Four more years!

[Weird Harold]

Your contention that if we went to a popular vote format then only Democrats would win is an interesting one.

No, it wouldn't be only "Democrats" that would win, it would be whoever catered to URBAN interests.

Would you really want the government that only New York and California decided on -- whether it was Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green?

Since I live in a State with a smaller population and totally different concerns than the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, I for one, am totally opposed to a direct popular vote.

 

[thebullet]

Weird Harold:

Would you really want the government that only New York and California decided on -- whether it was Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green?

I may be missing something here. (BTW, I never said that I favored a direct popular vote. I was just commenting on Colly's opinions.)

The comment that only New York and California would decide an election is a curious one. New York is only the 3rd most populous state. TEXAS is #2 as I understand it. Where would Texas fit in, huh? Florida is #4. I'm not buying the 'only major cities will determine the election' theory. It stinks. For the last 40 - 50 years there has been a migration away from the big cities of the North. The sun belt is the fastest growing area of the country by my understanding. The last I looked, there are about 290,000,000 people in the country. Of those, about 54,000,000 live in New York and California combined. Explain to me how 54 million decide an election involving almost 300 million people.

I really think that you people should do a little research before shooting from the hip with these wild-ass statements. Although I have no firm opinion, it looks to me that a straight-up popular vote election would be fairer than the electoral college as currently constituted. It is too easy to rig a state-by-state election where the winner takes all in any one state.

Example: 2000

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... Politics dosen't cease to operate because GWB is a doofus... In an election that is clearly a choice betwen the lesser of two evils, if I can find a thrid option... Your position... smacks of desperation....

There is little mystery about what Ralph Nader means to the 2004 election. All it requires is elementary math and a memory that extends backward a dozen years.

In 1992 Ross Perot split the Republican vote, and Bill Clinton won the election.

In 1999 Ralph Nader split the Democratic vote and George Bush won the election.

Now, in 2004, Ralph Nader is again trying to split the Democratic vote, and naturally, Republicans are offering him every assistance to allow him to do just that.

Any one who tells you that a vote for Nader doesn’t help Bush, either is an idiot, or thinks that you are.

... does that make my non-vote a vote for Bush? I think not....

cloudy

I could try to explain why your non vote is helping George Bush’s reelection effort, but instead, I offer you a quote. Not from any politician, but one from the thirteenth century poet, Dante Alighieri, who has written: “The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

We are bound to do our best, even if doomed to failure, and I for one, do not believe that we can be doomed by anything other than self doubt.

 

[thebullet]

VB:
Not only do I love your avatar, your logic and arguments are impeccable. Thank you for stating in clear and moving words that which I was apparantly unable to communicate. What this country does not have, for reasons that I cannot fathom, is a sense of urgency. We sophists sit here and blythly argue about the value of a 3rd party vote while our country is on a fast train to hell.

 

[Weird Harold]

Weird Harold:
I may be missing something here. (BTW, I never said that I favored a direct popular vote. I was just commenting on Colly's opinions.)

The comment that only New York and California would decide an election is a curious one. New York is only the 3rd most populous state. TEXAS is #2 as I understand it. Where would Texas fit in, huh? Florida is #4. I'm not buying the 'only major cities will determine the election' theory. It stinks.

New York and California -- and Texas and Florida if you insist -- have enough votes to tip the balance against the interests of smaller states. They already do tip the balance by virtue of having more electoral votes than mostly rural states like Nevada, Alaska, Montana, etc, but the percentages tip way in the favor of the most populous states without the electoral college.

It's bad enough that a bare plurality in most states gives the entire electoral college delegation to one candidate in most states -- a pratice which effectively disenfranchises about half the voters in any given election -- but a direct popular vote would hurt the smaller states' ability to be heard far more than the winner take all electoral college representation does.

In 2000, Florida was the "swing state" that made the difference in the Electoral College. In the popular vote, it was a late surge in California that put Gore on top in the popular vote.

Almost any of the smaller states could have been the "swing state" in 2000 -- in fact several of them also had recounts that could have tipped the balance to Al Gore, but THEIR recounts weren't contested in the courts.

In the popular vote, ONLY a recount in California or a national recount could have made any difference in the result. In theory a recount in any state with more votes than the difference could change the result, but only the "big four" or "big five" have enough votes that they can carry their state AND completely cancel out a smaller state or two.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Not to mention, doesn't this argument some how assume that everyone in the big states will vote the same?

Everyone's vote will count eqally. VS, now where if you vote against the majority in your state, your vote is thrown out. If you voted for GWB in Michigan for instance, you *did not* help elect him!

