C Stanley I agree with you, Michael, and to tie this in with the other post about giving third parties a chance, I'm not altogether convinced that that's what we need to do. Increasingly I'm coming to the conclusion that the purpose of third party or independent candidates isn't to get one of them elected, it's to get one of the two main parties refocused. By appealing to a certain constituency, a third party candidate shows the mainstream parties what they are overlooking and forces them to refocus if they want to remain relevant.

mvdg Christine, to quite a large degree I can agree with that - regarding the situation in America that is, which is quite my point. To me, that seems reason enough to support third parties every now and then.

kritter I have to disagree. By making the 2000 run, Nader threw the election in the state of Fla to Bush. Nader won 93,000 votes -while Gore lost the state by a little over 500. Of course Nader had the perfect right to run, but he went back on a promise not to run in closely contested states like Florida. I agree that third party candidates aim to refocus the parties, but so far that hasn't really happened. Does anyone really think that a Bloomberg run will force the GOP to widen its appeal to include moderates and independents? The conservatives,who dominate the party, will never allow that to happen. Any number of candidates can legally run, but their candidacy can end up helping the candidate that least agrees with their political agenda, which in the long run, is counterproductive.

mvdg

Of course Nader had the perfect right to run, but he went back on a promise not to run in closely contested states like Florida.

That's not true. He promised not to campaign hard in those states, not not to run in those states at all. And guess what, if you look at his campaign strategy - as you seemingly have not done - you will see that, indeed, he spent relatively little time campaigning in Florida. And - Gore did not win those votes because of Gore. Not because of Nader. Did you look at the results of polls of Nader voters for whom they would have voted if Nader didn't run? Something tells me you didn't. Kim: the Democrats have convinced you that they "earn" or "own" certain votes. They do not. The candidate people can identify with does. For 9,000 people, that person was Nader.

Andy Sure the 90000 who voted for Nader would have otherwise gone for Bush, or perhaps Buchanan, like those hundreds of elderly Jews in SoFla. To say that Nader had no effect is foolish and plainly ignorant of simple arithmetic.

kritter Michael - PLs don't try to convince me that the 92,000 that voted for Nader would have voted for Bush otherwise. Nader's Green Party is so much closer in ideology to Gore's platform than it is to Bush's- to try to make the point that if Nader had not run the result would have been the same is just ludicrous. Nader is a big environmentalist- which as we know is Gore's main focus. Where they disagreed was in the influence corporatism has on policy- that influence has been driving Nader's election runs. Also his goal was to reach the 5% necessary to get federal funding in elections. Winning about 2.76% he came up short. From the Atlantic Monthly: The Atlantic Monthly, in its list of the 100 most influential Americans, ranked Nader number 96: "He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president."[1]

mvdg Who tells you they would have voted if Nader didn't run? Who gave you that idea? Again - you accept the Democratic line, which is simply a lie and, more importantly... one cannot 'steal' votes. People can win votes, and others can lose them. Running for President as a third party is, per definition, not wrong. And regardign gore: he ran one of the worst campaigns in modern history. Gore lost because of Gore. I understand that Democrats need a scapegoat (anything not to have to take responsibility for their own failure), but you should not fall for it. Gore went into the elections as VP to a very popular president. He should have won easily. It should not even have come this close. Lastly, Democrats should make up their minds: did Bush 'steal' the elections or did Nader 'steal' it? Which one of the two. Blaming Nader for getting to vote for him... the mortal sin in any demoracy, right?

Interested

but the entire “spoiler” accusation is beyond ridiculous. Back in 2000, Gore lost because of Gore. Back in 2004, Kerry lost because of Kerry.

Your exactly right. The Dem's favorite post-campaign theme is to blame.

I have to disagree. By making the 2000 run, Nader threw the election in the state of Fla to Bush.

Case in point

To say that Nader had no effect is foolish and plainly ignorant of simple arithmetic.

Sorry but that's ignorant of the Electoral process. Nowhere in any shred of either the Framers writings, the Constitution or law does it state that there can only be Two Main parties competing on the ballot. If there is - I challenge you to find it. Until then - look within. The Dem's lost because of the Dem's. As the Dem strategist said in the dvd So Goes the nation - "we didn't even know they existed" (talking about Ohio rural voters). Look within.

mvdg Interested: you watched it - good documentary huh? Yes - that is a very telling quote. They literally said that: "we didn't even know they existed." they thought "where do these people come from?" The Dems lost because of themselves, not because of anyone else. And Third Parties should be credited for their hard work, not labeled as "spoilers." I do find it intersting that the prejudice (democrats not believing in something called personal responsibility), seems to be affirmed in the debate about Nader. Instead of blaming Nader, they should take responsibility for their own failing. Once they do - they will win.

