranteed a win. You end up having a choice between somebody who is kind of close to you vs. somebody who is not, hence the "lesser of two evils."

I think we should eliminate the party system altogether. Have all the candidates together without separating them by party. Then have ONE election on ONE day only and whoever wins the popular vote wins it all. No more of this primary/caucus/delegate/superdelegate/republican/democrat bullshit. Our elections are a joke. They're treated like the fucking NFL playoffs.

[Azwethinkweizm]

I've never understood third parties. Most of them identify with either the republicans or democrats, just a little more extreme views.

For example, Ross Perot gave Clinton a win in 1992. Nader gave Bush the win in 2000.

:err:

You don't understand them yet you explained them?



Welcome to America guys! People are allowed to run for president.

[Fungus Amungus]

I think France does this, or Germany. When you vote for the Congress (or atleast its counterpart) rather the polarity winning all, they reflect the votes percentage. So say there is a 100 members being elected. Rather than voting for each member, people vote for the party. So 40% vote Republican, 40% vote Democrat and 20% vote Green. That means 40 people are Republican, 40 Democrat and 20 are Green party. This system is more reflective of the people, but how to tie this in the Presidency is somewhat different. Just an idea though.

[Stanky105]

I think we should eliminate the party system altogether. Have all the candidates together without separating them by party. Then have ONE election on ONE day only and whoever wins the popular vote wins it all. No more of this primary/caucus/delegate/superdelegate/republican/democrat bullshit. Our elections are a joke. They're treated like the fucking NFL playoffs.

Still though, you are having winner takes all, which will enable the "lesser of two evils" the second certain candidates start to get ahead in the poles. It may not be parties per se that are the problem.

Can somebody here explain how the british election system works? I have been curious on how some kind of blend with that would work here, just in terms of letting people actually vote for who they agree with most, because even if their canditate (party?) loses they still get some kind of representation depending on the percentage.

Some people say thats what our congress/local governments are for, but I see the same lesser of two evils all the way down the rung of the system.


:err:

You don't understand them yet you explained them?

Welcome to America guys! People are allowed to run for president.

Ah yes, another brilliant post that neither says anything or does anything, yet leaves the poster walking away feeling smart. This is actually pretty funny.


Just an idea though.

Ah, you posted before I completed this. Yeah, that is kind of what I am looking at here. It would line up awkwardly with the presidential election though, I am not sure any kind of change could be implemented without gutting the system.

[Azwethinkweizm]

Ah yes, another brilliant post that neither says anything or does anything, yet leaves the poster walking away feeling smart. This is actually pretty funny.

Likewise.

Is that all your high school intellect can soak in?

[EVO_9MR]

But before any third party candidate can enter the race, he must have a petition of tens of thousands of signatures to even have his name on the ballot.

[Jordan]

But before any third party candidate can enter the race, he must have a petition of tens of thousands of signatures to even have his name on the ballot.

He's been on the ballot on (I presume) the past 5 elections, so I don't think he will have trouble getting signatures.

[Anarchology]

I'm not fully in support for Obama, but I sure as hell don't want a third G.W. Bush term, which is what this country would see if McCain wins.

[LegendaryLink]

Nader never runs to win because he knows he can't, he runs to fuck up the voting.

[IrishAle]

Nader is a Globalist schill.

[FuNkYFreSH]

Fuck off Nader!

[Jenovah]

I think France does this, or Germany. When you vote for the Congress (or atleast its counterpart) rather the polarity winning all, they reflect the votes percentage. So say there is a 100 members being elected. Rather than voting for each member, people vote for the party. So 40% vote Republican, 40% vote Democrat and 20% vote Green. That means 40 people are Republican, 40 Democrat and 20 are Green party. This system is more reflective of the people, but how to tie this in the Presidency is somewhat different. Just an idea though.

That's exactly how it is, it's the same in alot of European countries and personally I think it's alot fairer than the American two-party system which IMO is a little outdated for this day and age. The green party for example will NEVER get to elect a president on the current system, which is a serious flaw if you ask me.

[Zardozus]

Can somebody here explain how the british election system works?

