Ralph Nader and other third (or 4th, 5th, etc.) party candidates
General Discussion
Pages: 1
Ralph Nader and other third (or 4th, 5th, etc.) party candidates
0
posted08/18/2004 02:50 AM (UTC)by

About Me
I Have Become as the Wastelands of Unending Nothingness. Now Shall the Night Things Fill Me with their Whisperings, and the Shadows Reveal their Wisdom.
Member Since
02/21/2003 03:07 AM (UTC)
This is a topic I have mixed feelings about, and I'd like to hear some opinions on it.
After the 2000 US election, a lot of people blamed Green party candidate Ralph Nader for stealing votes from Al Gore, thus costing him the election. (In Florida, for example, Nader recieved 97,488 votes; since Bush, by official records, won Florida by just 537 votes, had a small fration of Nader voters in Florida voted for Gore instead, Gore would have easily won.) What bothers me, though, is when people say "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." That's like saying that not voting at all is a vote for Bush. Nader is often painted by Democrats as a tool of the Bush administration, and perhaps there's good cause for this: although Nader represents basically a politically polar opposite of Bush and Republicans, Nader's 2000 campaign was heavily funded by supporters of the Republican party.
Also, I've read that most democratic countries have far more than just two parties with significant political representation. I'd appreciate it if any non-American forum members could verify and/or elaborate on this.
So, what do you guys think? Do third party and independent candidates steal votes away from the major parties, or do they send an important message to the public? Should the electoral process be reformed to rectify the problems they can create?
After the 2000 US election, a lot of people blamed Green party candidate Ralph Nader for stealing votes from Al Gore, thus costing him the election. (In Florida, for example, Nader recieved 97,488 votes; since Bush, by official records, won Florida by just 537 votes, had a small fration of Nader voters in Florida voted for Gore instead, Gore would have easily won.) What bothers me, though, is when people say "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." That's like saying that not voting at all is a vote for Bush. Nader is often painted by Democrats as a tool of the Bush administration, and perhaps there's good cause for this: although Nader represents basically a politically polar opposite of Bush and Republicans, Nader's 2000 campaign was heavily funded by supporters of the Republican party.
Also, I've read that most democratic countries have far more than just two parties with significant political representation. I'd appreciate it if any non-American forum members could verify and/or elaborate on this.
So, what do you guys think? Do third party and independent candidates steal votes away from the major parties, or do they send an important message to the public? Should the electoral process be reformed to rectify the problems they can create?


About Me
Anything war can do, peace can do better.
0
Only an idiot votes for the canidate...because canidates can do nothing on their own, not to mention pressure from their party. That said, non democrat-or-republicans don't have a universal stance on anything. They tend to be a risk. If the party unified and could agree on things maybe. I also think not voting is a huge statement...people say not voting is just throwing away the power but it really is a message that both main parties don't represent most Americans.
But here is how I think. Republicans need to be abolished. Plain and simple. Their thinking is unAmerican, and they should leave America. I would give my life to prevent another Republican president. But that's not realistic, it's inevetable. Democrates reprosent compassion, while republicans are hateful war mongars. There is strong evidence that there are republican ties to September 11th. They probably killed Wellstone. You may want to vote 3rd party, but if they can't win, then you are throwing your vote away.
But here is how I think. Republicans need to be abolished. Plain and simple. Their thinking is unAmerican, and they should leave America. I would give my life to prevent another Republican president. But that's not realistic, it's inevetable. Democrates reprosent compassion, while republicans are hateful war mongars. There is strong evidence that there are republican ties to September 11th. They probably killed Wellstone. You may want to vote 3rd party, but if they can't win, then you are throwing your vote away.


