A question for our board Democrats...

Remove all ads!

And please don't answer with another question of your own...that does little to satisfy my curiosity.

If you are proud member of the American Democratic party...please answer this question for me...

If you and your party are so devoted to Democracy and the Democratic process...how can you possibly justify the Democratic Party's efforts to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in vitually every State?

And don't tell me it isn't the Democratic Party...they've not even made an attempt to hide it.

Waiting for a flood of answers to enlighten me...

 

I am no Democrat but would probably vote for them for a lack of a better option if I was a US citizen.

Principally I think it is wrong to try to keep Nader off the ballot, politically I think it might be vital. Is it right? Hellz no. May the ends justify the means? I think they might. This is because I am of the opinion that Bush may be leading the worlds biggest democracy into a semi-fascist authoritarian theocracy.

I am going to counter with a question even if you said you didnt want one. What if John McCain ran for president on a third party ticket and you knew he had no chance of winning but might take quite a few votes from Bush and might end up costing him the election. Wouldnt you try to keep him off the ballots? This of course implies that you think the democracts winning to be a real and severe threat to the US.

 

Several reasons. First the technical, then the principles.

1) Ralphie isn't backed by a national party. This, I believe, makes his cadidacy illegal in certain states. Can't find a link to verify this, but I've heard it often.

2) The majority of Ralphie's petition signatures to get him on the ballot come from people of your own party, deliberately trying to sway the election for Bush by funneling votes to Nader and committing voter fraud to do it. For a perfect example - see Shralp's sister. It's abundantly clear that without these tactics employed by members of your party, Ralphie wouldn't be coming even close to meeting the requirements on his own.

Now on to principle...

1) He's a f***ing nutbar. He actually thinks that Kerry and Bush have some secret Skull and Bones pact to advance each other politically, that that they're teaming up against him. There are about a thousand other articles I could site that indeed prove that Ralphie should be sitting in his P.J,'s watching cartoons in Bellvue rather than running for president, but I think you get the drift.

2) He has no principles. He is knowingly and willingly accepting campaign donations from the very people he's spent his career claiming he despises.

3) No relevance. Not even the Green Party wants anything to do with him anymore. The only purposes he serves are his own ego and as an election spoiler.

---

So what it all boils down to, Hack, is voter fraud and dishonesty. The only people who will be voting for him are, by and large, people in your own party intent on throwing the election for Bush. Nader will certainly get a small percentage of votes from true believers and people who are too disgusted with both Bush and Kerry to choose between them. But more than half will come from spoilers, and that's unacceptable. He doesn't deserve to run, period - because a vote for Nader truly is a vote for Bush now. It was rhetoric in 2000...this year, it's an official Republican strategy. If the Dems were confident that the vast majority of Nader's votes were actually in support of Nader, there wouldn't be a problem outside of their wishing he would just go away. But the evidence can't be ignored here. What's happening is wrong.

You'll notice the Dems aren't filing any lawsuits to stop the other 3rd party candidates (Libertarian, Reform, etc.) from running. They're at least legitimate candidates who's votes will actually support them, not someone else.

 

Actually, it has happened to a Republican, Joacqin. In 1992 Ross Perot ran for President as an Independent party candidate and took in 19% of the popular vote. In fact, the votes he carried would have almost overwhelmingly gone to George Bush Sr, giving him a re-election over his challenger, Bill Clinton.

Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, and even was involvled in the Presidential debates. The Democrats have blocked Nader from participating even in those.

So, yeah...I would support a choice that exercised a citizens right to Democratic process...I'm that kind of "Pro-Choice".

And yes...I never viewed Clinton as a real and severe threat to the US...I didn't like him, but I didn't fear him. Kerry is a frightening choice for this nation at this time.

[edit]Posts went up while I was posting...so let me make a brief response...it doesn't matter what the motivation is behind Nader or those who support him...it sounds to me like both Tal and DR are saying the end justifies the means. That still seems un-Democratic and I've heard the current Administration bashed here for similar situations, yet it's OK when the Democrats do it.

The reason why the Dems aren't fighting the Libertarian and Reform party candidates being on the ballot is because they can't...most State constitutions allow recognized Parties to place a candidate on the ballot. Nader is a true Independent and must gather signatures.

About Nader being a nut case...I'm no fan of the man or his politics...but I think he may be the victim of gross misrepresentation by more mainline politicos. I know that Chandos is familiar with Nader and has indeed mentioned in the past the he's his candidate of choice...maybe he can enlighten us about the articles you've posted DR.

[ October 12, 2004, 19:23: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

"Actually, it has happened to a Republican, Joacqin. In 1992 Ross Perot ran for President as an Independent party candidate and took in 19% of the popular vote."

Not true. Perot was a Reform Party candidate, and had the official endorsement of their party. Nader has no such endorsement this time, from any party. He's essentially a write-in candidate. Since he has no official party, he doesn't get a place on the ballot without a petition; and since, as I pointed out above, Naders signatures have mostly been obtained fraudulently, he doesn't deserve a spot on the ballot. He can, of course, be written-in.