In Canada we have a modified 'British Parliamentary System' and let me just give a very basic concept of the differences here:

In Canada we do NOT vote for a Prime Minister (same goes for UK) but instead you are voting for a Federal 'Minister of Parliament' for YOUR REGION.

Now when you go in to vote in your Federal Election, your ballot might have three names on it:
Joe Smith (PC Party)
Jane Theroux (NDP)
Bob McDonald (Liberal)

You vote for one of them. thats your 'MP' for YOUR 'riding' (I think you call that a 'District' in the USA?).

Anyways, the Party with the MOST elected Candidates becomes the government,
but,
Keep in mind they might not make up 'most' of the people in Parliament because for the sake of argument lets say the Conservatives got 40% of the 'Seats',
but the NDP got 30 seats and the Liberals 30 seats.

In that example the Conservatives do not have a 'majority' but because they still have the 'most seats' [of any one individual party ]they become a 'Minority Government'.

Now that can kind of suck because the other two different parties could band together and stop ever damn thing the Conservative attempt,
OR,
It could be good because while the Conservatives have the power they can't get away with too much shit either.

Anyways,
The Party itself elects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister (this is like your 'President').

In some cases, the PM might step down, retire, get kicked out etc.. and then the ruling Party itself replaces them with their own vote.
One example in Canada was when Kim Campbell was elected Prime Minister by her own Party.

I'm just giving the basic idea here.

Yes, its actually confusing to non-Americans sometimes because, for example, people in Canada might assume that the Democrat Party was the ruling Party during Clintons Presidency,
but no,
In fact, the Republicans were the 'Majority Party' during that time.
Then people ask 'that makes no sense.. so why is a Democrat the President??"

If you ask me.. there is a lot of things about the American system that I do like but I am pretty happy with British Parliamentary system we have now. The Canadian version is a bit modified and actually has some more similarity to the American system (in some ways).

Hope that helps.

[dazevas]

didnt he wanna legalize weed?

[theC]

Hope that helps.
You left out the part that the Prime Minister is NOT the head of state in Canada. He/she is, in fact, only the third most powerful person in the executive, after the Queen of England and the Governor General.

[American Infidel]

I'm not fully in support for Obama, but I sure as hell don't want a third G.W. Bush term, which is what this country would see if McCain wins.

Don't worry. A vote for McCain is a vote for a democrat, in sheep's clothing. The only difference is that he's not willing to surrender to Al-Qaeda. Other than that, you're all set with big government and taxes out-the-ass.

So, McCain should be liberal enough for you, as one of my Clinton-supporting co-workers told me.

[Sketcher]

Still though, you are having winner takes all, which will enable the "lesser of two evils" the second certain candidates start to get ahead in the poles.

How so? It'll be more like lesser of ten evils. Take all the Dem candidates that ran in the primary and take all the Repub candidates that ran in the primary. Eliminate their party affiliations and put every single one of them in one election that is held on one day. Popular vote gets the presidency.

And I'm getting sick of people saying McCain is just another Bush clone or another neocon. Fuck, McCain isn't even conservative, much less a neocon. As for Nader, he's probably more liberal than Obama. I never understood why he's always ran on a third party ticket.

[drahkcorjc]

Don't worry. A vote for McCain is a vote for a democrat, in sheep's clothing. The only difference is that he's not willing to surrender to Al-Qaeda. Other than that, you're all set with big government and taxes out-the-ass.

So, McCain should be liberal enough for you, as one of my Clinton-supporting co-workers told me.

So who would you like to see as president? I know you absolutely hate Ron Paul, one of the very few candidates that represents small government and low taxes.

[chalupa]

Nader/Paul '08!!!


Ralph and Ron, running this Republic, readily realigning the robust resolution of this rambunctious and rugged realm.


Sphincter.

[Yuseke]

Nader/Paul '08!!!


Ralph and Ron, running this Republic, readily realigning the robust resolution of this rambunctious and rugged realm.


Sphincter.

Nah, that wouldn't work. I think McCain, Paul, and Obama should jizz in Hilary and make a super politician that doesn't know what the fuck they'e doing.

[czoom]

Fuck Nader he always pops in at the last minute. He's just a fucking tool republicans use to scatter democrtic votes. GTFO Nadar ASS RAM COCK SUCKER.

