Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nader off Florida Ballot

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the this-means-something dept.

Politics 141

Rory writes "This could be it for Ralph Nader. A Florida judge has issued a preliminary injunction, ruling the Reform Party is no longer a party, thereby knocking its candidate, Ralph Nader, off the Florida ballot. The devil is in the details, and Florida has too many electoral votes for this not to have serious impact on the national election, if this preliminary ruling holds up on appeal."

cancel ×

141 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10269032)

FP!!!

Umm... it's Nader (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10269033)

You could have at least spelled the guy's name correctly.

Nadar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10269037)

Who's that? I know Ralph Nader was taken off the ballot, but Nadar? Never heard of him...

Re:Nadar? (2, Funny)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269941)

Who's that? I know Ralph Nader was taken off the ballot, but Nadar? Never heard of him...

Has Slashdot sunk to a new nadir?

WTF? (4, Informative)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269042)

This story is a week old. Last I heard Jeb declared the ruling invalid and Nader's on the ballot.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10269069)

Yep, it's an OLD story all right. And they misspelled his name 3 times!

Re:WTF? (1, Flamebait)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271036)

I heard something similar. I can't remember where, but it was a source that doesn't report rumors. I think the elector (can't remember her name, but the same one who played favorites for Bush last time around) put it on anyway.

There's no way Jebbie is going to let his brother lose Florida. That family is so busy being right, they don't care what rules they break.

Re:WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10271403)

Like before. Jeb is staying out of it.

The AG of FL appealed which automatically puts Nader back on until the appeal can be heard (after the election).

Regardless, why isn't the Reform party a party? No really. I'm tired of this two-party system. I want more choices.

Re:WTF? (2)

Y_A_Hacker (624966) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271594)

Hmmm. Must have been a conservative that modded it down. While he had some interesting info, he added his own opinion. If there's one thing a conservative can't stand, it is someone else's opinion. Now watch, and this will get modded to troll too, because some other conservative will see it and be unable to take the criticism.

Re:WTF? (2, Informative)

Quarters (18322) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271730)

No, it's new as of today. The Governor can't over-rule the state Supreme Court. He tried, with some vague threat of hurricane Ivan being the reason he was thumbing his nose at the high court. Today justice won out (thank God) and Gov. Bush got the legal smack-down he should've gotten in 2000.

NADAR? (1)

grm_wnr (781219) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269043)

Dear Editors: Like, read the submittals ONCE, if you please.

Re:NADAR? (1)

grm_wnr (781219) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269077)

Seeing as the spelling is now corrected, i would like to add "..BEFORE posting the story."

Nadar?? (1)

jguevin (453329) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269049)

C'mon, guys, that's really embarrassing.

Re:Nadar?? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269375)

Just Ralph's poor Afghani Cousin....

America? (-1, Flamebait)

Reducer2001 (197985) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269053)

What the hell is wrong with this country? We'll kill thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan to promote democracy, but then stifle it here? I'm not blaming Dems or Repubs, they're both at fault here. Time to move to Canada.

Re:America? (1)

theantix (466036) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269466)

I'm not blaming Dems or Repubs, they're both at fault here.

Er, don't you mean that you blame Democracts *and* Republicans, because they are both at fault? Just being equally as bad as your neighbour doesn't make you any less guilty. And yes, that's "neighbour" becuase if you're going to come up here to Canada you'd best learn to spell right. ;-)

Old News (1)

BeyondHope (25755) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269058)

This happened last week. Since then Florida's AG has launched an appeal which automatically gets Narer back on the ballot for the mailins due to be sent out by Saturday.

Re:Old News (3, Informative)

russeljns (806466) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269289)

Re:Old News (2, Informative)

CodeMonkey4Hire (773870) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272125)

Actually he's not off for good. As the article you linked to says, they have simply postoned the mailing of ballots until this has been resolved in the Florida Supreme Court. They will decide whether he is on or off.

Re:Old News (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270660)

Anything to do with Nader is old news. As Gertrude said of Oakland, "There is no 'there' there."

Re:Old News (3, Interesting)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 10 years ago | (#10273993)

This happened last week. Since then Florida's AG has launched an appeal which automatically gets Narer back on the ballot for the mailins due to be sent out by Saturday.

Last week was a preliminary injunction, this is the hearing. Nader is off and the Florida supreme court has issued an injunction preventing any more ballots being sent out without their permission.

The Bushies did try to do an end run by ignoring the first injunction and sending out as many ballots as they could, but only a few were actually mailed and those are likely to end up being cancelled. The net effect is likely to be damage to Bush since the four counties that sent out the invalid postal ballots are ones where the GOP controls the returning officer - i.e. republican areas.

This whole Nader issue is a GOP shell game. Nader does not have the support of 100,000 floridians that it takes to get on the ballot through petition. He is unlikely to poll that number nationwide. In fact he is unlikely to even qualify for the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning.

The 'reform' party does not have a significant national membership, Nader has had four years to form a 'leftwing cretins who want to hand the election to Bush' party and has not done so.

