Wasted Votes?

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
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.
But they do. We just put it on cakes and add it to candy and do not tell anyone that's what it is. Pastry aside, the biggest difference between a republican and a democrat is the party name. If you're in cahoots with one, it's the same as being in cahoots with the other. We're all doing it by participatng in a two-party system. Some of us are just aware of it, and others are hiding from the truth.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
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 should read what you write. You did write that Ralph Nader won 2.7% of the electoral votes. You wrote it, or you copied it from somewhere, I don't know, but you posted it here as if it were true, and then said you never said it. I'll show you again, but you really should be far more familiar with your own posts than I am. This time, I will add emphasis to the key parts. Look closely:

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
Remember writing that now?




First of all, yes you can, and secondly, I was 14 years old at the time.
Then you should trust Bbucko since you were not likely paying attention to this race at the time. Gore lost this all on his own. People want a scapegoat, but the fact is people voted for Nader because they liked him better than Gore. Would most have voted for Gore if not given an alternative? Sure. Myself included. But that would have been a true protest vote, a vote where the person votes against Bush, rather than for his opponent. And those people, including me, would have voted for Gore if he'd put up a good fight and given them a reason, or if he'd have let Clinton make some rally speeches for him. Gore lost the election because he sucks. Not because Nader stole it from him and gave it to Bush. If that's the case, what was Kerry's excuse? Also, let's not pretend everyone honestly believes Bush actually beat Gore by 500 votes in Florida. I know a lot of people who still believe both of Bush' selections were stolen.



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.
There have been 82 "faithless" electors who voted against their designated party. The penalty for this is usually a just small fine, and it usually isn't enforced. The only reason there is a penalty at all is because political parties have been permitted (by the Supreme Court) to require that electors make a formal pledge to vote for the party which chose them. When you cast your popular vote, you are not voting for a candidate, you are voting for a party. If the party gets the most votes, their electors get to vote. Please read the constitution (see amendment 12). If you do not know how this works, you should, some might argue, not be voting at all.


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.
Are you diabetic too? Gore won the popular vote, and the electoral vote in my state (NY), as I said. I felt and continue to feel quite pleased with my own particular vote.

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
Are you reading the same things I am writing? I greatly preferred Nader to both Bush and Gore. Greatly. BUT... Because he cannot win, and because I preferred Gore to Bush, I would have voted for Gore if it had been necessary. In my state, I knew Gore was winning by a landslide, so I was free to vote for my true choice, Nader, and not make a protest vote, Gore.

Three parties is not much better than two. There used to be half a dozen at any given time. Now that was variety. Three would be a good start though.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
You should read what you write. You did write that Ralph Nader won 2.7% of the electoral votes. You wrote it, or you copied it from somewhere, I don't know, but you posted it here as if it were true, and then said you never said it. I'll show you again, but you really should be far more familiar with your own posts than I am. This time, I will add emphasis to the key parts. Look closely:


Remember writing that now?

You're right, it does say that (it says it on Wikipedia, the summation of the information I'd read, but didn't catch that where it said "electoral" it should have read "popular." If you'll recall back to my post I invited you to google the math and said specifically that I'd copied the summation from Wikipedia. None of that had anything to do with the argument I was making- I knew Nader didn't garner any electoral votes, that wasn't even part of my point. So what you highlighted was the only irrelevant part of the post, that one sentence, but way to catch it- take it up with Wikipedia.


Then you should trust Bbucko since you were not likely paying attention to this race at the time.

He just got finished telling me that Al Gore won the popular vote in New Hampshire. Are you sure that's who I should be trusting? (No offense Bbucko, you seem like a genuinely nice guy.)

Gore lost this all on his own. People want a scapegoat, but the fact is people voted for Nader because they liked him better than Gore. Would most have voted for Gore if not given an alternative? Sure. Myself included.

Then how is this conversation not over? That's what I've been trying to get across this entire time. While DazedandConfused isn't incorrect when he says that outcome can't be proven, it can be logically deduced.

Also, let's not pretend everyone honestly believes Bush actually beat Gore by 500 votes in Florida. I know a lot of people who still believe both of Bush' selections were stolen.

