Why is a vote for Nadar a vote out the window?

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Bleh, Gore didn't even win his own state.

that still cracks me up

but in reality , he lived in D.C. more than Tennessee , so it doesn't really count

 

[JackBurton]

All I wish for is to have a candidate to vote FOR instead of voting against the other. I guess Nader is as close as it gets right now.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Bleh, Gore didn't even win his own state.

that still cracks me up

but in reality , he lived in D.C. more than Tennessee , so it doesn't really count

Yah, he was just born here and that's really not his fault! But still...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
Anyway, I believe there was a survey taken of people who voted for Nader, which asked them if only given the choice of the two "lead" candidates which one would they choose. A majority answered that they would have voted for Gore.

assuming those people would have voted to begin with.

 

[Modeps]

see sig!

 

[Electric Amish]

Because of the Electoral College.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

you definitely shouldn't vote for someone if you CAN EVEN SPELL HIS NAME RIGHT.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Did you know that a good bit of registered republicans voted for Nader too? It is a fact that Nadar didnt cause Gore to lose, it was Gore himself. He was nothing special and thats why he lost.

Come on. You have to admit that the vast majority of Nader voters would have picked Gore if Nader wasn't running. Nader's views are much much much closer to Gore's than to Bush's.

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Because the majority of the people in this country have been indoctrined into the party system and can no longer true think for themselves. Instead of seeing that you can and should vote for whomever you feel is best, these people think you should only be allowed to vote for the two parties and any vote outside of the two parties is 'stealing'. To those that haven't been brainwashed into the party system, this line of thinking is absurd.

I disagree. I think the reason that most people vote for one of the two parties is because they generally do a good job of representing the largest cross section of americans. Nader didn't lose because he was a third party. He lost because he was too far removed from most people's views. Most people in this country are really fairly moderate with leanings to one side or the other. Most 3rd party candidates we have seen have views that are way left or right. That is the reason people don't vote for them.

It is true that some people who would prefer Nader voted for Gore instead because they didn't want to waste their vote. But the vast majority of people who voted for Gore did it because they thought he was the best candidate. You are making it sound like 50% of the people wanted Nader but voted for Gore because he was on of the two parties. That is simply not the truth. If more people wanted Nader, people would have seen that in the early polls and realized that he actually had a chance. And if people thought he actually had a chance, they would have voted for him. Just look at Perot. He got a lot more votes because he actually appealed to a broad cross section of the population.

What do you think would happen if McCain ran as an independent?
Do you think he would be dismissed because he wasn't part of the two party system?
I don't think so.
I'll tell you right now that I would vote for him in a heartbeat and I think a lot of other people would as well.

Independent candidates in the past have done poorly, not because they are outside the party system, but because their views are too far removed from the average moderate citizen.

 

[Leetman]

You know third parties don't have a chance because people feel that its a lost vote. Vote for who you want, it's not a lost vote.

 

[TheToOTaLL]

Originally posted by: Marauder911
It does influence something, it takes votes away from democrats. A vote for Nader is equivalent to a vote for Bush.

In a nutshell, you're right.

When was the last time an independent party won the White House? It's pretty much been either Democrat or Republican for the last 2 centuries.

http://www.presidentsusa.net/partyofpresidents.html

 

[lizardboy]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Bleh, Gore didn't even win his own state. That should be a requirement to winning the Presidency. And I can't believe people are still whining conspiracy theory over the last Presidential election. Get over it and make your vote count in November.

Bush didn't even win his home country.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Because he can't win and even the Green Party thinks he is a nut now. They won;t allow him to even run on their ticket :laugh:

They asked him to run on their ticket and he said no. I'm hoping the Libertarian candidate can take third.

 

[OrByte]

Ask Al Gore why a vote for Nader is a vote out the window.

 

[GigaCluster]

The problem as I see it is our retarded voting method. Choosing ONE BEST candidate. Obviously this naturally converges on a two-party system. Some better voting methods are outlined in this Wikipedia article -- these would grant us more fair elections, but are alas slightly more complicated than the easy-as-pie-"choose-one" method, and some people may call it discrimination against barely literate.

A system that I think would be a superior alternative is Ranked Voting. You rank the candidates in order from most to least favorite, and the best one wins.

 

[TuxDave]

This is typical in a system where winner takes all. If A got 40%, B got 30% and C got 30%, parties B and C would negotiate such that A would not win. If they didn't negotiate, they would never obtain power. Everything eventually collapses back into a two party system.

 

[Ornery]

Well William, 14 years after helping Clinton get in office, by voting for Perot, I'm STILL kicking myself. If you want to feel the same way as me, decades from now, you go right ahead. No really, please do!

 

[beatle]

ElFenix has it right. If you would not vote otherwise, a vote for Nader is NOT a vote for Bush. It is very important to vote, not so much that the candidate you like gets elected, but so your age group shows itself at the polls. Politicians pander to people who will vote, since they decide their fate. It's known that few young people vote, so politicians rarely put their views in the spotlight, other than to say "yeah, that's important, blah blah" in passing.

Now, which candidate is against the DMCA?

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: Wheatmaster
i just don't get it. Why doesn't a vote for nadar influence anything?

Are you a Conehead? What's up with the "Nadar?!"

BTW, think back on past 3rd party candidates--what kind of lasting influence have they had? Zilch that I can remember. Ross Perot anyone?

 

[0]

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: lizardboy

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Bleh, Gore didn't even win his own state. That should be a requirement to winning the Presidency. And I can't believe people are still whining conspiracy theory over the last Presidential election. Get over it and make your vote count in November.

Bush didn't even win his home country.

Gore won the few counties where people are shoehorned together like sardines. Policies that suit those type of people, have NOTHING to do with me!

 

Originally posted by: Ornery
Well William, 14 years after helping Clinton get in office, by voting for Perot, I'm STILL kicking myself. If you want to feel the same way as me, decades from now, you go right ahead. No really, please do!

What if I would rather not have either man in office?

 

[Ornery]

Try voting on the issues?

• Your Results:
  
  1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
  2. Bush, President George W. - Republican (87%)
  3. Libertarian Candidate (62%)
  4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (41%)
  5. Constitution Party Candidate (34%)
  6. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (23%)
  7. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (11%)
  8. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (9%)
  9. Nader, Ralph - Independent (1%)
  10. Green Party Candidate (1%)
  11. Socialist Candidate (1%)

 

[Gurck]

If your state leans heavily one way or another, a vote for Nader won't hurt anything. If in a borderline state, though, you might want to consider voting for Kerry if you don't want to see Bush in office again.

 

[waggy]

I don't care for Kerry or Bush. So i will vote for a different Candide.

I would rather my vote to to try and get more choices then 2 in the future.

everyone that wants to complain its a wasted vote are wrong. the only wasted vote is the moron that sits at home watching the results.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
All I wish for is to have a candidate to vote FOR instead of voting against the other. I guess Nader is as close as it gets right now.

That about sums it up for me too.... I'm not voting *for* someone to win... I'm voting so that the person I don't want to win won't win. Even if I thought Nader was the greatest man alive, he was my adopted brother, and saved my life 3 times, I still want my vote to count insomuch as it influences the election toward the outcome I want.

Wasn't there a Dilbert cartoon with this idea? Dogbert told Dilbert that since they both want opposite candidates to win, they could both stay home rather than both voting, and the outcome would be identical. Dilbert later realizes and says "wait a second, dogs can't vote" to which Dogbert responds, "well, not directly."