Wasted Votes?

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate and won. It doesn't matter that he was once on the Republican ticket. He wasn't the incumbent, and though he was popular with the public, he had no republican support (other than what he got from those who just didn't like Taft). He started a party, went to primaries and caucuses, campaigned hard, said (and did) a lot of radical, crackpot shit, and won. I think you drink too much Republicrat Kool-Aid.

Are you talking about the 1912 election? Because... he didn't win he just defeated Taft. Taft got 8 electoral votes to Roosevelt's 88 to Wilson's 435. He didn't win he just beat one of the two major parties by splitting their party, essentially, in half. Also, he did this out of a concern that Taft had become too conservative.

All of that is beside the point; this isn't 1912 and we're not talking about candidates who held the Oval Office twice. We're also not talking about candidates with enough charisma to cause a schism in either major political party. We're talking about people dismissed by the establishment (Both major political parties, the media and blogosphere, and the public at large), running repeatedly and losing, being "protest votes."

A third party isn't impossible and simply voting third party isn't necessarily a waste. However, given who the third party candidates are (and have been recently), it seems like a vote out of protest against the establishment to cast for someone who has zero point zero zero zero chance of winning and that I believe was her point.

If the word "ignorant" is going to be tossed around I'd like it applied to the notion no one has access to wikipedia.



JSZ

 

[dazedandconfused]

YOUR oppinion is that he was a crackpot. My oppinion is that though I didn't like his ideas enough to have voted for him instead of Clinton had I been old enough, all of his ideas had a basis in reality. Your crackpot is another man's radical. America was built by radicals; there should always be room for them here. Ross Perot, like him or not, and Ron Paul (who is even more insane) predicted something like our current economic predicaments years ago, and proposed plans to prevent a crisis. I'm with you, they are crazy, but presidents cannot get things done by themselves. They are not islands. And if you can just dismiss Ross Perot's success with the idea that he was "a crack pot" you clearly don't know much about him, or understand my point.

My point was not about Ross Perot. My point was about you, and what you wrote. You think voting for independents is purely for protest. That is ignorant. Voting for independents is a part of why the Boston Tea Party has so many of its members in Congress, why Roosevelt got into the White House a third time in the first place, and the only way to help a candidate you support get enough votes to launch a better-funded campaign in the future. It is, in more cases than you would probably care to acknowledge, NOT a tantrum-inspired protest. It IS (as you insist it is not) an act of faith. A vote for the lesser of two evils, with zero consideration for unpopular alternatives) is possibly more of a waste than a true vote of confidence in "a crack pot" who isn't likely to win.

Ross Perot did make another bid.

Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate and won. It doesn't matter that he was once on the Republican ticket. He wasn't the incumbent, and though he was popular with the public, he had no republican support (other than what he got from those who just didn't like Taft). He started a party, went to primaries and caucuses, campaigned hard, said (and did) a lot of radical, crackpot shit, and won. I think you drink too much Republicrat Kool-Aid.

He was a third party candidate in 1912 (bull moose) and was very popular, however, he lost that election to Woodrow Wilson.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

He carried 27.4% of the popular vote and received 88 electoral college votes from the 6 states he won. That, by the way, was the single strongest showing from a third party bid for the Presidency in American history.

And that was Teddy fucking Roosevelt... who had already been President twice! Say what you will about Ross Perot, Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader- Teddy Roosevelt they ain't.

For a little more edification on the subject- third party candidates for President have only garnered 5% of the popular vote 11 times in our history. The last time it happened was in 2000 and every scholarly essay I've read on the subject said the out come from this failed bid at the Presidency had one (and really only one) tangible effect- it handed the election to George W. Bush.



JSZ

 

[AlteredEgo]

You guys are correct. Roosevelt only beat Taft, and diabetics like me should not post during fasts.:smile:

My point is, a two party system is a scam, and halts progress. The only way out is to go on ahead and vote for third-party candidates if they tickle one's fancy. That is irrefutable.

Also, no one is bat-shit crazier than LaRouche. I don't care who people vote for, but having gone to a few meetings for his people, I would vote for ten Naders and five Pauls before ever pulling the lever for LaRouche.

Also, considering that Nader et al. won not a single electoral college vote in 2000, I would say people voting Green Party and other parties did NOT hand the election to Bush.

 

[atlclgurl]

YOUR oppinion

Yup. MY opinion. You needn't buy into it or fuss about it in the least bit.

I think you drink too much Republicrat Kool-Aid.

I don't drink ANY Republican swill (Kool-aid or Tea) I am a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.