Weird Harold:
I may be missing something here. (BTW, I never said that I favored a direct popular vote. I was just commenting on Colly's opinions.)

The comment that only New York and California would decide an election is a curious one. New York is only the 3rd most populous state. TEXAS is #2 as I understand it. Where would Texas fit in, huh? Florida is #4. I'm not buying the 'only major cities will determine the election' theory. It stinks. For the last 40 - 50 years there has been a migration away from the big cities of the North. The sun belt is the fastest growing area of the country by my understanding. The last I looked, there are about 290,000,000 people in the country. Of those, about 54,000,000 live in New York and California combined. Explain to me how 54 million decide an election involving almost 300 million people.

I really think that you people should do a little research before shooting from the hip with these wild-ass statements. Although I have no firm opinion, it looks to me that a straight-up popular vote election would be fairer than the electoral college as currently constituted. It is too easy to rig a state-by-state election where the winner takes all in any one state.

Example: 2000

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Whoa.... whoa... whoa...

So, if I vote for Ralph Nader (believing him to be the best candidate, and deserving of my vote), then I'm actually voting for George Bush.

If I don't vote for John Kerry (because I don't believe him to be a good candidate, nor deserving of my vote), then I'm automatically voting for George Bush.

...so, even if I like Nader, I can't vote for him?

 

[cloudy]

cloudy

I could try to explain why your non vote is helping George Bush’s reelection effort, but instead, I offer you a quote. Not from any politician, but one from the thirteenth century poet, Dante Alighieri, who has written: “The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.”

We are bound to do our best, even if doomed to failure, and I for one, do not believe that we can be doomed by anything other than self doubt.

I cannot, in good concience, vote for either of them, and haven't seen a third-party candidate that moves me to make the effort, either.

My best, in this instance, is not to vote. Some don't realize it, but choosing not to decide is still a choice.

 

[Weird Harold]

Not to mention, doesn't this argument some how assume that everyone in the big states will vote the same?

Nope, it assumes a 10% margin in a populous state is larger than a 100% margin in the opposite direction in a small state.

Everyone's vote will count eqally. VS, now where if you vote against the majority in your state, your vote is thrown out. If you voted for GWB in Michigan for instance, you *did not* help elect him!

This is a change that does need to be made so that the electoral college more accurately reflects the popular vote -- or at least the various states' interests.

 

[thebullet]

JW said:

Whoa.... whoa... whoa...
So, if I vote for Ralph Nader (believing him to be the best candidate, and deserving of my vote), then I'm actually voting for George Bush.

Don't get your panties in a wad! (I kinda suspect you wear panties.) We are talking simple mathematics. Statistics, if you will. Yes, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. That's the way the system works this year. Again, I reiterate: if it weren't true, then why are the Republicans attempting to get Nader on the ballot in the swing states?

Please give me another explanaition of this altruistic phenomenum.

By the way, Joe, I really do prefer you newest Avatar. Are you the one on the left?

 

[LadyJeanne]

"New York and California -- and Texas and Florida if you insist -- have enough votes to tip the balance against the interests of smaller states. They already do tip the balance by virtue of having more electoral votes than mostly rural states like Nevada, Alaska, Montana, etc, but the percentages tip way in the favor of the most populous states without the electoral college."

But you're assuming everyone in those states will vote for the same candidate. It's precisely the 'winner take all' Electoral College system that makes those states 'tip the balance'.

And I can tell you that people in California do not all vote the same way - we may be a solid blue state, but in last year's governor's recall election we ousted a Democrat in favor of a Republican...majority ruled.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There is little mystery about what Ralph Nader means to the 2004 election. All it requires is elementary math and a memory that extends backward a dozen years.

In 1992 Ross Perot split the Republican vote, and Bill Clinton won the election.

In 1999 Ralph Nader split the Democratic vote and George Bush won the election.

Now, in 2004, Ralph Nader is again trying to split the Democratic vote, and naturally, Republicans are offering him every assistance to allow him to do just that.

Any one who tells you that a vote for Nader doesn’t help Bush, either is an idiot, or thinks that you are.

I haven't seen any indication that Nadar is splitting the Democratic party. Your assertions and Bullets, are based wholly on looking at the election in the rear view. If Nadar had not been the green party candidate and someone else had, those who voted green more than likely still would have voted green. IF you let them vote in retrospect, without a doubt they would vote Democrat by and large. But if you totally removed the greens from the equation, there is no way to know how many of them would have even bothered voting, much less for whom.

I know a lot of sportsmen who support green candidates up here in local elections because they are conservationists. But if you tell them the only choice is Democrat or Republican, many would vote for the party that protects their right to own guns. There is no way to go back, but there are many people who hold particular views so dear, they vote on them and them alone. If you remove that pet issue, there is no way on earth to know what issue is pet #2 or what party represents it.