Sad day (2, Interesting)

alatesystems (51331) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269073)

Dupetown, USA, but it still warrants a response.

I think it is a sad day in politics if you have to be affiliated with a party in order to run for office, especially President. The constitution protected our right to hold public office before these judges "modified" their interpretations of it for "our own good".

I think the ballot should have as many people as want to run, perhaps with a petition saying x number of people will vote for me, like 5,000 or so.

This is already how many states do it, but this seems a sad attempt by Jeb's good ol' boys to block a change in the outcome of the 2004 election.

Chris

Re:Sad day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10269197)

um, I'm pretty sure that Jeb would WANT Nader on the ballot, seeing as popular opinion is that Nader would pull votes away from Kerry. An above post mentions that Jeb has already gotten Nader on the ballot.

Hey, I don't want the Repubs to win FL, but this most-certainly is not a case "a sad attempt by Jeb's good ol' boys to block a change in the outcome of the 2004 election"

Re:Sad day (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269337)

I think it is a sad day in politics if you have to be affiliated with a party in order to run for office, especially President.

Umm you dont, you have to be affiliated (or gather enough signatures (which he did not) to be on the ballot. People can still write him in.

To Sum up:
if your in a party you are on the ballot
if you are not in a party you have to gather signatures to be on the ballot
if you are not on the ballot you can still be written in

I think the ballot should have as many people as want to run, perhaps with a petition saying x number of people will vote for me, like 5,000 or so.

This is the law in fla the problem is because Nader was on a party ticket he never botherd to get the signatures.

This is already how many states do it, but this seems a sad attempt by Jeb's good ol' boys to block a change in the outcome of the 2004 election.

Wow why would Jeb *not* want Nader on there, do you think Bush is losing vote to nader or would Kerry. Just so you know it was the Flordia DNC who brought the legal action to get Nader off the ticket..

Re:Sad day (2, Interesting)

alatesystems (51331) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269484)

Nader is a risk for Bush and Kerry. A lot of people are mad at Bush right now, and a lot of left-leaning people might also vote for Nader instead of Kerry as Nader is seen as more of a "Centrist".

In response to your write-in comment, write-in's are only counted in a manual recount AFAIK, and we all saw how fun that was 4 years ago.

I personally don't care about Bush, Kerry, or Nader, as I'm going to vote Libertarian [lp.org] for Badnarik [badnarik.org] . I'm not biased towards either "major" candidate; I'm biased against both. So either take my comments with a grain of salt, or take them with an extra weight of importance.

Chris

Re:Sad day (3, Insightful)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269541)

Nader is a risk for Bush and Kerry. A lot of people are mad at Bush right now, and a lot of left-leaning people might also vote for Nader instead of Kerry as Nader is seen as more of a "Centrist".

Ok so how is this bad for Bush? Look the fact is it was the democrats in court pushing Nader off the ballot but if you want to think Bush is happy the man who handed him the election in 2000 is off the ballot you are letting your bias influence you judgement..

Re:Sad day (1)

MammaMia (764083) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270203)

Still, if you think Nader "handed [Bush] the election in 2000" you are showing your own bias as well. The 50% of the electorate that didn't bother showing up to vote, provided the narrow margin that allowed Bush to walk away with his unearned victory. The shady officials that struck thousands of African-Americans from the eligible voter pool, contributed to the Democratic party's defeat. And of course Gore's own complacency in giving such a halfhearted campaign, provided no inspiration for the nonvoters to come out. Nader is just a convenient scapegoat.

Re:Sad day (1)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272533)

Because, of course, all those 50% would have voted for Gore. And, of course, the approximately 10,000 votes Bush lost because the press called Florida for Gore when the polls were still open in the conservative panhandle don't count at all.

Sheesh, man, get over it and start living life again. Gore lost Florida. He lost in every recount done, even the one by the NYT. Gore LOST Bush WON. You need to get past your denial so you can get on with your life.

Mickey Mouse (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272570)

Come on it's all the same result every year. The top vote getters are always democrats and republicans. Then goes...

Ralph Nader

Mickey Mouse

Howard Stern

Re:Sad day (0, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#10274241)

What is this crap about "getting over it"? We're living life - life in a country grabbed by Bush gaming the system and stealing the 2000 election. We care enough about America to care about that, because it's important. *You* are the one in denial, and are projecting your crude coping mechanism onto *us*. There was no recount, it was stopped by the Florida Supreme Court. If you accept that Florida election as the will of the people, you deserve what you get from Bush. But I don't.

Re:Sad day (1)

david duncan scott (206421) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269754)

Who told you that write-ins are only counted in a manual recount? It's a perfectly valid way to vote, although there are confusions that can arise if the voter writes-in a candidate and also checks off / punches in / flips the lever / raises his hand / whatever for the same candidate (obviously if he votes for two different candidates the ballot is invalid.)

Personally, my guess is that a majority of Nader voters are at least literate and can probably manage to write or type "Nader", even if ./ can't.

