"Our long-range goal is to break up the two parties. The two-party system is a menace and subversion of our democratic processes, and it's basically sold our elections and our government to commercial interests."
Nader says...
Nader says...
Saw this in usatoday but couldn't find it on their web site. The dems would prefer nader to drop out because they believe he'll take some votes away from them. In usatoday nader says he will still run regardless if the dems address some of his issues. But this part impressed me:
[align=center]<img src="http://www.statgfx.com/statgfx/folding/?&username=blade&border=0,0,64&custom=21,138,255&label=79,79,255&header=149,202,255&stats=0,255,255&bgcolor=0,0,181&trans=no&template=fah_original&.jpg" alt="www.Statgfx.com" />
<img src="http://www.pcabusers.org/funnies/monkey2.gif">
<i><small>"Too much monkee business"</i></small>[/align]
<img src="http://www.pcabusers.org/funnies/monkey2.gif">
<i><small>"Too much monkee business"</i></small>[/align]
-
FlyingPenguin
- Flightless Bird
- Posts: 32784
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 11:13 am
- Location: Central Florida
- Contact:
I personally think Nader is a crank, but he's absolutely right about our two party system.
Even if an independent won 95% of the popular vote, he could not be elected president (although I would think it would probably get remanded to the supreme court). The Electoral College only recognizes the two mainstream parties. I think that's absurd.
I also don't have a problem with Nader - or any independent - running. If you're not happy with the two mainstream party choices, it at least gives you a way to express your dissatisfaction in a way that gets attention. The Democratic Party needs to stop whining about Nader. If Kerry is the man the people really want, then the 1% Nader will "steal" shouldn't make any real difference.
In 1980 I (and a LOT of other people my age - I was 20 at that time) voted for Anderson as a protest vote against what we felt were the unsatisfactory choices of Carter and Reagan.
We had no illusions that Anderson could win, but we wanted our vote to mean something and NOT voting makes no statement at all.
Anderson got a surprising 6.5% of the popular vote which shocked and rattled the political establishement deeply. Pundits were talking about that for months. Anderson actually got enough of the popular vote to qualify to have his outstanding campaign expenses re-imbursed by the government (you need to get over 5% of the popular vote to qualify). I think even Anderson was suprised.
That effectively set a powerful precedent for this whole "Rock the Vote" campaign that started afterwards. Young voters have been traditionally written off by both parties because they generally don't vote.
I think Ross Perot was well on his way to grabbing more than 6.5% of the popular vote in 1992. I wish he'd seen the election through to the end. It would have really rattled some people.
Even if an independent won 95% of the popular vote, he could not be elected president (although I would think it would probably get remanded to the supreme court). The Electoral College only recognizes the two mainstream parties. I think that's absurd.
I also don't have a problem with Nader - or any independent - running. If you're not happy with the two mainstream party choices, it at least gives you a way to express your dissatisfaction in a way that gets attention. The Democratic Party needs to stop whining about Nader. If Kerry is the man the people really want, then the 1% Nader will "steal" shouldn't make any real difference.
In 1980 I (and a LOT of other people my age - I was 20 at that time) voted for Anderson as a protest vote against what we felt were the unsatisfactory choices of Carter and Reagan.
We had no illusions that Anderson could win, but we wanted our vote to mean something and NOT voting makes no statement at all.
Anderson got a surprising 6.5% of the popular vote which shocked and rattled the political establishement deeply. Pundits were talking about that for months. Anderson actually got enough of the popular vote to qualify to have his outstanding campaign expenses re-imbursed by the government (you need to get over 5% of the popular vote to qualify). I think even Anderson was suprised.
That effectively set a powerful precedent for this whole "Rock the Vote" campaign that started afterwards. Young voters have been traditionally written off by both parties because they generally don't vote.
I think Ross Perot was well on his way to grabbing more than 6.5% of the popular vote in 1992. I wish he'd seen the election through to the end. It would have really rattled some people.
Christians warn us about the anti-christ for 2,000 years, and when he shows up, they buy a bible from him.
-
Executioner
- Life Member
- Posts: 10141
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 11:34 am
- Location: Woodland, CA USA
I agree. I believe he was in the high 20 percent. Bummer he dropped out.Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
I personally think Nader is a crank, but he's absolutely right about our two party system.
I think Ross Perot was well on his way to grabbing more than 6.5% of the popular vote in 1992. I wish he'd seen the election through to the end. It would have really rattled some people.
even after dropping out, Peroit got something like 2 or 3 percent.
I agree that the two party system has to go. I think you need some sort of structure, as having 100 people on the ballot is not realistic. I dont think that most Americans "fit" into either of the parties completely. Also makes for politicians who support a party, even though they dont support certain policies, for fear of being cast out.
I agree that the two party system has to go. I think you need some sort of structure, as having 100 people on the ballot is not realistic. I dont think that most Americans "fit" into either of the parties completely. Also makes for politicians who support a party, even though they dont support certain policies, for fear of being cast out.