While the probablility is high that no green candidate would have made for a president Gore, it does not mean a vote for Nadar was a vote for Bush. Or would be this time. You may feel a terrible sense of urgency. You may thik this election is dreadfully important. But you cannot co-opt the rest of the population into your world view and then pronounce judgement on thier opinion. The only vote for Bush, is a vote for Bush. Any other vote, or not voting, expresses an opinion.

In practical theory, I have voted republican all my life. If ANYONE has a right to tell me my vote is for or against someone other than whom it is cast for, it would be GWB.

-Colly

 

[cloudy]

You may feel a terrible sense of urgency. You may thik this election is dreadfully important. But you cannot co-opt the rest of the population into your world view and then pronounce judgement on thier opinion. The only vote for Bush, is a vote for Bush. Any other vote, or not voting, expresses an opinion.

-Colly

Thank you, Colly.

 

[thebullet]

Colleen said:

I haven't seen any indication that Nadar is splitting the Democratic party. Your assertions and Bullets, are based wholly on looking at the election in the rear view.

If Nadar had not been the green party candidate and someone else had, those who voted green more than likely still would have voted green.

Colly, again you have missed the point or are intentionally avoiding the truth. A recently published poll indicates that of the 30,000 people who voted for Nader in the 2000 election in Florida, 2/3rds of them would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot. Them's the facts, Jack.

This year, Nader may not split the Dem vote so dramatically because he is not on the ballot as the Green Party candidate. But his effect on the 2000 election is irrefutable.

And again: PLEASE, Colleen, explain why the Republicans are supporting getting Nader's name on the ballot in the swing states. Is it their famous Compassionate Conservatism, or might there be a more insidious purpose.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by thebullet
JW said:


Don't get your panties in a wad! (I kinda suspect you wear panties.) We are talking simple mathematics. Statistics, if you will. Yes, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. That's the way the system works this year. Again, I reiterate: if it weren't true, then why are the Republicans attempting to get Nader on the ballot in the swing states?

Please give me another explanaition of this altruistic phenomenum.

Its a bit unfair, though, isn't it?

I mean, voting for Nader could just be voting for Nader. In that he statistically might not win, its still a meaningful vote. I think that issue shouldn't be clouded either. Failure to show support for what you believe in, even in the face of it not immediately satisfying your goal, is a noble thing and I'm sure those who genuinely believe Nader is a good Presidential candidate can see the value in seeing the polls rocked--even if not won.

The ends... the justification... the means... sure, sure. But the means still matter, regardless the end.

I don't think the Republicans are being altruistic at all. However, why would they be doing it? I think a better, more accurate, answer than "because its true" is "because they believe it to be true". Leaves some room for that nice possibility of falsehood.

By the way, Joe, I really do prefer you newest Avatar. Are you the one on the left?

Left of the hotness, yeah.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen said:

Colly, again you have missed the point or are intentionally avoiding the truth. A recently published poll indicates that of the 30,000 people who voted for Nader in the 2000 election in Florida, 2/3rds of them would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been on the ballot. Them's the facts, Jack.

This year, Nader may not split the Dem vote so dramatically because he is not on the ballot as the Green Party candidate. But his effect on the 2000 election is irrefutable.

And again: PLEASE, Colleen, explain why the Republicans are supporting getting Nader's name on the ballot in the swing states. Is it their famous Compassionate Conservatism, or might there be a more insidious purpose.

It seems to me, that the republicans wanting Nadar on the ballot is meant to hurt the Dems. I would say a calculated risk.

However, it seems to me the Dems, in making such a case to keep him off, are afraid of the results. Hitler had parties taken off the ballot so he could win. So yes, maybe the GOP does want him on the ballot.

Since you are so in tune, might you explain to me how the Dems see it as right he isn't on the ballot? Would it be because they fear a real election, with viable thrid party candidates would cost them the election? Hmmm.

Exactly which party is it now that is undermining our freedoms? They both seem kinda hazy there to me.

-Colly

edited to add: I checked the offical results and they have nadar finishing with 91,000 votes. I didn't see anything on whom those people would have voted for otherwise.

 

[poohlive]

I think it just goes to show you how dedicated and ruthless republicans are. It's refreshing in a way, they'll do whatever they have to in order to get power, or in this case, stay in power.
Yes, they're putting Nader on the ballets, cause they know Nader will take some of the swing votes still in the air... people who aren't sure of Kerry as a president or not.