The LP, BTW, didn't make it on to the ballot here in MD, and I think it's worth noting that "Browne" was a lot easier to spell.

Re:Sad day (1)

CodeMonkey4Hire (773870) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272345)

So who wins if we all write in John Smith? Wouldn't that be a big fight! Then we'd have to have a John Smith run-off. Of course, you wouldn't want to show placement bias, so you couldn't use alphabetical order. ;)

Re:Sad day (1)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272508)

You may be mad at Bush right now. You seem to be in the minority judging by the latest tracking polls.

Re:Sad day (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270916)

Well it is the DNC that wants Nader off the ballot. Not the Republicans. It really is simple math. No one that votes for Nader would vote for Bush so taking Nader off the ballot in Florida means more votes for Kerry. If all the Nader votes in Florida had gone to Gore he would have won Florida. It was that close. So the people that hate Bush and or support Kerry feel that every vote for Nader is really a vote for Bush. So they are trying everything they can to keep Nader off the Florida ticket. On the other hand the Republicans are trying to keep Nader on the ticket for the same reason. I honestly think that Nader should be on the ticket it seems wrong to keep someone off just because if you do you will tend to get thier votes. I am sure many people will justify it as anything is better than letting Bush stay.

He was replaced by Nalph Radar (2, Funny)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269100)

Radar rocks!

A shame (3, Insightful)

russeljns (806466) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269104)

If the Democratic Party doesn't want people to vote for Nader, it should give them a reason to vote for Kerry (as opposed to voting against Bush). They're really screwing Nader.

Not that I'm surprised. They're just trying to hold on to power using whatever legal means possible. Perfectly natural behavior.
Doesn't make it right though.

Re:A shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10269848)

A judge ruled that Nader's campaign didn't comply with election law, and this is the Democrats' doing how...?

Re:A shame (4, Insightful)

reedster (675006) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269863)

Whats worse, Democrats wanting to keep Nader off the ballots to help Kerry or Republics lining up in force to get Nader on the ballot to hurt Kerry. I think they both need to step away from the issue here. I do believe Nader should do like the other candidates do and get signatures from his own registered voters like the Dems and Reps do. Does anybody really think there is enough registered Reform party members to get Nader on the ballot in any state. I sure don't, therefore he shouldn't be on the ballot at all which is definitely more in line with the dems thinking.

Re:A shame (1)

russeljns (806466) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270022)

I wasn't trying to excuse the Republican efforts. I agree that Nader should not knowingly accept a single signature from Republicans trying to hurt Kerry (he claims he is not, though he may well be).
But I don't think you should have to be registered with a party to sign a petition. After all, most people who will end up voting for Nader are independents and don't want to affiliate themselves with a party.

Re:A shame (1)

4of12 (97621) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270923)


I think they both need to step away from the issue here.

Actually, former Green Party supporters of Nader in 2000 have surrendered [vote2stopbush.com] to the ugly realities of the 2 party system and decided that "Anybody But Bush" is more important than a doomed stand on principle.

I have mixed feelings on it.

In some ways I am disgusted over so many deluded people that can't/won't/don't want to recognize just how badly the current administration is fscking things up.

So much so, that if we got 4 more years of Dick Cheney and friends that more of the general public would start to really feel the shaft (outsource more middle class jobs so every family can have both parents neglecting their kids to work as Walmart associates for low wages, benefits) and the administration would have to deal with the fallout of a stupid expensive quagmire Iraq commitment (and be the ones that have to institute a front door draft), try to balance a budget that lost hundreds of billions in revenue from tax cuts, and in an era of rising interest rates on a $7 trillion debt so the discretionary budget will get squeezed even more, reap the consequences of misguided foreign policy on North Korea, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc.

A lot of people are hurting already, but not enough of the voters living in a mediated reality. "We're for freedom and kickin butt and skippin' school!"

The "Nader hurts Kerry" idea is a crock ... (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272911)

... Whats worse, Democrats wanting to keep Nader off the ballots to help Kerry or Republics lining up in force to get Nader on the ballot to hurt Kerry.

Actually I think the whole idea is BS. Nader has said a lot of screwy things but one thing he has right is that Gore/Kerry are not entitled to any democratic party member's vote. They have to earn it. If Gore/Kerry can not get the vote of a person who is inherently inclined to favor them then that is their own damn fault. Blaming Nader is just a pathetic attempt to blame someone else for their own failures and shortcomings. Of course what else should we expect from career politicians.

And no I am not a Nader support, Bush or Kerry are far better choices than Nader. However Nader should have his shot just like anyone else.

Re:A shame (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 10 years ago | (#10273129)

The electoral system as it is today isn't right. It simply breaks down when you have more than 2 candidates. A vote for a third party candidate is mathematically identical to a vote for a major candidate on the opposite end of the political spectrum, because they are unable to voice support the major candidate on their side.

The way to fix the system would be to allow people to support multiple candidates. The most popular fix is to use instant runoff voting. If we had that, which we won't because both major parties are corrupt, there could be more than 2 major candidates without all the ugly but absolutely necessary backstabbing.

Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10269154)

As a student of History, I understand why the Electoral College exists. What I don't understand is /why/ we're still using it.

I hail from one of the less populous Western states, and we haven't had a presiential candidate, or his running mate, set foot in the state for years. Seems like you just get the five states with the most electoral votes, and ignore the rest of the country.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269374)

As a student of History, I understand why the Electoral College exists. What I don't understand is /why/ we're still using it.

Well as you have history down why dont you read the constitution. The Pres is not a represenative of the people he is a represenative of the *states*. If you banned the EC do you think anyone would bother with ID, or ND? No matter what you do someone in a given election will be ignored..

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269410)

Nobody's bothering with either ID or ND anyway. They've only got 7 electoral votes between them, and they're both so strongly Bush that Kerry isn't even bothering to campaign there.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269458)

Fine MN and WI would be compleatly ignored...

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269889)

But you can see why, for example, someone in ND (which hasn't seen a presidental candidate stop by in 3 election cycles) might think the EC was a bit outdated. MN and WI aren't likely to be bothered with either. You need more than 10 EVs AND be a swing voter state to get attention this round. PA, IL, and NY will be getting heavy candidate attention, but if the EV count is close, ME may be the FL of 2004. It's the closest race.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10269959)

MN and WI aren't likely to be bothered with either.

Um, you do realize that, as you write this, George Bush is in Minnesota, right?

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270199)

Why? Seems like a stupid place for him to be- he's got a pretty strong lock there, but he's slipping in PA.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

tordia (45075) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272070)

What is your definition of a swing state, then? Every list of swing states I've seen online (eg. wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ) list both MN and WI.

I live in Madison, WI, and in the last week we've seen (or will see this weekend): Bush's wife, Edwards' wife, Kerry, Nader, and Cobb -- all in Madison (or a suburb). Cheney's and Bush have been in the state at least 3 times each (all on separate occasions).

Also, are you sure about Bush having a lock in MN?

www.electoral-vote.com [electoral-vote.com] has Kerry up by 9% in the latest statewide poll. Minnesota is the state with the longest running streak of voting for the Democratic candidate in the Presidential election. If there would be any reason for Bush to stay out it would be because he DOESN'T have a lock on it.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272230)

Sorry- you're right- got the colors backwards. To me though- the states the candidates should be focusing on are the ones with a high EV count and less than 4% difference between the candidates. That's not MN, or WI right now.

A candidate isn't going to change the mind of anybody who has already decided at this point, the country's too polarized for that. What they need is voters like my mother- who goes for Bush one day and Kerry the next, depending on who spoke last.

Those voters will make the biggest difference in a state that has little or no difference between the candidates. PA and IL have larger EVs than either MN or WI, and have less than 4% between the candidates.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269987)

MN and WI aren't likely to be bothered with either.

Having lived in NY neither candidate never came (because of the EC). Living now in MN (A smaller state) I can tell you I have seen Bush here 4 times and Kerry here at least three times being a stones throw frim WI I can tell you the same is true there.

So yes MN and WI are getting pleanty of attention. And none of this addresses the fact the constitutionally the president was not ment to lead the people of the US he is intended to lead the *UNITED* sates of this nation.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

Jahf (21968) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271041)

And yet the POTUS tends to be one of the things that most -divides- these "United" states.

Especially when the election is at best a statistical tie and yet he continues to act like everyone in the country should believe in and follow him when basically 50% (-3%/+3% :) voted against him.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

the argonaut (676260) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272123)

You need more than 10 EVs AND be a swing voter state to get attention this round.

So explain why NM (5), OR (7), IA (7), CO(9), NV (5), NH (4), and WV (5) are getting so much attention.

PA, IL, and NY will be getting heavy candidate attention

I think your list is just a little bit off. Outside of the RNC (held in NYC for other political reasons), NY is getting no attention from either party, and last I saw IL is off the campaign list as well (they're both solidly "blue states". PA is still in play though.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272257)

Not according to http://www.electoral-vote.com/ [electoral-vote.com] , which has PA and IL both in play with less than a 4% lead for either candidate. NY is the largest still less-than-solid state in number of EVs. All the rest of yor list, though, if you look, are also less than 4%.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269397)

It's more like the 5 states that are actual close races. There's not much campaigning for NY, CA, or TX, but they're the three biggest. If we drop the electoral system, you'll be even less likely to see candidates come through. Instead, they'll concentrate on areas with more voters.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

the argonaut (676260) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271991)

Which wouldn't be that different from the way it is now - the only places they really campaign are swing states with a significant number of EC votes. So Oregon, Florida, and Pennsylvania would lose; California, New York and Texas would gain; North Dakota and Idaho probably wouldn't even notice. If anything most states would probably gain at least some attention if the EC went the way of the dodo.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

studerby (160802) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269645)

George Will wrote a recent column [msn.com] arguing that "winner-take-all" electoral college voting fosters a two-party system that requires compromise to get anything done; especially compromise within the parties, as they have to build broad enough coalitions to win statewide races. If it were a direct election, a candidate could, in a 3 way race, come in 2nd in every state but still win by having just more than a 3rd of the vote.