:wink:

As for the crackpot... anyone who quits a Presidential race because, supposedly, Republican's were planning to disrupt his daughters wedding (by forging photos of phony lesbian sex) during the 1992 presidential race... is IN MY OPINION (and many others) a CRACKPOT. Perot-Noia - TIME

You may disagree... which is your right .

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

Also, considering that Nader et al. won not a single electoral college vote in 2000, I would say people voting Green Party and other parties did NOT hand the election to Bush.

This is the summation from wikipedia but you can pretty much get this information anywhere. Time has an article from 2001 that says almost exactly the same thing. So does Gallup. If you just google it you'll find a whole host of articles that all spell this out in one way or another.


"Ralph Nader, running from the liberal left as the candidate of the Green Party, won 2.7% of the electoral vote. His candidacy proved decisive in swinging the election to Republican Party candidate George W. Bush. Nader received 97,500 votes in Florida, which, after the controversial Florida recount, Bush carried over Al Gore by 500 votes out of nearly six million cast. Also, in New Hampshire Bush beat Gore by 7,000 votes while Nader received 22,000 votes. Either Florida's 25 electoral votes or New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes would have won the election for Gore, who lost the Elctoral College to Bush 271-266."



JSZ

 

[AlteredEgo]

I don't drink ANY Republican swill (Kool-aid or Tea) I am a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.
.

Yep. I said Republicrats. Not republicans. I see no real difference between republicans and democrats, though sometimes I vote for one or the other of them, and am also a registered democrat. They are the same at this point.

Also, the Tea Party is its own entity. They are not Republicans. The official name of their registered party is The Boston Tea Party.

This is the summation from wikipedia but you can pretty much get this information anywhere. Time has an article from 2001 that says almost exactly the same thing. So does Gallup. If you just google it you'll find a whole host of articles that all spell this out in one way or another.


"Ralph Nader, running from the liberal left as the candidate of the Green Party, won 2.7% of the electoral vote. His candidacy proved decisive in swinging the election to Republican Party candidate George W. Bush. Nader received 97,500 votes in Florida, which, after the controversial Florida recount, Bush carried over Al Gore by 500 votes out of nearly six million cast. Also, in New Hampshire Bush beat Gore by 7,000 votes while Nader received 22,000 votes. Either Florida's 25 electoral votes or New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes would have won the election for Gore, who lost the Elctoral College to Bush 271-266."



JSZ

Wikipedia is contradicting itself. That's not surprising. That's also why I do not depend upon it for information, and check the sources when I do use it, and use the sources instead. In the Wikipedia.org article about the 2000 presidential election, there is a table that was taken from a .gov website. That table shows no votes from the electoral college going to anyone who wasn't a republican or a democrat. You may view that table here. Nader won 2.74% of the popular vote.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

In the Wikipedia.org article about the 2000 presidential election, there is a table that was taken from a .gov website. That table shows no votes from the electoral college going to anyone who wasn't a republican or a democrat. You may view that table here.

It has nothing to do with electoral votes. I know Nader didn't get any electoral votes in 2000. We're talking about votes from individuals. Bush won Florida by 500 votes and New Hampshire by 7,000 votes. Ralph Nader got 97,500 votes in Florida and 22,000 votes in New Hampshire. Had those votes gone to Al Gore (and they would have were it not for Ralph Nader and the Green Party) he would have either gotten 4 more electoral votes from New Hampshire or 25 more electoral votes from Florida. Either way he would have won the election because he lost in electoral math to President Bush, 271-266. If you took 4 away from 271 you'd have 267. You then add those to 266 and...? Gore victory.

The Green Party did nothing but take away votes from left it supposedly represented and hand them to the far right which it claimed to oppose.



JSZ

 

[Bbucko]

If Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee, Bush wouldn't have won: jus' sayin'. It was his election to lose and he did a brilliant job of it. Honestly, if he'd just asked Clinton for some help with the heavy lifting he'd have won everything.

Hubris is the enemy of every pol.

 

[atlclgurl]

Yep. I said Republicrats. Not republicans. I see no real difference between republicans and democrats, though sometimes I vote for one or the other of them, and am also a registered democrat. They are the same at this point.

I can read, but I can also cook, and the making of any combined dish requires the ingredients of said dish.., therefore, since I don't partake of Republican swill your mixed drink doesn't work.

As for the Tea party... see this quote:"The scads of media coverage about the burgeoning "tea party" effort has focused heavily on the idea that those who identify themselves as part of the movement are political free agents -- dismissive of both parties and Washington in general.