Hell, why not? That's what I'd do, especially seeing Florida's fiasco in 2000. Hell, I'd get as many names as I could on the ballot, even a few tricky names too... like I'll have some guy names Jack Edwards with a running mate called Bill Kerry on there... That way, old people are confused when they see a Kerry-Edwards vote, and then an Edwards-Kerry vote.

It's brilliant! That's why I love being a republican so much. We'll do anything! We're mean, nasty, pulling all the strings behind the curtain so you can watch the puppet dance. Ha ha!! DANCE PUPPET!!!! DANCE!!!!

Democrats... lol, they're just too nice. I think that's the problem. They're one of those rational logical people, who think, by sitting down and talking, things will get solved quickly and fairly. Then there's the guy in the other room, yelling and screaming, saying we should just fight it all out, pistols at dawn.

Well, talking is the logical way to get it done, yes, but who would miss a good dueling fight, honestly? There might be blood... BLOOD!!!

 

[Weird Harold]

But you're assuming everyone in those states will vote for the same candidate. It's precisely the 'winner take all' Electoral College system that makes those states 'tip the balance'.

You're one post behind, so I won't repeat myself on the percentages vs absolute numbers argument.

I'm not going to go chasing exact numbers as to which states are the five or six least populous, but under the current system they have enough electoral votes to counterbalance California's winner take all policy. I'm not sure that they have enough population to counter the margin of victory in the california's popular vote even if they everyone in those states voted the same way.

The whole point of the Electoral College is to insure that all regions of the country have a say in how it's run -- To those of us in small states, that's a very important point.

Since there are more small states that appreciate the Electoral College than populous states that feel we have too much influence, there is very little chance the constitutional amendment required to do away with it will ever be ratified -- if it ever got passed in the first place.

 

[thebullet]

Joe said:

Its a bit unfair, though, isn't it?

Yes, Joe it is extremely unfair. I find myself vociferously supporting a man I have trouble looking at because I'm so afraid for our country. Under normal circumstances I would be supporting a 3rd party candidate myself. Back in 1982 (before you were born, I fear), I was an active supporter of John Anderson. I just feel that the future of the Republic is on the line, here and now. My vote has to go to the only person who is in a position to save the Republic, if only by default.

Some other readers may think I am extreme in my views on this subject. Give me this much: My Junior and Senior year of College were spent studying the Conservative movement and Nazism/Facism in Germany, Spain, Italy and the USA. I was invited to join the John Birch Society. (I know you are too young, but Google it young man.)

These people are dangerous. They were dangerous when they were the lunatic fringe of our society. But now they run the whole shooting match. And they are still the lunatic fringe.

By the way, talk about unfair: how did you get those lovely things in the picture with you? My life sucks!

 

[thebullet]

Colleen wrote

edited to add: I checked the offical results and they have nadar finishing with 91,000 votes. I didn't see anything on whom those people would have voted for otherwise.

Sorry about my numbers, I was pulling them out of my ass and 30,000 just came up on its own. 91,000 makes it even worse. As for the poll I quoted, my wife happened to mention it to me even without my mentioning this little thread we've been weaving. She had it in an article she read in, I believe, the LA Times or Washington Post.

Unfortunately she deleted the story about the poll from her system the other day (she usually sends stuff like that out to a number of like-minded fantatics). The reason she mentioned it to me was because she was complaining about her premature deletions and this was one of them.

Colleen wrote:

Since you are so in tune, might you explain to me how the Dems see it as right he isn't on the ballot? Would it be because they fear a real election, with viable thrid party candidates would cost them the election? Hmmm.

Colly, we are in a knock-down, drag out fight that will determine the future of our republic. I can't condemn the Dems for fighting to keep Nader off of the ballot while the Republicans are fighting to put him on the ballot. And don't tell me that I condemned the Republicans, because it isn't true. I merely asked you to tell me what you think their motives are.

My quarrel isn't with the Republicans in this matter. It is with the 'holier than thou', 'we won't stoop to getting into this argument' people who think they are somehow expressing their independence and purity by insisting on voting 3rd party during THIS election. This election the lines are clearly drawn. If we are to choose between mediocrity and extreme evil, I choose mediocrity every time.

And Colleen, if you don't see that I pity you. You will get what you deserve. But why the fuck are you dragging me along with you? That's what I want to know.

 

[cloudy]

bullet-

I take enormous exception to saying that someone who finds it impossible to vote for Kerry is "holier than thou"!!!

Where the hell did that come from?

I am not holier than thou. I am following what I believe.

If I was to say I was going to vote for Bush, would you say the same thing?

You're just as bad as any neo-con out there for lumping together the people who don't see things your way.

Your way or no way, right?