I don't particularly agree with the analysis, but it's thoughtful. He also suggests that under a non-"winner take all" electoral college system (e.g. Maine and the Colorado proposal), the candidates have very little incentive to campaign in those states; the cost/benefit ration isn't as good as in a "winner take all" state. I don't think he addresses direct elections, but presumably candidates would focus their attention on the urban/suburban voter, and the rural areas wouldn't be particularly wooed, whereas now capturing the farm vote in some states is key to winning those electoral votes.

George Will (2, Insightful)

sneakers563 (759525) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271817)

I think George Will is insane. Intelligent, but insane. How anyone can look at the American political system and contend that it fosters compromise is beyond me. Look at a parliamentary system where one party rarely has an absolute majority. Those parties are forced to find common ground and compromise with others in order to form a majority government.

In contrast, our system encourages the majority party to ram everything they can think of through because in 4 years they could be the ones in the minority, powerless to stop the other party from doing whatever THEY want. Instead of trying to find common ground, we demonize. 51% of the electorate ignoring the wishes of the other 49% isn't compromise, it's what's tearing this country apart.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

RWerp (798951) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272226)

If it were a direct election, a candidate could, in a 3 way race, come in 2nd in every state but still win by having just more than a 3rd of the vote.

You need a second round, when two best candidates fight each other.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 10 years ago | (#10273073)

"If it were a direct election, a candidate could, in a 3 way race, come in 2nd in every state but still win by having just more than a 3rd of the vote."

Yes, when a plurality of citizens vote for a candidate and he wins, we call it democracy. Without the electoral college the state-by-state breakdown would be no more than an arbitrary grouping of the election results.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (3, Insightful)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269676)

Two political reasons, and one statistical reason:

1) because the Electoral College allows the *individual states*, not the popular vote, to elect the President. This actually *helps* keep California and New York from completely dominating, say, Wisconsin.

2) because the winner-take-all system in place favors a two-party system, which shifts political coalitions and compromise out of the government and into political parties, creating a more simple, stable government. This is at the expense of choices for voters, naturally.

3) because a close national vote like 2000 will never be considered valid. 2000 was statistically a tie (49.3% to 49.8% in favor of Gore -- about 500,000 votes out of 100 million). Most states and local governments have some 1% difference rule that mandates a recount for a close race. Imagine the debacle in Florida, but scaled nationwide. Yeah, we're talking total chaos. Now imagine a recount of the Electoral votes. 538 -- nice and easy. Although whether an individual vote should have been one way or the other might be called into question, you cannot question the final tally.

Now, I happen to think that number 2 is a bogus reason, but I agree with the reasoning behind 1 and 3. To that end, I think the Electoral College should be *reformed*, but not eliminated. I favor eliminating the possibility of winner-take-all, and setting up a system where each House vote is determined by popular vote within that district -- states still get to draw the district lines per census -- and the two senate votes are determined by state-wide popular vote, coupled with a strictly mathematical process (i.e. no Electors, no two-votes one not in home state, etc.). Possibly an auto-invalidation rule for close votes within a particular district could help, but I can see enough problems that I wouldn't push hard for it.

Such a system will help keep the little states from being stomped (a win in the district of a 3-vote state is worth 3 votes rather than one), while giving third parties a better chance of at least *affecting* the election by drawing electoral votes.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

MammaMia (764083) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270446)

I favor eliminating the possibility of winner-take-all, and setting up a system where each House vote is determined by popular vote within that district -- states still get to draw the district lines per census...

I agree but would add that the district-drawing is in desperate need of reform. Districts would be more fairly drawn based on an even distribution of population, period. Continuous, consolidated districts should replace the politically gerrymandered districts we have today. Most districts across the country are pretty solidly either Dem or Rep with very few "swing" districts at any given time. Term limits of, say, 10-12 years for Reps and 12-18 years for Senators would also reduce the concentration of power currently entrenched in the system. But of course, those currently in power would have to make these changes, which is about as likely as IRV or -gasp- paper voting records.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270817)

Iowa does this. Apparently, we've got a program that kicks out a primary map and two alternates. The legislature gets final say. It seems to be nonpartisan because nobody is every really pleased by it.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

TRACK-YOUR-POSITION (553878) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271466)

3) because a close national vote like 2000 will never be considered valid. 2000 was statistically a tie (49.3% to 49.8% in favor of Gore -- about 500,000 votes out of 100 million).

You can't just look at the raw percentages to say whether an election is close or not. Sure, if you add up the margins of error in each state it would be over 500,000, but the chance that they'd all go towards one side or the other in a recount is remote. Someone made a mathematical argument at some point that the Electoral College is good because it maximizes the chance that the election will hinge on one vote, and therefore the chance that your vote makes a difference is maximized, thus your vote is the most "valuable" with an EC system. Though the value of a vote in that argument is dubious, the mathematics was not--election-in-the-balance recounts are more likely with the Electoral College, and thus Point 3 is actually an argument against the EC.