New data out of Gallup suggests that premise isn't right, as nearly seven in 10 tea party supporters describe themselves as "conservative Republicans."

The Fix - Tea Party = Republican party?

 

[AlteredEgo]

If Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee, Bush wouldn't have won: jus' sayin'. It was his election to lose and he did a brilliant job of it. Honestly, if he'd just asked Clinton for some help with the heavy lifting he'd have won everything.

Hubris is the enemy of every pol.

Agreed.

It has nothing to do with electoral votes. I know Nader didn't get any electoral votes in 2000.

Um... You're back-pedalling pretty hard.

"Ralph Nader, running from the liberal left as the candidate of the Green Party, won 2.7% of the electoral vote.

We're talking about votes from individuals. Bush won Florida by 500 votes and New Hampshire by 7,000 votes. Ralph Nader got 97,500 votes in Florida and 22,000 votes in New Hampshire. Had those votes gone to Al Gore (and they would have were it not for Ralph Nader and the Green Party) he would have either gotten 4 more electoral votes from New Hampshire or 25 more electoral votes from Florida. Either way he would have won the election because he lost in electoral math to President Bush, 271-266. If you took 4 away from 271 you'd have 267. You then add those to 266 and...? Gore victory.

The Green Party did nothing but take away votes from left it supposedly represented and hand them to the far right which it claimed to oppose.



JSZ

You can't take votes away from people who do not earn them. Or did you forget how uncharismatic, awkward, and unprepared Gore seemed throughout that entire campaign? Perhaps I remember it so clearly because it was the first time I was old enough to vote for President. In my opinion, that was one of the poorest selections I ever witnessed. Bush sucked. Gore sucked. Nader had no chance in hell because he was locked out of the biggest debates. The greatest scam our two major parties have managed to pull is to keep everyone who isn't a republi-crat from participating in the national debates. Furthermore, New Hampshire does not have any laws on the books mandating whom the electoral electors vote in. They could have cast their votes for Gore if they so chose, to my (limited) understanding. Not so in Florida. In Florida, you are correct, their hands were tied and they had no choice but to vote for the winner of the popular vote.

That does not mean I agree with you. Gore needed to have won the state on his own, or keep delaying until January 20th and let Congress decide. Nader did not cost Gore those 97,000-some-odd votes; Gore lost himself those votes with his shitty campaigning.

I wanted to vote for Nader, but almost voted for Gore. I preferred Nader most of all, and had no idea who the other candidates from the other minor parties were. Of the two who actually stood a chance at winning, In my state, (NY at the time) Gore was ahead by a landslide. There was no question. Had this not been true, I would have cast my vote for Gore, instead of Nader, but my vote would have been a faithless vote against Bush rather than for Gore. Gore was clearly winning my state, and so I voted for Nader. My vote was not to indicate that I wanted him elected, though I did. My vote was an attempt to get the Green Party enough votes to "legitimize" them, and get their next presidential candidate federal funding for campaigning. This wasn't because I thought the party was so great. After all, I'm not a member. This was because I felt, and still feel that freedom equals choice, and under a two-party system, there is seldom and choice.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I can read, but I can also cook, and the making of any combined dish requires the ingredients of said dish.., therefore, since I don't partake of Republican swill your mixed drink doesn't work.

As for the Tea party... see this quote:"The scads of media coverage about the burgeoning "tea party" effort has focused heavily on the idea that those who identify themselves as part of the movement are political free agents -- dismissive of both parties and Washington in general.

New data out of Gallup suggests that premise isn't right, as nearly seven in 10 tea party supporters describe themselves as "conservative Republicans."

The Fix - Tea Party = Republican party?

But can you do math? If Republicans = Democrats (the way 1/2 = 2/4) and you accept whatever is proffered by Democrats...

Or better, since you may be able to cook, but I'm a patisseur:

You can purchase Callebaut or Hershey's; one may taste better to you, but they're both still chocolate.

I'll grant you that Tea Party-ers are also Republicans, only scarier.:smile:

 

[dazedandconfused]

It has nothing to do with electoral votes. I know Nader didn't get any electoral votes in 2000. We're talking about votes from individuals. Bush won Florida by 500 votes and New Hampshire by 7,000 votes. Ralph Nader got 97,500 votes in Florida and 22,000 votes in New Hampshire. Had those votes gone to Al Gore (and they would have were it not for Ralph Nader and the Green Party) he would have either gotten 4 more electoral votes from New Hampshire or 25 more electoral votes from Florida. Either way he would have won the election because he lost in electoral math to President Bush, 271-266. If you took 4 away from 271 you'd have 267. You then add those to 266 and...? Gore victory.