 

[LadyJeanne]

You're one post behind, so I won't repeat myself on the percentages vs absolute numbers argument.

I'm not going to go chasing exact numbers as to which states are the five or six least populous, but under the current system they have enough electoral votes to counterbalance California's winner take all policy. I'm not sure that they have enough population to counter the margin of victory in the california's popular vote even if they everyone in those states voted the same way.

The whole point of the Electoral College is to insure that all regions of the country have a say in how it's run -- To those of us in small states, that's a very important point.

Since there are more small states that appreciate the Electoral College than populous states that feel we have too much influence, there is very little chance the constitutional amendment required to do away with it will ever be ratified -- if it ever got passed in the first place.

My view is that in a popular vote, a state's borders would play fare less of a role in determining the outcome of an election than the specific views of individuals in voting for the candidate who supports their views. Someone in Rhode Island who supports funding education, environtmental conservation, choice, gun control, etc. would vote for the candidate who supports those issues, just the same as someone in California.

If regional issues are a concern, again, there are farmers, ranchers, factories, businesses, large cities and small cities all across the country. Even small states don't vote as a bloc.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen wrote
Sorry about my numbers, I was pulling them out of my ass and 30,000 just came up on its own. 91,000 makes it even worse. As for the poll I quoted, my wife happened to mention it to me even without my mentioning this little thread we've been weaving. She had it in an article she read in, I believe, the LA Times or Washington Post.

Unfortunately she deleted the story about the poll from her system the other day (she usually sends stuff like that out to a number of like-minded fantatics). The reason she mentioned it to me was because she was complaining about her premature deletions and this was one of them.

Colleen wrote:
Colly, we are in a knock-down, drag out fight that will determine the future of our republic. I can't condemn the Dems for fighting to keep Nader off of the ballot while the Republicans are fighting to put him on the ballot. And don't tell me that I condemned the Republicans, because it isn't true. I merely asked you to tell me what you think their motives are.

My quarrel isn't with the Republicans in this matter. It is with the 'holier than thou', 'we won't stoop to getting into this argument' people who think they are somehow expressing their independence and purity by insisting on voting 3rd party during THIS election. This election the lines are clearly drawn. If we are to choose between mediocrity and extreme evil, I choose mediocrity every time.

And Colleen, if you don't see that I pity you. You will get what you deserve. But why the fuck are you dragging me along with you? That's what I want to know.

I'm sorry, if you tell me the only way to save democracy is to subvert it, I can't buy that. I refuse to buy it. When you move to strip the voters of a choice to bolster your own chances, you are doing evil. Pure and simple. Just as evil as GW and his gang. Perhaps worse because you are at the same time screaming about his attacks on our liberty. It's hypocritical as well as galling.

I'll get what I deserve? You sorry son of a bitch. It's precisely because I can't get what I deserve that I am not supporting either of these two nimrods. What the F*** do you know about what I deserve? And I'm not dragging you anywhere, unless my vote brings the libertarinas or whatever third party I choose to vote for into power.

You are so myopic you can't see the end of your nose. We vote for whom we think will do the best job. If I think Bush is deplorable, and I don't think Kerry is one iota better, I'll vote for someone I do think is better. The ballot dosen't say Republic or Tyranny. It says Democrat or Republican or somebody else.

The republic is in trouble, but I don't see John Kerry as the savior. I see him as part of the effing problem. Decrying anyone who dosen't vote your way as voting against you is deplorable to the very extreme. Just because YOU think Kerry is the answer dosen't mean he is. It sounds to me like you already know he is going to loose and your looking for a scapegoat already.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

By the way, Joe, I really do prefer you newest Avatar. Are you the one on the left?

Joe is rarely, if ever, on the Left.

 

[thebullet]

Cloudy:

I take enormous exception to saying that someone who finds it impossible to vote for Kerry is "holier than thou"!!!

Sorry, I hadn't intended that little insult for you. I was responding to Colleen's remarks, which I took as 'holier than thou'.

Perhaps I've gone overboard. Perhaps I see things that aren't there. Perhaps the environment isn't on the critical list. Perhaps the USA isn't the most hated nation in the world. Perhaps our individual freedoms aren't in the balance. Perhaps we aren't in danger of becoming a nation that is constantly at war. Perhaps the draft is not going to be reinstated within the year.

If all this is true, then I sincerly apologize to any who take offense to my remarks. Then this is just another election year. But if what I fear is true, then voting for a 3rd party candidate is a serious mistake. You may be wasting your opportunity to help save the nation.

Jeez, I'm not the one who nominated John Kerry. I don't like the guy myself. But he's what we have. So what the heck are we supposed to do, throw up our hands, fall back and punt?