I know a lot of those people too. Frankly, I think if I read more on the subject, I'd probably be one of them... but I try to give off Fox Mulder vibes as little as I possibly can so I leave it alone (what good does it do now anyway?) I'm going by the numbers on the books as they stand now.


When you cast your popular vote, you are not voting for a candidate, you are voting for a party. If the party gets the most votes, their electors get to vote. Please read the constitution (see amendment 12). If you do not know how this works, you should, some might argue, not be voting at all.

Have I said something to make you think I'm drooling into a bucket when it comes to understanding how the Federal government works in regard to elections? Was there any chance I'd live in this country, be politically active locally, and post in this forum without realizing what you just wrote?


Are you diabetic too? Gore won the popular vote, and the electoral vote in my state (NY), as I said. I felt and continue to feel quite pleased with my own particular vote.

I am not and no one was arguing about your state, we were talking about New Hampshire. Seriously, orange juice or something?

Are you reading the same things I am writing?

With you that's kind of a high wire act isn't? You really have to thread the needle since, right now, you're saying this


I greatly preferred Nader to both Bush and Gore.

But a handful of posts ago you said this;

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.

So which was it? An attempt to legitimize an illegitimate party that you weren't even all that big a fan of (not being a member and all) or because you greatly preferred Nader to the alternatives?


Three parties is not much better than two. There used to be half a dozen at any given time. Now that was variety. Three would be a good start though.

On this we agree. It should start with a strong and legitimate candidate not with a party that proposes a candidate with absolutely no chance of winning. Honestly, I think this debate ended about three posts ago. Whatever it is you disagree with me on... you've agreed with the primary and fundamental point I was trying to make early on when you said-

Would most have voted for Gore if not given an alternative? Sure. Myself included.



JSZ
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
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

Actually, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. That is a fact.
 

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Pastry aside, the biggest difference between a republican and a democrat is the party name. If you're in cahoots with one, it's the same as being in cahoots with the other. We're all doing it by participatng in a two-party system. Some of us are just aware of it, and others are hiding from the truth.

And THIS is just your opinion.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
Actually, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. That is a fact.


You think I was under the impression that only 500,000 some odd people voted in the 2000 election? I was obviously talking about New Hampshire. Now that you've said that though, I think the person I was responded to when I said that, might have been talking about the election as a whole rather than just that state (which was one of two crucial states in that election with which I was trying to make a point.)

Reading; because the alternative is confusion lol. :)



JSZ
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,176
Media
37
Likes
26,249
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
You're right, it does say that (it says it on Wikipedia, the summation of the information I'd read, but didn't catch that where it said "electoral" it should have read "popular." If you'll recall back to my post I invited you to google the math and said specifically that I'd copied the summation from Wikipedia. None of that had anything to do with the argument I was making- I knew Nader didn't garner any electoral votes, that wasn't even part of my point. So what you highlighted was the only irrelevant part of the post, that one sentence, but way to catch it- take it up with Wikipedia.
Actually, it does have to do with the argument you were making. You mean to tell me that you were arguing against this statement,
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.

and that when you submitted a statement that you copied into the thread which supported your argument by saying that Nader had won 2.7% of the -nevermind. I haven't the time to go in circles with you. You can backpedal all you want. Low-blood sugar or no, at least I cop to my errors.




He just got finished telling me that Al Gore won the popular vote in New Hampshire. Are you sure that's who I should be trusting? (No offense Bbucko, you seem like a genuinely nice guy.)
I was referring to this:
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.





Then how is this conversation not over? That's what I've been trying to get across this entire time. While DazedandConfused isn't incorrect when he says that outcome can't be proven, it can be logically deduced.
Because you cant take one idea out of context and decide it proves a conclusive point if there is more to the story. Context. Get you some.



I know a lot of those people too. Frankly, I think if I read more on the subject, I'd probably be one of them... but I try to give off Fox Mulder vibes as little as I possibly can so I leave it alone (what good does it do now anyway?) I'm going by the numbers on the books as they stand now.
Pick and choose if you like (you're good at that) but to those of us who remain suspicious, those numbers are fraudulent, and therefore irrelevant. What good does it do now? Are you kidding? You don't care if your election process is compromised and your vote is worthless?




