Nader back to siphoning votes

[Craptacular]

So when will the Nader Traders pop up again?? I wanted to punch some of them in the face last time, so maybe I'll get another chance.

[Anthony]

i liked Perot in '92, although i wasn't of voting age back then. he reminded me of Frank Purdue. i was amused by him. especially Dana Carvey's impersonation's of him in SNL.

"I don't believe in no 'death-penalty'. Rather, I'd dig a hole in the ground and bury the guy in it up to his head on a hot sunny day. Then I'd sit down right infront of him with a cold glass of lemonade, while little red-ants crawled around his face."

[ISiddiqui]

I think his point is a little broader... that it's because Gore ran a dreadful campaign that he allowed the race to be close enough to end up being "decided" by a few hundred or thousand votes in any one state. Had Gore made better decisions, he could have won comfortably, rendering any marginal issues in one state or another (and any effect from Nader) totally moot.

Assuming I'm amplifying Vegas Vic correctly here, I do agree with him, and suspect that you might as well.

I'll go ahead an agree as well .

I mean you will will always have a third party candidate that runs to the extremes. On the far right you have the Constitution Party, etc. The problem is that Republican candidates are getting the far right vote, while Dems aren't getting the far left... that could be because Nader is minor celebrity. But you look at things, Nader, Michael Moore, etc are minor celebs. Why? Because those on the far left think the Dems have left them, so they elevate those that challenge the mainstream party.

[stevew]

I still cant believe it took several months to call a "winner" on the '00 election cause some old florida people cant punch out the right canidate on a ballot.

And Gore lost cause of Tennessee, not Florida. Thats always been my opinion. If you cant carry your home state, you dont deserve to win an election.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

So when will the Nader Traders pop up again?? I wanted to punch some of them in the face last time, so maybe I'll get another chance.

what exactly is a "Nader Trader"?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Look, I am leaning towards Kerry/Edwards, but it's a free country and anyone can run for president. You accept it and work that much harder. I agree with the above, mathematically, Nader cost Gore the election. But, in the end, Gore had only himself to blame. He was not a good campaigner. That's a lesson for the next democrat.

Last election was an anomaly. I don't think it is going to come down to a few hundred or thousand votes, so I believe the "Nader" effect will be negligible and not outcome determinative. I also think those that voted for Nader (esp. because of environmental views) will be a little gun shy this time around (esp. with how Bush has done on the environment). There will be a little more voting with the head rather than the heart this time around. If not, so be it. The Dems better work on earning those left votes, then.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by yabanci

what exactly is a "Nader Trader"?

Say you lived in a battleground state. You'd meet up with someone online who wasnt in a battleground state. You'd offer to vote for Gore(though you wanted to vote for Nader) in exchange for that other person agreeing to vote for Nader(cause his vote for Gore really wouldnt matter cause Gore was either gonna win or lose that state by a significant margine).

I dunno how the whole idea worked in practice anyways, but I definately wouldnt do something like this.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by stevew

Say you lived in a battleground state. You'd meet up with someone online who wasnt in a battleground state. You'd offer to vote for Gore(though you wanted to vote for Nader) in exchange for that other person agreeing to vote for Nader(cause his vote for Gore really wouldnt matter cause Gore was either gonna win or lose that state by a significant margine).

I dunno how the whole idea worked in practice anyways, but I definately wouldnt do something like this.

okay, I recall this. Thanks.

[Flasch186]

you know what the best part of his statement was? When he said, "in an effort to see the current administration leave, i will be running as an independent candidate." If that is genuine than i applaud him but if it's so he can be a spotlight hound (like i think) than that is ridiculous. He'll, like in the subject, siphon more votes from the dems. than the reps. so it would be against his own desires. whatever

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why don't you blame the Democratic candidate for losing the far left? Nader doesn't see any difference between the two parties, since he's a socialist and the two parties are very capitalist, so who does he care gets in the White House? He is running because he feels neither party backs his interests.

Why get angry at that? Because Bush can capture the far right vote but Gore/Kerry can't get the far left?

That is exactly what I think it is the Dems fault for not seeing this coming and try to bribe this guy with cabinet spot or the ambassordorship of Nepal or something.

[QuikSand]

I think Nader believes deeply and truly all the things he says... I don't think he's running as some kind of publicity stunt, I think he is a true believer. He may be misguided about the right way to accomplish the goals he seeks... but at least I don't think he is disingenuous.

[clintl]

Nader is not going to be as big a factor this time. Trust me on this. A lot of people who voted for him in 2000 regret it now.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think you're reading him too literally. VV (I presume here to put words into his mounth, becaiuse I agree with him) isn't denying that Nader's 90,000+ votes in Florida, for example, drew more away from Goire tha Bush... and he isn't denying that that alone, if reversed, would have granted Gore the state and therefore the win.

I think his point is a little broader... that it's because Gore ran a dreadful campaign that he allowed the race to be close enough to end up being "decided" by a few hundred or thousand votes in any one state. Had Gore made better decisions, he could have won comfortably, rendering any marginal issues in one state or another (and any effect from Nader) totally moot.

Assuming I'm amplifying Vegas Vic correctly here, I do agree with him, and suspect that you might as well.

Fair enough.

[Fritz]

RE: Nader

Look on the bright side, it could be Jello Biafra splitting the votes....

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by clintl

Nader is not going to be as big a factor this time. Trust me on this. A lot of people who voted for him in 2000 regret it now.

Don't believe it. If Gore had any intentions of running the country like he did his campaign.....

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Don't believe it. If Gore had any intentions of running the country like he did his campaign.....