The Green Party did nothing but take away votes from left it supposedly represented and hand them to the far right which it claimed to oppose.



JSZ

In the 1800s, a German economist noticed a corelation in solar activity and the economic cycle. He concluded that when solar activity is high, it helps crops grow and therefore the economy is better. When solar activity was low, crops are bad and so is the economy.

There was no corelation. He was guilty of Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc
(after, therefore, because of this). This is the assumption if B happens after A, then A caused B. That is not always true.

While I personally think Gore would have won had Nader not run, I must point out the fallacy in that argument. 1). You do not know how many people would have simply not have gone to the polls had Nader not run. So therefore, nobody but the Green party's vote total changes. 2). While green party voters may have voted anyways if Nader did not run, there is nothing that points to that they would have voted for Al Gore over W. 3). Even if Nader did not run, would someone still have run on the Green Party ticket? And if so, we do not know if said candidate would have either kept some of the votes Nader had or even "stole" more votes away from W or Al Gore.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

Agreed.

Um... You're back-pedalling pretty hard.

I'm not "pedaling" anywhere. You seemed to be laboring under the impression that somewhere in what I posted it said Ralph Nader won an electoral vote somewhere and that that was what cost Al Gore the election. Forgive me, but after your post earlier, I had no way of knowing if your blood sugar was low so I decided to clarify.

You can't take votes away from people who do not earn them. Or did you forget how uncharismatic, awkward, and unprepared Gore seemed throughout that entire campaign?

First of all, yes you can, and secondly, I was 14 years old at the time.

Furthermore, New Hampshire does not have any laws on the books mandating whom the electoral electors vote in. They could have cast their votes for Gore if they so chose, to my (limited) understanding. Not so in Florida. In Florida, you are correct, their hands were tied and they had no choice but to vote for the winner of the popular vote.

Well, there you have it. Obviously New Hampshire wasn't going to vote against the popular vote and pick the other candidate. Can you imagine the kind of anarchy that would have proceeded such a decision? A group of people no one has ever heard of before subverting the will of the people and turning it over to the other guy? C'mon... But since Florida requires its electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote, that's -25 Bush, +25 Gore. Had it not been for Nader siphoning votes by providing a hopeless "alternative," at least a portion of those 97,000 people would have voted for Gore, at bare minimum the 500 he needed to win the state.

That does not mean I agree with you. Gore needed to have won the state on his own, or keep delaying until January 20th and let Congress decide. Nader did not cost Gore those 97,000-some-odd votes; Gore lost himself those votes with his shitty campaigning.

He would only have lost them if those people would have voted for George Bush instead. They weren't going to do that. They would have abstained or they would have voted for Gore. The Green party succeeded in handing the election to President Bush however you shake it- blame it on Gore's terrible campaigning or that he was boring, blame it on all the conspiracy business surrounding the Florida recall, whatever- if Ralph Nader had bowed out as the unrealistic candidate he was, those votes would have gone to Al Gore.

My vote was an attempt to get the Green Party enough votes to "legitimize" them, and get their next presidential candidate federal funding for campaigning. This wasn't because I thought the party was so great. After all, I'm not a member. This was because I felt, and still feel that freedom equals choice, and under a two-party system, there is seldom and choice.

Were your goals accomplished? Did you feel pretty good about that decision when President Bush was inaugurated? You picked the Green party to legitimize them like I'm sure a lot of people did in that election. The party wasn't legitimized- all it did was piss off the institutional left by handing victory to the institutional right.

I am all for a third party and a third party candidate that isn't a crank but voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning (who you don't even really like all that much) just because you don't want to vote for one of the major party candidates strikes me as protesting and has the unintended (I'll give that I don't think there was malicious intent in 2000) consequence of potentially handing an election to the other side of the spectrum. It happened to Roosevelt (and Taft I guess) in 1912 and it happened to Gore in 2000.

Use whatever semantics you like- in a universe where Ralph Nader didn't exist, Al Gore won the election in 2000.


JSZ

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

In the 1800s, a German economist noticed a corelation in solar activity and the economic cycle. He concluded that when solar activity is high, it helps crops grow and therefore the economy is better. When solar activity was low, crops are bad and so is the economy.

There was no corelation. He was guilty of Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc
(after, therefore, because of this). This is the assumption if B happens after A, then A caused B. That is not always true.