Andy "Sorry but that’s ignorant of the Electoral process. Nowhere in any shred of either the Framers writings, the Constitution or law does it state that there can only be Two Main parties competing on the ballot." Jeebus, people, no one ever said that he couldn't run. Of course Gore is primarily at fault, but if Nader had not run, Gore would have won Florida. Furthermore, the Floridians who voted for Nader for progressive reasons are idiots because it was well known that the election would be extremely close.

Interested

Of course Gore is primarily at fault, but if Nader had not run, Gore would have won Florida.

Primarily? Try totally. His loss was not due to Nadar, wasn't due to ballots that were in use for years, wasn't due to State Law, wasn't due to bi-partisan Senate confirmed Judges of the Supreme Court, wasn't due to hanging chads, wasn't due to Contunued recounting, wasn't due to throwing out absentee ballots. And the 06 election shows it's not really about money. All of those are and were - excuses. He had everything in his favor, good economy, popular outgoing president, proven record. He, only he - created his own loss.

C Stanley The Nader voters either wouldn't have voted at all, or they wanted to cast a vote in protest of the Democratic party. If you look at the way he campaigned, it's clear that he wanted to send that message to the Dems and that a certain portion of the electorate agreed with him. Third party voters WANT to be spoilers- that is there express purpose. They don't want to say, well, I'll just have to pick from the mainstream party that is at least sort of close to my views. They want to send a message to the one party that's closer to their views that the party isn't doing a good enough job on one or more issues. And Kim, if those voters' wishes had been clearly expressed in the Democratic party platform and in Gore's campaign, then they would have voted for Gore. It's as simple as that. Besides, I think it was something like 12% of registered Democrats who voted for BUSH, so Nader only siphoned off a small percentage while Bush actually directly got the votes of some of Gore's natural base.

mvdg You are correct Christine: if Gore would have been able to get all the Democratic voters to actually vote for him, he would have won. If Gore wouldn't have run like a leftist populist he would have won. If Gore would have allowed Clinton to play a bigger role, he would have won. If... the list goes on and on.

Andy "His loss was not due to Nadar, wasn’t due to ballots that were in use for years, wasn’t due to State Law, wasn’t due to bi-partisan Senate confirmed Judges of the Supreme Court, wasn’t due to hanging chads, wasn’t due to Contunued recounting, wasn’t due to throwing out absentee ballots. And the 06 election shows it’s not really about money. All of those are and were - excuses." This is simply foolish. Those are all REASONS that he lost votes. He lost by such a small margin that just a few of those factors could have pushed the election to Gore. It's laughable to suggest that the '06 elections mean anything for the very particular factors on the ground in Florida. The electorate hates George Bush and the Iraq war and so Republicans lost. It's so weird that you people are denying these very basic facts. Do you really think a thousand old Jewish ladies intended to vote for Pat Buchanan? Yes, Gore should have requested a state wide recount. He would not have needed to if the minority voters hadn't been disenfranchised by the Republican state government, or if Nader had not been on the ballot, or if the ballot had been sensibly designed.

kritter Well said, Andy. Its amazing how the simplest most obvious things get twisted. MvdG- You still hear people blaming Bush Sr's 1992 loss on Ross Perot. Its true we were in a recession and he was unpopular with his own party for raising taxes, but it was close enough that Bush still most likely would have won reelection if Perot hadn't run as a third party candidate.

Interested

This is simply foolish. Those are all REASONS that he lost votes. He lost by such a small margin that just a few of those factors could have pushed the election to Gore.

Oh please. Gore lost because of Gore. he amazingly twisted a sure thing into a close loss. He did it all on his own - excuses notwithstanding - and that's all they were. It's beyond time for the Dem's to take accountability for their own actions.

C Stanley Nobody's denying anything, Kim and Andy. It's true that many factors played into the extremely close race ultimately resulting in Bush's win. Our point is that the race needn't have been so close- if Gore had only appealed to more voters within his own party, he'd have won easily. I read a good analogy once but don't remember the source: attributing Gore's loss in FL to Nader is like attributing a loss in a football game to the field goal kicker if he misses; it's true that his miss would be one factor in a loss, but the rest of the team's performance throughout the game is more significant and anyone who tries to pin it on that kicker is denying that reality.