Have I said something to make you think I'm drooling into a bucket when it comes to understanding how the Federal government works in regard to elections? Was there any chance I'd live in this country, be politically active locally, and post in this forum without realizing what you just wrote?
Yes. Obviously have. I already quoted it in the previous post.




I am not and no one was arguing about your state, we were talking about New Hampshire. Seriously, orange juice or something?
Um, are you pretending to not be able to understand anything in context to irritate me? It's working. You specifically asked me if I was happy with my vote. I didn't fucking vote in New Hampshire, Einstein. I wasn't registered there. Keep it together. Of course if you are asking me if I was satisfied with the result of my vote, you are asking me abou tmy vote in the context of NY. NOT any other state.





So which was it? An attempt to legitimize an illegitimate party that you weren't even all that big a fan of (not being a member and all) or because you greatly preferred Nader to the alternatives?
Yes. Why would those two be mutually exclusive? I greatly preferred Nader. He was the ONLY qualified candidate that year, in my opinion. But that doesn't mean I can't read the writing on the wall. Of the two candidates that could win, I disliked Gore the least. If Gore had been behind in the polls before the election in my area, I would have made a protest vote, and voted for Gore, which would have been more a vote AGAINST Bush, and LESS of a vote FOR Gore. Since that wasn't necessary, I was able to vote my conscious, and hoped it would get them the funding. I'm not sure how many times you need me to spell this out for you. I can post it in Spanish, but then I am just gonna run clean out of languages.

I didn't register as Green Party because I was registered as a Democrat when I got my drivers' license. The Green Party wasn't even officially founded until 2001. But you think it is significant that I wasn't a member in 2000?


On this we agree. It should start with a strong and legitimate candidate not with a party that proposes a candidate with absolutely no chance of winning. Honestly, I think this debate ended about three posts ago. Whatever it is you disagree with me on... you've agreed with the primary and fundamental point I was trying to make early on when you said-





JSZ
You are taking me out of context to suit your purposes. I'll not talk to you if that's how you want to go about it. I specifically said I did NOT want Gore for president. Nader's absence would not have made me want him for president, it just would have made me vote for him.

Have fun arguing in circles by yourself.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
My suggestion... because I'm done trying to untangle your perpetually shifting conversational topics, is to figure out what you mean and come back when you're ready to issue non contradictory statements on the subject at hand. Picking apart your posts, while somewhat entertaining, is not unlike watching Desperate Housewives- time consuming but ultimately joyless.


Once you're a little more clear on whatever it was you meant to say versus whatever it was you did say, come back.


I'll be here.


JSZ
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
He just got finished telling me that Al Gore won the popular vote in New Hampshire. Are you sure that's who I should be trusting? (No offense Bbucko, you seem like a genuinely nice guy.)

I like to think that I am, JSZ :biggrin1:

FWIW, when I wrote that Gore won the popular vote, I was speaking nationally, not in reference to NH. It took me a while to figure out what your post meant.
 

D_Percy_Prettywillie

Account Disabled
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
748
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
53
Which is funny because that line of discussion got completely derailed by multiple different people (myself included.) I think like three people were all, in essence, talking to each other about completely different things thinking they were talking about the same thing.



JSZ
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
You think I was under the impression that only 500,000 some odd people voted in the 2000 election? I was obviously talking about New Hampshire. Now that you've said that though, I think the person I was responded to when I said that, might have been talking about the election as a whole rather than just that state (which was one of two crucial states in that election with which I was trying to make a point.)

Reading; because the alternative is confusion lol. :)



JSZ

No, I was not trying to insult your intelligence, and it may have been clear in your head that you were speaking about a state, but to a reader it was not clear, and I did, in fact, apologize once I figured it out.
 

rawrg

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Posts
401
Media
21
Likes
216
Points
363
Location
Lenexa (Kansas, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes, there is about a .01% chance of Ron Paul getting elected, but I'm still writing him in. The more votes that go his way, the more politicians like him we'll see. Obama, Perry, Bachman, they'll all do the same thing: destroy this country. So it doesn't matter what I do, my vote should go to he who I agree with.