[Stanky105]

Hope that helps.

Thanks, yeah, that is an example of what I was looking for.

How so? It'll be more like lesser of ten evils. Take all the Dem candidates that ran in the primary and take all the Repub candidates that ran in the primary. Eliminate their party affiliations and put every single one of them in one election that is held on one day. Popular vote gets the presidency.

Because the winner take all still applies just like it applies to our current system. As soon as certain candidates start to get ahead in the poles, people will start having to vote against the other guy instead of for their guy. The concepts of "oh I like him, but theres no way he can win, so I am voting for X" still exist.

It comes down to simple division, the more candidates you have running for any certain part of the political spectrum, the more likely that part of the spectrum will lose simply because they divided up their votes. This is how Woodrow Wilson won (teddy vs. taft), it helped Clinton win (Perot vs. Bush) and Bush Jr. (Gore vs. Nader.) People prefer to have a partially agreeable candidate in office as opposed to getting somebody on the other side of the spectrum, hence the angst against the 3rd parties even when they simply start, because people know it hands the opposition a big advantage even if they technically have less overall people.

I don't see how simply getting rid of parties would fix it, people would still be very hesitant of voting fo the underdog simply because that would give the other side the advantage, not their own. That is the key point, winner-take-all would force people to go with the bland moderate versions of what they want. And even if the votes did manage to stay even all the way up to the end, you are talking about a candidate winning the entire country with 1/10 - 1/20 of the total vote, which seems really weird and not representative of the population.

I am having trouble wording this... perhaps the best way to try and show my point is to simply contrast it with the Canadian system Zardozus described. It wouldn't have mattered as much if Nader took votes from Gore, even if it gave the "win" to the conservatives, they still don't get total victory because the left leaning parties could combine their efforts to block what they wanted to block.

I am really having a bad time with words today, but hopefully you have an idea of where I am coming from.

[American Infidel]

So who would you like to see as president? I know you absolutely hate Ron Paul, one of the very few candidates that represents small government and low taxes.

Nah, you got me all wrong. I don't hate the guy. I do agree with him on a number of things, but I also disagree with him on a larger number of things. That doesn't mean I hate him.

As for who I would vote for, as president? That's a good question that I've been kicking around. The way I see it, I could do one of the following:


•Write in Fred Thompson (and essentially waste my vote)

•Vote for McAmnesty

•Vote for Bill Clinton...again

•Vote for Che Guevara


And, that would be my chosen order, by the way. As much as I loathe Hillary, she pales in comparison to Obama (no pun intended).

Instead, I've decided to focus on the checks-and-balances end of the spectrum; the House and Senate. Having strong conservative representatives in the House and Senate will prevent either of the three liberals to completely drag our country into the gutter.

If Shade and the rest of the Ron Paul supporters are genuinely sincere, they will agree with me. They will agree that our duty to our country is to now ensure that a conservative--not just Republican--congress is the most essential goal, at this point. Who you vote for president doesn't really matter, anymore. Us conservatives have already lost our president, whether it's the Ron Paul crowd or the FredHeads.

Now, it's time to focus on mitigating complete disaster from the RINO, über-liberal and socialist candidates, respectively.

[drahkcorjc]

Wow, I'm impressed. It seems you and me disagree on alot of issues, but I completely agree with everything you said in that post.

[pudgmo]

It doesn't matter, the election has already been decided...
Diebold leaks results (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks)

[Fungus Amungus]

I hope that isn't a serious post...

[drahkcorjc]

lol Onion video was the worst thing to happen to internet retards since... well, since the internet.

[Johnny Promo]

Super Nerd tosses his tiny hat in the world's largest ring yet again, only to shoot himself and everything he stands for in the foot? When will this guy learn, I liked him better when he was fighting to have seatbelts installed in all cars...

[Chupacabra]

I'll probably either vote for Nader, or write Ron Paul's name in if he doesn't go third party.

[American Infidel]

Wow, I'm impressed. It seems you and me disagree on alot of issues, but I completely agree with everything you said in that post.

Thank you.

Just waiting to hear what Shade, Bergs and the other die-hard supporters of Ron Paul have to say.