Andy "It’s beyond time for the Dem’s to take accountability for their own actions." Oh gosh, I guess you're right. We shouldn't bother to figure out why blacks were systematically disenfranchised in Florida and other states. We shouldn't bother to find out why urban voting places have much higher rates of machine failure. We shouldn't look into sensible design of ballots for readability or fairness. Let's just give up and blame Gore.

Andy "Our point is that the race needn’t have been so close- if Gore had only appealed to more voters within his own party, he’d have won easily." This point is irrelevant. It's a given that Gore didn't run well. But people here ARE denying that Nader had anything to do with the loss, which is obviously not true. Saying that it's all Gore's fault that he lost in Florida is as irrelevant as saying that if he had won Tennessee, he wouldn't have needed to win in Florida. That's true, but hardly the whole story, and not the issue at hand. People in this thread are directly denying facts that took away thousands of votes from Al Gore.

Interested And your clearly denying facts that your thousands of votes were in many cases - implimented in Democrat counties by Democrats. Gore didn't care to make sure every vote counted - he only cared if they counted - enough - in Democratic counties. I voted for the guy, yet I am not blinded by your excuses. It doesn't get any simpler than if Gore resonated with voters, he would have won.

kritter Absolutely true, Andy. Gore could have run a much better campaign, butit is also true that there were a lot of election "irregularities" in 2000. Nader undoubtedly took votes away from Gore, just as Perot took votes away from Bush, Sr in 1992. Third party candidates often help the candidate that they have the least in common with.

Interested

Absolutely true, Andy. Gore could have run a much better campaign, butit is also true that there were a lot of election “irregularities” in 2000. Nader undoubtedly took votes away from Gore, just as Perot took votes away from Bush, Sr in 1992. Third party candidates often help the candidate that they have the least in common with.

The Democrats have indeed perfected Excuses.

Andy "The Democrats have indeed perfected Excuses." Cute. I take this explicit approval of the systematic disenfranchisement of minorities in Florida.

C Stanley Why do you keep repeating that third party candidates "take" votes, Kim? The voters are perfectly able to cast their vote for anyone they wish; neither party "owns" the votes, so no one can be accused of "taking" them. Your thinking only makes sense if you assume that anyone who is a member of a party has some sort of duty or should assume that what is good for the party is good for the country. That certainly isn't true all of the time. Your assumption is that no one should ever feel so fed up with their party that they'd want to cast a vote against it, and that's exactly the type of thinking that the candidates in the two main parties would like to encourage because then they can take their voters for granted.

Interested Andy Take it anyway you want, if your prone to excusing rather than self-blame than that would be the appropriate response. If you were honest, you'd also look to the Democrats for their hand in disenfranchising voters due to pure neglect. One things for sure, that excuse mentality and a constant unknowing of the population that they want to vote for them, they will continue to loose and continue to excuse.

Andy "Your thinking only makes sense if you assume that anyone who is a member of a party has some sort of duty or should assume that what is good for the party is good for the country." Well, saying "taken" is perhaps the wrong terminology. The issue is that Nader and his supporters were horribly (and predictably) wrong in their assessment that Gore was "no different" from Bush, and their efforts have resulted in war and a government far more objectionable to them than a Gore presidency ever would have been.

mvdg

Your assumption is that no one should ever feel so fed up with their party that they’d want to cast a vote against it, and that’s exactly the type of thinking that the candidates in the two main parties would like to encourage because then they can take their voters for granted.

Exactly Christine. Kim, keep feeding the monster I'd say.

The issue is that Nader and his supporters were horribly (and predictably) wrong in their assessment that Gore was “no different” from Bush, and their efforts have resulted in war and a government far more objectionable to them than a Gore presidency ever would have been.

Perhaps yes, but some people believe that you should not vote against something or someone, you should vote for something or someone. And to Nader, guess what, to him the parties are the same in so far that both are influenced to a large degree by Big Business and Big Lobbyists. And he is right about that. Interested: well said, that'll be the quote of the day for today.

C Stanley Andy, Personally I'd suggest that it would be better to think of it this way: The results of the election of 2000 were within the margin of a statistical tie. The close margin illuminated many problems of our voting system, and we should attempt to correct these problems as much as possible. Do you see the difference? This way, we're still emphasizing the importance of these issues, but it's no longer in the context of "why Gore lost". The latter thinking tends to come across as the musings of a sore loser, and it encourages the party to continue to take voters for granted- not to mention stirring up partisan hostilities by focusing on your party's loss due to 'voter irregularities' by the opposing party (and of course the other kind of voter irregularity which tends to favor Democrats, vote fraud, is dismissed as nonexistent).

kritter 'The issue is that Nader and his supporters were horribly (and predictably) wrong in their assessment that Gore was “no different” from Bush, and their efforts have resulted in war and a government far more objectionable to them than a Gore presidency ever would have been.' Absolutely. Also that regardless of whether the two main parties take voters for granted, and yes they probably do, third party candidates still act as spoilers in our present-day system. A third party candidate has never managed to win the presidency, and if their goal has been to refocus the party's agenda, I haven't seen any evidence of it being successful. I do favor MvdG's idea of a runoff between the two top vote getters, but that would negate the electoral college, so the Constitution would need to be amended to allow it. That's probably not very likely to occur.