While I personally think Gore would have won had Nader not run, I must point out the fallacy in that argument. 1). You do not know how many people would have simply not have gone to the polls had Nader not run. So therefore, nobody but the Green party's vote total changes. 2). While green party voters may have voted anyways if Nader did not run, there is nothing that points to that they would have voted for Al Gore over W. 3). Even if Nader did not run, would someone still have run on the Green Party ticket? And if so, we do not know if said candidate would have either kept some of the votes Nader had or even "stole" more votes away from W or Al Gore.

I think everything you said is valid save for the second point. The Green Party voters were (are?) more in tune with the left than the right. Given the relatively small numbers that would have been required to secure a victory in Florida (500 votes) for Al Gore, I think it's a safe bet that he'd have won. Same goes for New Hampshire. In a razor thin election the third party only succeeded in assuring the defeat of one of the two major party candidates. It didn't legitimize itself and it didn't make national any issue that previously wasn't.

So it doesn't matter whether they would have run another candidate or not or how many votes were siphoned away. So long as the number was never going to be truly competitive, the result was going to be the same- a failed third party bid resulting in a Republican victory. We can deal in abstractions all you like the math on this is pretty plain as are the affiliations of the persons being discussed.



JSZ

 

[Bbucko]

Obviously New Hampshire wasn't going to vote against the popular vote and pick the other candidate.

But, in fact, they did: Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College. I was genuinely surprised when, in 2008, the Dems (who had everything) didn't re-write the rules: more's now the pity.

I'm not picking a fight with you, JSZ, just pointing out history.

 

[atlclgurl]

But can you do math? If Republicans = Democrats (the way 1/2 = 2/4) and you accept whatever is proffered by Democrats...

Or better, since you may be able to cook, but I'm a patisseur:

You can purchase Callebaut or Hershey's; one may taste better to you, but they're both still chocolate.

I'll grant you that Tea Party-ers are also Republicans, only scarier.:smile:

Math has nothing to do with this "recipe" of yours, you indicated that "Republicrat" is a combo of Repubs and Dems. If one refuse to ingest one of the ingredients of your kool-aid in any way shape or form then the recipes fails.

Or to put it into your terms... crushed cocoa nibs ( the liquor) without sugar = bitter cocoa concentrate, not chocolate that either Callebaut or Hershey's could reliably sell to the American public.

My personal preference is for Lindt's Lindor truffles, although I adore chocolate dipped strawberries from Godiva too.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

But, in fact, they did: Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College. I was genuinely surprised when, in 2008, the Dems (who had everything) didn't re-write the rules: more's now the pity.

I'm not picking a fight with you, JSZ, just pointing out history.

No... he didn't. President Bush won 273, 559 and Al Gore won 266,348 votes in the 2000 election. He lost both the popular vote and the four electoral votes. I can't be certain but it's either never happened or happened extremely rarely that the electoral college votes in contrast to the popular vote in terms of individual states.



JSZ

 

[dazedandconfused]

I think everything you said is valid save for the second point. The Green Party voters were (are?) more in tune with the left than the right. Given the relatively small numbers that would have been required to secure a victory in Florida (500 votes) for Al Gore, I think it's a safe bet that he'd have won. Same goes for New Hampshire. In a razor thin election the third party only succeeded in assuring the defeat of one of the two major party candidates. It didn't legitimize itself and it didn't make national any issue that previously wasn't.

So it doesn't matter whether they would have run another candidate or not or how many votes were siphoned away. So long as the number was never going to be truly competitive, the result was going to be the same- a failed third party bid resulting in a Republican victory. We can deal in abstractions all you like the math on this is pretty plain as are the affiliations of the persons being discussed.



JSZ

I just want to make clear that while I think Gore would have won had Nader not run, I am just pointing this out you are making assumptions that cannot be proven as a fact.

 

[dazedandconfused]

But, in fact, they did: Gore won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College. I was genuinely surprised when, in 2008, the Dems (who had everything) didn't re-write the rules: more's now the pity.

I'm not picking a fight with you, JSZ, just pointing out history.

Pointing out history? You have an issue with history. The way we select a President is in the constitution with the electoral college being tweaked by the 12th amendment. Therefore, the only way we can make a change is a constitutional amendment. Either 2/3rds of the house and the senate have to agree on an amendement and then 2/3rds of the states ratify it or, as only the 18th amendment was adopted this way, 2/3rds of the states have to petition Congress for a constitutional convention, they will write whatever amendments they want but they have to be approved by 2/3rds of the state to become apart of the constitution.