About Me
Ghostdragon - Fan Submission Director ghostdragon@mortalkombatonline.com
Mortal Kombat Online - The Ultimate Mortal Kombat Experience
http://www.mortalkombatonline.com
-Isaac Watts
0
Here's how I see it. Some 3rd parties are too radical to either side. In 2000 you had both Nader and Buchannon being prime examples.
The thing is that Gore didn't attack Nadr's critizisms and actively go after those who voted for Nader. In war, every opponent should respected even if they have n chance of winning. Let even the weakest opponent injure you just enough, it will be to the advantage of your equal opponent.
On a concience level, Nader is correct on many things, yet he has not real experience with working with politicians to obtain them. Sometimes things have to get sacrificed and not all of one's agendas are successfull. How can he work with Congress and who would he elect to his cabinet?
Since he might elect people not based in Washington, he'll alienate Congress to the point where nothing would get done. Just cause someone is outside of Washington doesn't mean that they'll do a better job. They still have to understand how things work and use that to the administrations advantage. What experience would his policy makers have? He sure as hell wouldn't have a mandate since both Dems and Reps would stall everything and force Nader to come to the middle on nearly everything.
An advocate in office is not required for he/she will be their own enemy, not Congress.
GD
The thing is that Gore didn't attack Nadr's critizisms and actively go after those who voted for Nader. In war, every opponent should respected even if they have n chance of winning. Let even the weakest opponent injure you just enough, it will be to the advantage of your equal opponent.
On a concience level, Nader is correct on many things, yet he has not real experience with working with politicians to obtain them. Sometimes things have to get sacrificed and not all of one's agendas are successfull. How can he work with Congress and who would he elect to his cabinet?
Since he might elect people not based in Washington, he'll alienate Congress to the point where nothing would get done. Just cause someone is outside of Washington doesn't mean that they'll do a better job. They still have to understand how things work and use that to the administrations advantage. What experience would his policy makers have? He sure as hell wouldn't have a mandate since both Dems and Reps would stall everything and force Nader to come to the middle on nearly everything.
An advocate in office is not required for he/she will be their own enemy, not Congress.
GD


About Me
I Have Become as the Wastelands of Unending Nothingness. Now Shall the Night Things Fill Me with their Whisperings, and the Shadows Reveal their Wisdom.
0
ghostdragon Wrote: Here's how I see it. Some 3rd parties are too radical to either side. In 2000 you had both Nader and Buchannon being prime examples. The thing is that Gore didn't attack Nadr's critizisms and actively go after those who voted for Nader. In war, every opponent should respected even if they have n chance of winning. Let even the weakest opponent injure you just enough, it will be to the advantage of your equal opponent. On a concience level, Nader is correct on many things, yet he has not real experience with working with politicians to obtain them. Sometimes things have to get sacrificed and not all of one's agendas are successfull. How can he work with Congress and who would he elect to his cabinet? Since he might elect people not based in Washington, he'll alienate Congress to the point where nothing would get done. Just cause someone is outside of Washington doesn't mean that they'll do a better job. They still have to understand how things work and use that to the administrations advantage. What experience would his policy makers have? He sure as hell wouldn't have a mandate since both Dems and Reps would stall everything and force Nader to come to the middle on nearly everything. An advocate in office is not required for he/she will be their own enemy, not Congress. GD |
First of all, I wouldn't really say Buchanon is radical or extreme right. From what little I know about him, he seems to advocate a more isolationist philosophy, which is largely contrary to the near-imperialism of Bush and the neo-conservatives.
I agree with most of what you said. You definitely have a point that Gore should have confronted Nader's criticisms and gone after Nader voters. Also, I think you're right that Nader would always get shut down by congress if he were actually elected, because of the nature of congress. But the thing is, it seems to me that third party candidates would have a better chance of winning a few seats in the House or Senate than the presidency. If the country was in such a position that a third party candidate could win the presidency, there would likely be a number of third party members already in congress, therefore the president would probably be more able to get things done. Now, a lot of the people who vote for Nader probably wouldn't vote at all if he wasn't running, but because he is, they're likely to also vote for any third party candidates running for congress, as well as local office.
Pages: 1
© 1998-2025 Shadow Knight Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Mortal Kombat, the dragon logo and all character names are trademarks and copyright of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.