C Stanley

I do favor MvdG’s idea of a runoff between the two top vote getters, but that would negate the electoral college, so the Constitution would need to be amended to allow it. That’s probably not very likely to occur.

Nor should it, unless we want to create a blue state oligarchy. On the 'spoiler' issue, Kim, what you aren't getting is that some of us see the "spoiling" as a postive for the country rather than a negative as you view it for the party in question. And yes, I feel the same way when a third party candidate appeals to conservatives and makes it harder for a GOP candidate to win.

Andy "and of course the other kind of voter irregularity which tends to favor Democrats, vote fraud, is dismissed as nonexistent" It tends to get dismissed as non-existent because it is largely non-existent. This is one of the main issues behind the US Attorney scandal. The Republicans pressured the USA's to bring up voter fraud cases right before elections and in almost every single case, there was not any evidence to support such claims. This may have been an issue in 1970's Chicago, but today it is a plain lie. On the other hand, voter disenfranchisement in Florida is well known -- the U.S. Civil Rights Commission found frequent and serious voting rights violations in the 2000 elections.

Interested

On the other hand, voter disenfranchisement in Florida is well known — the U.S. Civil Rights Commission found frequent and serious voting rights violations in the 2000 elections.

And don't forget the voting machines which were accused of being part of disenfranchising voters - setup by Democrats and in use for what - a Decade? Where was the outcry in earlier elections. There wasn't any because it wasn't close enough for people to care. And what of Gores Disenfranchising the overseas Military vote where they were not afforded the ability to have their mail postmarked? Selective Andy, very selective.

C Stanley

This may have been an issue in 1970’s Chicago, but today it is a plain lie.

Tell the voters of St. Louis and Kansas City that it's a lie, Andy.

Andy "Tell the voters of St. Louis and Kansas City that it’s a lie, Andy." Show me the evidence. "And what of Gores Disenfranchising the overseas Military vote where they were not afforded the ability to have their mail postmarked?" Show me the evidence.

mvdg Whatever happened to the good old "show me the money!"?

Project Vote Smart For information on the candidates running in the 2008 Presidential Election, including those running as independents, please visit:: Presidential Election 2008 For more information please visit Project Vote Smart or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART

Interested Curious Andy with your very selective Voter Disenfranchise cases. Anything not conforming to your neat box is show me the proof. I susupect if the race wasn't that close, if Gore had won - you wouldn't have cared. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/11/recount.military/index.html

The lawsuit brought by Democratic voters sought to eliminate enough ballots to change the election results in Vice President Al Gore's favor. Republican George W. Bush led by less than 200 votes as election challenges continued in the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere Monday. "While Florida law seems to favor counting ballots, this change would take away the votes of thousands of Florida citizens -- including members of America's armed forces on duty outside of the country pursuant to the nation's orders -- who, to cast their ballots, just did what they were told by Florida's election officials," the appeals court said.

And more http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15606 And more http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/fy01/01145sum.htm And More - hightlight quote

Abell: I think "no postmarks" is too absolute for me to agree to. I recognize that postage-paid, first-class mail doesn't require a postmark. l think that's part of what we're going to look at, as I said in my statement, is the postmarking procedures used by the military postal system. But it will also be an item of continuing discussions with the various states on what their requirements are.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1389

C Stanley The evidence in the cases I cited, Andy, was enough to convict ACORN workers of filing fraudulent voter registrations.

Interested And Andy For St. Luis Here you go. http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_050629_estlvoterfraud.59ae440d.html

EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. (AP) -- A federal jury Wednesday convicted the head of this city's Democratic Party and four others of scheming to buy votes with cash, cigarettes and liquor last November to try to get key Democrats elected.

yes - says "convicted"

Party Chairman Charles Powell Junior and four others were accused of conspiring to commit vote fraud. The other four also were found guilty of election fraud for allegedly paying at least one person to vote in last fall's election.

