|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/27/04 - 07:40 Post subject: Third party presidential candidates: whazzup with Nader?
http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm
I found this list of all the presidential candidates, at least I think this is all of them, and am wondering, how is it that the Dems have been so successful in keeping their biggest threat outside of Bush, Nader, off the ballot in so many states when all these other knotheads are going to be allowed to run? There have, to the best of my knowledge, often been independent candidates on the ballots, so why not now? Obviously we know why not, because they are afraid he'll steal too many votes from Bush....hmm.....kinda like Ross Perot did for Slick Willie back in the day....hmmmmm.....how come it was OK then?
What's the rule about third parties and who can run, I mean other than the general age and citizenship requirements for President?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 09:37 Post subject:
Why can't you look this up yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 09:40 Post subject:
Go (and others),
Do you think its fair that the Dems are fighting to keep Nader off the ballot in multiple states?
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 09:44 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | Go (and others),
Do you think its fair that the Dems are fighting to keep Nader off the ballot in multiple states? |
No, as long as Nader is doing everything in a legal manner to get on the ballot.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 09:49 Post subject:
In Pennsylvania he was kicked off because some of his petition signature were invalid. According to news reports that I read, Nade was paying street people, etc.
As long as a candidate gathers enough signatures and they are eligible put them on the ballot. If not write them in
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 09:54 Post subject:
genie,
It mostly comes down to the fact that states control electoral processes. Thus, there are many different rules about how people get on ballots. Third parties in PA face a mighty uphill battle. Far less in other states. That list you have likely shows every person running for Pres anywhere in the US even though they may be an the ballot in just one or a handful of states.
That being said, I did read that The Lib candidiate may be fulfilling the Nader/Gore split for some on the right this year, and the GOP is quietly trying to sideline some of his efforts too.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:02 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | Go (and others),
Do you think its fair that the Dems are fighting to keep Nader off the ballot in multiple states? |
What I think is immaterial--the Supreme Court of PA found that enough signatures were invalid to render him off the ballot.
I understand the desire of any side to do what is strategically advantageous to undermine efforts that go against one's candidate, but I don't endorse it philosophically, no matter the party.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:03 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | Go (and others),
Do you think its fair that the Dems are fighting to keep Nader off the ballot in multiple states? |
You know, it's not like the Dems are fighting to keep someone like me off the ballot. I doubt they could care less if i ever run as an independant. Why? I'm no threat to them. Assuming anyone other than my mom would vote for me, I'm not likely to siphon off potential democratic voters away from their candidate (Kerry, in this case).
That's a weak argument against Nader, though. The first reason i can think of is that we don't know that folks who will vote for Nader will necessarily vote for Kerry. Maybe they'd vote Green, and maybe they'd vote Libertarian, and maybe they wouldn't vote. Maybe they'd vote Bush. I think it is arrogant of the Dems to assume any vote for Nader is a vote that would have gone to Kerry.
Plus, the biggest reason that I think it is a weak argument because if Kerry (or anyone else) was a strong enough candidate, he or she would not have to worry about votes being siphoned off by a 3rd party candidate. Kerry would be able to get the votes he needed to win because he is a good enough candidate. And the Dems are worried that he isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Wicked Flea
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 365
Location: Hair of the Dog
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:11 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: |
You know, it's not like the Dems are fighting to keep someone like me off the ballot. I doubt they could care less if i ever run as an independant. Why? I'm no threat to them. Assuming anyone other than my mom would vote for me, I'm not likely to siphon off potential democratic voters away from their candidate (Kerry, in this case).
That's a weak argument against Nader, though. The first reason i can think of is that we don't know that folks who will vote for Nader will necessarily vote for Kerry. Maybe they'd vote Green, and maybe they'd vote Libertarian, and maybe they wouldn't vote. Maybe they'd vote Bush. I think it is arrogant of the Dems to assume any vote for Nader is a vote that would have gone to Kerry.
Plus, the biggest reason that I think it is a weak argument because if Kerry (or anyone else) was a strong enough candidate, he or she would not have to worry about votes being siphoned off by a 3rd party candidate. Kerry would be able to get the votes he needed to win because he is a good enough candidate. And the Dems are worried that he isn't. |
Well I think that the Dems (thank you for not using the currently fashionable Liebral  ) feel that Nader is a threat because in the last election he was.
There were quite a few (mostly Greenies that would vote Dem if not Green) that voted for Nader, thinking (IMHO) that it wouldn't matter and Bush was no threat.
Turned out they were wrong.
Nader is not on the Greens ticket and you can guess why. Right?
If not.
It's because Bush's policies on the Environment are so horrendous that they don't want another Republican victory.
The Greens have David Cobb on their ticket and he is probably no threat.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:22 Post subject:
| Wicked Flea wrote: |
Well I think that the Dems (thank you for not using the currently fashionable Liebral ) feel that Nader is a threat because in the last election he was. |
Why would I? I'm not Republican.
I understand the reasoning and I accept why the Dems are doing so (and even why Nader is no longer on the Green Party ticket). But i still think that is weak all the same. Kerry, or whomever, should be doing something to try to reach those voters and give them a reason to vote Democratic rather than for Nader or Green. If he can't give them a good enough reason (even if that reason is only to get Bush out of the White House before he does more damage), then Kerry does not deserve those votes and should not get those votes. Even if that means that Kerry does not win that state.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 10:40 Post subject:
Again, Let's not think that the GOP is above this type of tactic.
Nader got into trouble this year collecting signatures and money because the lefties that supported his 2000 run, of which I was one, saw Bush as such a threat that needed to be deposed.
If the Republicans saw the same threat they'd counter it too, and probably more aggressively since they tend to play better hardball electoral politics than the Dems anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 11:51 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | | Why can't you look this up yourself? |
Was that comment necessary? How did it help?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 12:04 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: |
Was that comment necessary? How did it help? |
I actually think it is necessary, especially since it isn't the first time this has come up. Note there's no sarcasm in it.
It may have helped to remind people not to take other's time for granted, by having them find information the author could just as easily look up herself.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 12:08 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
I actually think it is necessary, especially since it isn't the first time this has come up. Note there's no sarcasm in it.
It may have helped to remind people not to take other's time for granted, by having them find information the author could just as easily look up herself. |
It's more appropriate for a PM then for being a part of a thread in this forum, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/27/04 - 12:14 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: |
It's more appropriate for a PM then for being a part of a thread in this forum, though. |
I can understand your thinking that, and if it had been the first time it had come up, I'd agree with you.
|
|
|
|