Consider an election a sample from a random distribution, and a larger election a larger sample--the larger your sample size, the more accurate your result. Thus fewer recounts.

states still get to draw the district lines per census

Then you're ignoring a much larger problem than the Electoral College--gerrymandering. That 90% of House districts are considered "safe" is definitely not good for democracy at all. There should be a national, repeatable algorithm for drawing district lines after census counts. Every census that passes this becomes less likely, because the incumbents make themselves even more secure, and they have much to lose from algorithmic redistricting.

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#10273336)

1 is not true. While it's true that the particular vote breakdown in our electoral college does tend to benefit sparsely-populated states, the same reweighting can be done in a popular vote.

2 has little to do with the electoral college.

3 is reasonable -- if there really is a close tie, I want to be sure who won.

Man, are you lucky (1)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270078)


I hail from one of the less populous Western states, and we haven't had a presiential candidate, or his running mate, set foot in the state for years.
I am soooooo jealous! We looked into using some of the old blue laws (no visible means of support, public nuisance, rude & disorderly, etc.) to keep them out where I live, but couldn't get any of them to stick.

Our only hope is, with the level of geographic knowledge among presidential hopefuls falling even faster than it is in the population at large, in a decade or two they won't be able to find us.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Why do we /still/ have the Electoral College? (1)

CodeMonkey4Hire (773870) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272494)

You are probably not being ignored because you are small (after all the EC favors small states*), but because your state probably leans hard in favor of either Republican or Democrat and they take you for granted.

* Although I have seen an argument that states should get EC votes based on sqrt(Pop), the fact is that the # of EC votes is the sum of its Reps. and Sens. Since the #Reps. are based on Pop, you essentially have #EC = f(Pop) + 2. So small states have more EC votes per person than large states. I am not arguing against the [debatable] need for this, but merely pointing it out.

Currently before FL supreme court. (5, Informative)

boy_asunder (233861) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269186)

This is very old news. The case has had about five iterations since then.

From what I have read, the current status is that the Florida Supreme Court has halted the release of abstentee ballots pending a decision in the case that might come Saturday. So far, both a trial judge and an appellate court have found that the Reform party is not a legitimate state party, and so Nader can't get on the ballot. The Secretary of State has appealled both decisions.

And here's a Miami Herald story [miami.com] , that's, you know, actually from today 'n shit.

The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (4, Informative)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269255)

Interesting that Nader was trying to get on the Florida ballot as the Reform Party's candidate. Hopefully, this will remind folks that Ralph Nader is not the Green Party candidate for President in 2004!

That honor belongs to David Cobb [votecobb.org] , who is working to build the Green Party from the ground up. Contrast with Nader, who wanted to use the party's (still limited) ballot access to prove a point.

And according to Cobb's site, the Green Party has a ballot line in Florida [votecobb.org] . Unlike Nader, though, Cobb cares who wins the election:

http://www.votecobb.org/news/camden [votecobb.org]
"Cobb said he is asking people to vote for him in states like New Jersey, where polls show Kerry is ahead of Bush by 10 percentage points. In states where the race is close, he said he will understand that some liberal voters would support Kerry instead of him."

Nader's time as a candidate is over. So long, and thanks for all the fi^W safety [wikipedia.org] !

Re:The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (-1, Flamebait)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269404)

It will be a long time before Americans (myself included) will accept the commy international greens as anything other than what they are..

Re:The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (1)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269500)

It will be a long time before Americans (myself included) will accept the commy international greens as anything other than what they are..

Oh, do tell! What are we? Here, trollie trollie trollie...

By the way, it's spelled "Commie". At first, I thought you were talking about Microsoft's COM objects.

Re:The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (0, Troll)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269586)

you are an international party (http://www.globalgreens.info/) with very *very* left/socialist leaning positions (http://www.gp.org/tenkey.html)

Re:The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (1)

stromthurman (588355) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270027)

To be obnoxiously pedantic, if they're left/socialist leanings, wouldn't that make them "pinkos", and not full blown Red Commies?

This coming from a pinko.

Re:The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (0, Troll)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270128)

Perhaps... But there is not a ton of difference between the type of lefties they are and all out communist..

Re:The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (1)

Jahf (21968) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270800)

Ugh.

-Leftists- are usually communist or socialist in tendency.

People who are "on the left" are generally liberals.

The distinction is at least as definite as the differences between Marxist Communism and the "Communism" of countries like North Korea and China. Those 2 cases (and previously the USSR) use the guise of "Communism" to enfore economic control of their countries to maintain an absolute dictatorship or hidden oligarchy, both of which condense the "people's wealth" into their own power and bank accounts.

Likewise Socialism (which is practices in many western european countries to a large degree) is not Marxist Communism, rather it borrows traits from it as well as Adam Smith style Capitalism.