And for Kansas City

ACORN Workers Indicted For Alleged Voter Fraud

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/politics/10214492/detail.html ooo we got a video even. Smart - tick off the people doing shady stuff for you by not paying them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsT0LdeVomc&eurl=

kritter But, because the Bush administration has pushed prosecution of voter fraud- even when the evidence wasn't there in almost all of the cases, it has ignored minority voter suppression cases. So of course none of those was ever prosecuted because it wasn't a top priority (wouldn't overturn an election in favor of a Republican).

C Stanley The fact is that in most cases, neither are prosecuted and it shouldn't be an either-or situation. Both are examples of disenfranchisement, and although each party has reasons to want to deal with one issue but not the other doesn't mean that we voters should agree with that selective mentality. And can you actually cite an example where there was evidence of voter suppression which was not prosecuted?

kritter I do know that locally in Virginia there were cases of reported suppression of immigrants- some were called and threatened that if they showed up they'd be arrested, and that wasn't followed up. In general, voter fraud was a top priority of the Bush Justice Dept and is a key reason some of the USA's were fired last December. I found this from 3-14-07 from Consortium News.com 'There has been no indication that the Bush administration pressed for criminal investigations of possible electoral abuses committed by Republicans. Bush gained the White House in 2000 despite widespread electoral irregularities in Florida and kept it in 2004 amid allegations of voter suppression in Democratic strongholds in Ohio.'

C Stanley So, when asked for evidence, Interested and I offer an example of cases where people have been convicted. As 'proof' of voter suppression, you offer unproven allegations and the assertions of a left wing website. I understand that you think that if the Bush administration has been selectively looking for one problem and not the other, that you'll be unable to come up with proof because the justice system hasn't prosecuted those cases. However, I'd assert two things: first, there is nothing AT ALL inappropriate about the general concept of the Bush administration making voting fraud a top priority as long as they also place emphasis on prosecuting voter intimidation. The fact that they were aggressively seeking prosecutions of fraud, to most Republicans, is a good thing and it's one reason that some of us haven't been as upset as you are about the USA 'scandal'. I do feel that there were some improprieties (the vetting of civil service JD applicants along political lines, for example) but most of the stuff about USA's being pressured to prosecute when there wasn't evidence has been trumped up, IMO. The only actual case I'm aware of was in Washington, where there were OBVIOUS improprieties in an election (numerous dead voters is usually a tip off) and many people rightly questioned whether the USA was doing his job properly. My second assertion is that I don't think we know that the administration wasn't actively pursuing charges in cases where voter intimidation was alleged. I'm not saying that isn't the case, but I don't know one way or the other. There have been prosecutions, including prosecutions against GOP candidates like in the NH phone jamming case. So on what basis can you objectively say that the administration was overlooking evidence of intimidation? Because a lot of people have alleged it? I'll repeat Andy's question then: where is the evidence? My point is that you seem willing to believe any and all accusations of voter intimidation (because you believe that the GOP administration turns a blind eye to it) while you don't believe allegations of fraud (because you percieve that a few cases have been prosecuted only because the GOP is on a witchhunt). What if the truth is that both of these problems occur and that there are also false allegations of both? That perhaps many of the claims of intimidation are made just because the claim itself is a PR victory for one party over the other? I think there is a real danger that our system is being corrupted and that the results of elections can't be trusted; the only way we can take control back is to stop believing the party lines- and acknowledge that we have to give scrutiny to claims of intimidation AND fraud. And the recent push to register as many voters as possible has led to the concerns of fraud. You only have to look at ACORN to see why (and there are similar groups with GOP leanings too). When a group that has a political bias is contracted to go out and register as many voters as possible, what do you expect? Of course there are unscrupulous people who will take advantage of that situation- either some registrations will be filed that don't correspond to real people, or some registrations will be mysteriously 'lost'. We have to get away from this idea that we should interfere in any way with the registration process. It is the responsibility of the voter, period. We've made it as easy as possible, just get to the DMV and register. I have no problem with groups helping people with transportation and such (though fraud occurs even in those situations, with campaigners who drive people to register or to vote and BTW, here's $5 for lunch and BTW, I work for the campaign of so-and-so who really wanted to make sure you can get to the polls- what is that if not a bribe for a vote?) But generally speaking, we can't stop people from helping other people who might need assistance with transportation- but we should be careful about going any further than that because it's an invitation to corrupt the process. If voters aren't motivated enough to seek out help to get to the registration place or the polls, then too bad- there IS some responsibility that must be left to the individual. And those who feel otherwise should ask themselves: is it really the process you are worried about, that some people won't vote, or is it because you know that these disinterested voters can easily be persuaded to vote for the party you prefer?

Interested Well said Christine.