Not that hard.

 

In 1992 Perot was a true Independent. He founded the Reform Party in 1995 for his bid for Presidency in 1996

 

Fiar enough - he was originally independent. But he also legitimately and successfully petitioned to be on the ballot in all 50 states. Something Nader can't come even close to without the help of the Republicans.

I don't know what you're saying here, but it seems like you missed the point of what both Tal and I said. The majority of the people who want Nader on the ballot are Republicans, not Nader supporters. That's wrong. It's the Republicans for whom the ends justify the means. The end (Bush getting re-elected) justify the means (signing every petition you can in support of a candidate you ridicule and despise, all in an effort to unfairly sway the election in favor of your candidate). I really don't understand your disconnect here, Hack.

If for example, John McCain ran as an Independent Candidate, and Dems flooded the petitions with fraudulant signatures in a deliberate attempt to spoil the election for Bush, I would be equally disgusted and would indeed switch parties (or at least go indy).

 

@HS - As death rabbit already pointed out, Nader is not recognized as a canidate in several states. However, this is due to the paricular states' constitution, and not the Democrats. Let's face it - the main debate here is for Florida - at least that's what I imagine you're getting at, and AFAIK, Nader IS slated to be on that ballot.

Bottom line - Whether or not a canidate can appear on a ballot is determined by state and federal law, not the politics of a particular party. It is obvious that the Democrats would prefer that Nader not run, but they are powerless to force states to either include or exclude him from the ballot.

 

Here's the thing on Perot, Bush and Clinton election - that is if I remember right. Clinton still would have won, because Perot did not carry any states. Thus, the electorial college would have elected Bill Clinton anyway. At least that's how I remember it. But back then who cared about the EC? The times sure have changed.

BTW, HS - I sense desperation in your post. Are you really that worried?

 

I am also sure any hardcore Republican who loved Bush I or Dole or completely loathed Clinton would have thought it fair to try to limit Perot's chances of getting on the ballot and stuff.

I really shouldnt matter if it so was the Devil himself who fixed the lists to put Nader on the ballot, a list is a list is a list. I dont know what the democrats have been doing to stop him but in a perfect world everyone who fulfilled the demands should be on the ballot but then again in a perfect world everyone who ran would have a chance to get some kind of influence if they get sufficient amount of votes. I personally in my slanted biased view think it might be nescessary to atleast condemn Nader's running as he is playing in the hands of the people he proclaims to despise a tad bit more than the dems but I do think one shouldnt try to paint it as the morally right thing to do. When have morals ever had anything to do with politics though?

 

True, Perot didn't carry any states, but I think the point HS is trying to make is that if Perot had NOT run, and the majority of his supporters had voted for Bush instead, that Bush would have won more states, and therefore, the election. I know Clinton won the vast majority of states in 1992, but I don't know how many of them were by a small margin - small enough that if Perot had not run they may have went Bush's way.

As an aside though, you're right. In the case that NO canidate got a majority of electoral votes, the race would have been decided in the Senate, which had a democratic majority at the time, so Clinton would have won.

 

If you take the States that Clinton won with an non-majority of the vote (there were 20 something), and add those electoral votes to Bush's...he would have been President for a second term.

Aldeth is correct on what I was trying to say.

And yes, Chandos...I am a little concerned. There has been a swell in voter registration due to the whole Rockers for Change - Rock the Vote - P Diddy the pundit scene. I can only hope that these new, uneducated, apathetic and ignorant voters will be too stoned to find their polling place.

 

Actually, here's an article on Nader's attempt to get on the ballot - he's definitely on in 30 states currently, and it is under review in 10 others.

Read the article here

Also, I found a map which basically is a pictoral representation of the article here

 

I don't think it is a question of how many states, but which states. The Dems usually get the big electoral ones, like New York and California; the Republicans, the more rural states - but you already knew that, I'm sure.

 

The map that Aldeth found is great. With it you can pull up the 1992 election and see for yourself the impact that Perot had on the outcome...very clearly put Clinton in the White House. It's also a little spooky to see how little geographical area is strongly supportive of Kerry...just a few dense urban States.

 

Yes, where most of the people live.

I'm not sure if Perot was that much of a factor, since Bush I got killed in the EC - 370 to 168. WOW!

 

Should we adjust voting to square mileage then? Or perhaps give farm animals the right to vote?

You'll also remember how much ammo the Repubs spent against Perot. Much of this was about making Perot seem crazy, just as the Dems make Nader out to be a kook. Limbaugh used to play this little piece where a Perot imitator would sing "they're coming to take me away, he he, ho ho..." whenever he would talk about Perot.

I'm also a bit wary of the entrenchment of the two party system...

 

I can't. Thing is, both major parties are massively corrupt, dishonest, and so forth. I just happen to find the (stated) democratics ideals more in line with my own. And I hate Bush