Most -Leftists- believe in Marxist ideals or at least think they do.

Most people "on the left" tend more toward Socialism though by no means does that mean that someone who is liberal can not be a staunch Capitalist.

And for the last bit of our lesson, many people "on the right" are generally conservatives. Conservatives tend to be pro-Capitalism but with just a touch of Fascist tendencies added. That doesn't mean that all people "on the right" are Fascists.

VERY few (successful) politicians in the U.S. have ever been Leftists.
The U.S. Democratic Party tends to fall towards the left, but far less so than parties like the Greens or Reformers. The U.S. Republican party tends towards the right far and there are fewer parties on the extreme right because the Republican party is more inclusive of the extreme right viewpoints (to the point where most Republican states I have lived in have seemed nearly schizophrenic in their Republican constituency ... Alabama being a prime example).

But hey, I don't expect you to change from a boolean data type when it comes to people who differ from you. Many people simply lump "everyone else" into the "bad" category. And many of them seem to get elected. Maybe you should run for office.

Re:The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (1)

Artifex (18308) | more than 10 years ago | (#10274262)

Vote your conscience


My pragmatism tells me that my vote won't count where I live, but even so, my conscience tells me emphatically not to support the Greens. I can possibly support a couple of the general principles of their platform, such as it is, but I strongly disagree with most of the stated plans for implementation for those, and definitely do not support many of the other principles. I'd rather vote for a candidate that will do less, but conversely less against the direction I want to see the country move. Especially when looking at the political reality that Cobb, if elected president, wouldn't be able to get much, if anything, through Congress.

If you care to know who I will vote for, wait until after I get a job :)

Re:The Green Party candidate, on the other hand... (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#10274677)

Has the green party gotten rid of the idea that there should be a maximum wage?

Dumbacrates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10269317)

all they care about is winning, and they will shortcircut the system to get it, I say if you want to vote for Nader do a write in, no court can take your right to do that away, Write in Nader 2004

Not All States Allow Write Ins (1)

russeljns (806466) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269648)

I say if you want to vote for Nader do a write in, no court can take your right to do that away Unless you live in Oklahoma, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, or South Dakota.

Cobb's still on the ballot (1)

epcraig (102626) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269419)

Greens are happy, their candidate is on the ballot. I think this was aimed to piss off Kucinich supporters and convince them they have no choice but Kerry.

Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (4, Insightful)

JohnnyX (11429) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269852)

As other's have mentioned, Nader was ordered off, then an elections administrator put him back on the absentee ballots, then the Florida Supreme Court ordered the elections administrator to not send them until it could rule.

In other, more pertinent, news, Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] is on 49 ballots [badnarik.org] . 49, not the low 30s like Nader.

At the end of the day Nader doesn't matter because people have already watched him lose before. Cobb doesn't matter because he can't decide whether he's really a candidate or not ("Vote for me, unless you'd rather vote for Kerry, I mean, vote for me"). Peroutka doesn't matter because he's a religious nut.

Badnarik matters. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is against the war. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is against the Patriot Act. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is not wasting the American people's fucking time with silly accusations about who did or not do what during Vietnam or which memos are fake.

Your conscience called, it wants its vote back.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik [blogspot.com] debate...

Re:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10270313)

I can not vote for him, look for his stance on abortion, he is on *BOTH* sides of the issue, just another kerry

Re:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 10 years ago | (#10270704)

plank [aznorthernalliance.org]

This is the current version of the party platform on abortion.
Basically, the party doesn't advocate banning it, but they don't advocate government funding.
But then, the LP rarely advocates government funding of *anything*.

Re:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10272037)

so we should make murder legal too, you infernge on my right not to kill people dont want in my life, just like abortion is murder of a child some one does not want in their life. Be consistant eather outlaw abortion which is murder, or legalize all forms of murder.

Re:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272087)

"Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views
on both sides"

This is a completely different issue from the debate over the ethics of abortion.
They are noting that the issue is not as simplistic as you make it out to be.
I'd recommend reading the party platform.

I'm not going to be drawn into an interminable debate over abortion - consciousness, potentiality, nature of humanity etc.
However, your straw man about murder is just that.
And really, there is not much more to be said.

Re:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10272131)

"straw man about murder"? you have to prove that the baby is not alive to make that statment! if a baby is alive at conseption the there abortion is murder plain and simple. and that is convient not to talk about ethics. While we are at it maybe we should not talk about the ethics about the war in Iraq. if you want to take ethics out then the war in Iraq no mater how you look at it does not matter anymore, the only reason the libertians are against the war is that they think there is some ethical reason. Make up your mind is ethics important or are they to be ignored?

Re:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10272389)

Confidential to Nemo:

I told you it wasn't worth it.

-X

Re:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (1)

Quarters (18322) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271845)

Yes, Nader matters. The fact that the Republicans are funding Nader matters. Florida is going to be a highly contested race on Nov 2, just like it was 4 years ago. Nader will never win. The best he can hope for is 3% of the vote so he can get federal matching funds. The problem is that a vote for Nader is a vote not for Kerry. Florida is always just slightly GOP, so a vote for Nader directly helps Bush.

