Quote: How many Nader voters would have voted for Gore anyway?
The vast, vast majority.
Sure, Gore did manage to win anyway, before the Supreme Court decided that Bush won despite losing, but if not for Nader, there would not have been an issue. I think it's horrible that he's running again, really... there is no decent explanation other than that he must have a pretty big ego. In 2000, he ran on a campaign of "the two parties are the same". It was a delusional and idiotic message that played to the worst instincts of Americans, to look only at the "same" surface and not actually investigate the issues and realize how DRAMATICALLY, DRAMATICALLY different Bush and Gore were. And so he helped defeat a great candidate who would have done great things, and replace him with the worst president America has ever had. Great job, "they are both the same!"
... Yes, like a lot of Democrats, I'm still quite bitter at Nader. :)
America is a two party system. Occasionally third party candidates actually matter (when they push a candidate to take a stronger position on something, for instance), but usually they don't. So when you vote, the only relevant votes are Republican or Democratic. Voting any other way is voting against the major party you more identify with. This is a fact.
And despite disliking some of the things the Democrats do, I would NEVER, EVER vote for a third party candidate unless there was a really good reason (like a Green Party candidate with an actual chance to win or something) in a general election. Doing that would be voting for the Republicans, which would, quite obviously, be very much again my interests...
Quote:Sorry ABF, that's an attitude that undermines the system.
Vote for the candidate you prefer, don't vote in a roundabout way based on who might "win". If you do the latter, it only reinforces a self-defeating system. Look at it this way. Imagine down the line that there was only ONE party candidate that ever recieved any votes, and we were reduced to a 1 party system? In this system, the only votes that ever matter are the ones in that party's primaries, and they start trying less and less. Anyone that votes for the other party is told their votes are being "thrown away" and it's immoral for them to do so, that they should only care about the main party.
That's wrong, as I said. Anyone who thinks that voting third party will actually help us change our system is deluding themselves... it's not the parties that make it a two party system, it's the winner take all nature of the American political system. In order to have a system where people could vote for third parties without wasting their votes, we would, as I said, need major constitutional reform and significantly change ur style of government -- proportional representation (so that some members of the congress are chosen based on party lists, with seats distributed based on how many people vote for that party in the election -- so that any party that gets over a certain threshold nationwide (or statewide or whatever) automatically gets seats), a European-style multi-party parliamentary system with coalition governments, whatever. But with winner take all, only one person can win the election -- so voting for someone who cannot win wastes your vote.
There have been a few elections with three or more candidates who could all win, so it's not ALWAYS just two, but it usually is. It's hard to have a real three person race where they all can win... things naturally distill down to two sides. America has had two main political sides ever since 1789 (when the Federalists and Anti-Federalists started arguing about whether they should approve or reject the Constitution), and unless, as I said, we come up with a new form of government, that's not going to change. Voting for third party candidates who can't win will NOT change that.
Quote:AND ANOTHER THING! "Activist judges" are nothing new, they are INTENDED! Judges being free to overthrow what they see as unconstitutional laws are a must, to prevent tyranny of the majority!
Of course. Judicial activism is the basis of the American judicial system. Right wingers are only complaining about it because judges are limiting a few (but not most) of the things they want to do.