The Supreme Court was correct in ruling him off the ballot. It's good to see that they aren't letting J. Bush circumvent the three branch system to help G.W. yet again.

Re:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (1)

reverius (471142) | more than 10 years ago | (#10272507)

He can't get federal matching funds, because that's done by Party... the best he could possibly hope for is getting the Reform Party federal matching funds, but there's no way that's going to happen (I'm not even sure if it's technically possible given the status of the Reform Party).

He's running for -nothing- this time around.

Re:Nader's on, Nader's off, so what? (1)

Anamanaman (97418) | more than 10 years ago | (#10274052)

I've been a libertarian for a long time and think Badnarik is the biggest disgrace to the libertarian party in a long time.

The final straw is his latest move to have people wearing black on September 11th, not for the people who where victimized by the attack, but for the people the evil American military has killed in trying to defend itself against islamo-fascism.

Voting my conscience means voting for Bush. It seems he's the only one who wants to win in Iraq and beat terrorism. Every other issue is moot at this point.

Here's the thing..... (2, Informative)

justkarl (775856) | more than 10 years ago | (#10269858)

So, check it out. I really like Nader and many of his ideas, but unfortunately, he doesen't have the ability(campaign power|money|back) to really put forth a winning chance. So I read an article like this and all I can say is that I'd really like to care, but unfortunately, one does not go from 6% of the popular vote to 40-50% in less than a year. Sorry, Ralphie. Dark side, or light side. Pick one. Everybody else did.

Re:Here's the thing..... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#10270354)

Dark side, or light side. Pick one. Everybody else did.

Which did they choose? The Dark Side?

NPOV. (2, Interesting)

3-State Bit (225583) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271013)

It's interesting for me to consider:

Insofar as those voting for Nader were more likely to be from the "Gore" camp than the "Bush" camp in the last election, and probably are more likely to be from the "Kerry" camp than the "Bush" camp in this election, isn't/wasn't it in the non-Gore / non-Kerry interest respectively to give Nader as many votes as can possibly be taken from the entire left-of-center field?

For example, I would think giving five thousand dollars to Nader's campaign in Florida would empower the Republican interest more than giving five thousand more dollars to Bush's. (Diminishing returns - Bush already is reaching almost all the republicans, but Nader's campaign is small, and the very very lefts might be swayable).

As I understand it, the margin between Bush and Gore last year was so close in Florida that if Nader had "taken" even slightly fewer votes from Gore (insofar as Nader's votes probably would NOT have gone to Bush instead), Bush could not have prevailed. Hence the vote-swapping [google.com] among Naderites who were aware of how close swing states would be, but nevertheless wanted their candidate represented. (Vote swapping consisted, as I understand it, of, say, a Massachusetts Gore-ite gentlemanly agreeing with a Florida Nader-ite to vote Nader / Gore respectively.)

Objectively, do you think that Nader gets any support from sources whose soul interest in his campaign is to "take" votes away from the more moderate (but non-zero-chance-of-winning) side?

This post does NOT advocate any political viewpoint.

Slashdot is not a political blog (1)

ubikkibu (544498) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271301)

You guys straight-up suck at reporting on any political story. This is a week old, and since then Katherine Harris' Republican replacement issued an edict saying despite the Reform Party's effective dissolution, Nader will be on the ballot because "we won't have time to discuss it with these hurricanes." Stick with what you sort of know. Every time slashdot ventures into politics, it is a laugh a minute.

My favorite quote from the article (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271334)

"It's a Hobson's choice, a Solomonic decision and it's also a slippery slope," Waas told Davey. "But once it's done here, it's done."

Well, the opera ain't over until a judge changes the outcome of the election in Florida, that's what I always say.

It that due the storms? wow (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 10 years ago | (#10271373)

did he just fall off or did it have anything to do with a hanging chad?

zerg (1)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 10 years ago | (#10273430)

Wait, if Bush is allowed to register on Florida's ballot a day after the deadline, then surely we can let Nader sign up?

Week old story... (1)

Quash (793610) | more than 10 years ago | (#10274103)

I submitted this story about a week ago - Sept 9th, I believe. So, I've got to agree with other posters - it's old news. Since then: -the judge's ruling was ignored by the state. -testerday, the story took a turn again, with the same judge ordering Nader's name off the ballot, once again. And tomorrow, Friday, we'll see was the Fla. Supreme Court does. If Slashdot is going to have a politics section, it's going to have to keep it current, so it can compete with the other breaking news sites. Rory

Is Bush next? (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#10274266)

Bush didn't file in Florida [sptimes.com] as the Republican candidate in time to meet the state's September 1 cutoff. That goofy state prohibits alluding to "September 11" in convention scheduling via a prescient old law. If the Democrats worked from the Karl Rove playbook, without worrying how to manage the country they steal, the whole game would now be over.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?