...he and his political wonks would still be deciding how to respond to 9/11.

[Dutch]

i was amused by him. especially Dana Carvey's impersonation's of him in SNL.

Now, using Perot's own words and Dana Carvey together.

[Ross Perot Voice]

Okay, okay, look here. I'm a business man, you see? Now let's look at "this here chart". You got 2 chickens on the left. That's how many chickens we have. Now, say the country on the right wants to buy 3 chickens. Well, our government's been selling them 3 chickens. But we only had 2 to begin with. Are you with me? Can you do the math? That's negative one chickens. That's just not good business.

[end Ross Perot Voice]

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Now, using Perot's own words and Dana Carvey together.

[Ross Perot Voice]

Okay, okay, look here. I'm a business man, you see? Now let's look at "this here chart". You got 2 chickens on the left. That's how many chickens we have. Now, say the country on the right wants to buy 3 chickens. Well, our government's been selling them 3 chickens. But we only had 2 to begin with. Are you with me? Can you do the math? That's negative one chickens. That's just not good business.

[end Ross Perot Voice]

Well, at least he knew well enough to use the chart on television.

[Anthony]

i read that whole quote in the Ross Perot voice. i love it. and i love Frank Purdue.

[rdo]

Has the implementation of a preferential voting system ever been discussed in America ?

[ISiddiqui]

That is exactly what I think it is the Dems fault for not seeing this coming and try to bribe this guy with cabinet spot or the ambassordorship of Nepal or something.

Nader wouldn't take it. He doesn't like the Democrats. Democrats just DON'T GET IT! He isn't in it for personal gain, he wants to bring the country away from free-market capitalism. He wants a Sweden like system for the US.

Has the implementation of a preferential voting system ever been discussed in America ?

You mean on internet forums or in Congress?

It really hasn't gotten far as a national discussion.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

...he and his political wonks would still be deciding how to respond to 9/11.

Another interesting irony that I've observed:

As lousy of a candidate as Gore was, he is still the second largest vote getter in American history (50,997,000); second only to Ronald Reagan in 1984 (54,455,00).

That's actually kind of mind boggling.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Another interesting irony that I've observed:

As lousy of a candidate as Gore was, he is still the second largest vote getter in American history (50,997,000); second only to Ronald Reagan in 1984 (54,455,00).

That's actually kind of mind boggling.

Not a big deal since until the beginning of the 20th century, there weren't even 50 million people in the US.

But I am still curious. What exactly did the exit polls or surveys say about those not voting for Gore?

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I know this raises issues with the true believers on both sides... but I don't really feel particularly well represented by either the Democrat or Republican party, and I'd very much like it if there were more viable options, at some point in my lifetime.

Amen. Good for Nader! I laugh at the Democrats who feign self-righteous contempt towards Nader because they deem themselves the reformist party for the blue collar man and the Republicans the big business mainstream whores. Both Democrats and Republicans could care less about issues that affect the average voter and stick with abortion, homosexuals, prayer in schools, and other hot topic issues that people love to take sides with and get steaming angry about, but they're topics that really do nothing to better our lives as American citizens. Nader may hand Bush another election but I honestly don't see much of a difference between a Republican or Democratic President and have never found a platform that I feel represents me. I usually go with a protest vote for someone like Perot or Nader but I might actually pick a side in our country's "one party sytem" this time if there is a noticeable difference with foreign policy and/or terrorism.

[WussGawd]

You know, the more I think about this, I question how much of an impact Nader will have for several reasons:

1) Don't discount the lack of backing from the Greens this go around. They are a small, but very vocal minority in politics, and they represented the one thing most historical third party candidates don't have, an organization. Basically, Nader will need to build an organization from scratch, and raise funds, and do it in a very short period of time. He will find this task daunting without the help of the Greens.

2) Historically, third party candidates who ran in one election generally don't do nearly as well with the second go around.

3) Nader might actually force the eventual Democratic nominee (probably Kerry) to do the same thing Howard Dean forced the candidates to do earlier in the race, which is spell out the differences between himself and Bush. Certainly, he could force the Democrats to tap into a base they've lost sight of in their rush to take corporate contributions, which is anger at corporate America, something I hear a lot of liberals express right now, but which hasn't really been touched on much at all by Kerry thus far.

4) Nader's impact on the 2000 election was greatly exaggerated. Gore's ineffectiveness as a campaigner despite all the advantages he had (8 years of good economy, balanced budget, national self-confidence, general liking of Clinton amongst Democrats) played a far bigger role.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

...he and his political wonks would still be deciding how to respond to 9/11.

It makes for a nice story...but it doesn't fly. The Clinton Administration (which Gore was a part of) actually had a game plan written for Al Qaeda, ready to go around the time of the 2000 election (remember, the Cole bombing had just happened that fall. The biggest reason they held off was they didn't want the new President (whoever it was) to inherit a war. When Bush was finally pronounced the winner by the Supreme Court, this plan was presented to his adminstration before 1/20/01 and the handover of power by Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and Richard Clarke, who was retained after the change in administrations. The Bush administration basically tabled the thing for a few months. Rumsfeld, Condi, et al. hemmed and hawed on it, and finally started taking a serious look at it in August 2001. By the time they were ready to go about implementing it, it got the green light to be presented to Bush on 9/4/01. Before it ever got presented to Bush, 9/11 happened.

Our early actions in Afghanistan in Sept/Oct 2001 were basically straight out of the Clinton administration's original design for the campaign to go after Al Qaeda (the use of drones, aiding the Northern Alliance, the basics of the bombing campaign, special forces deployments, etc).

Gore certainly would have been well aware of the plan, and would have implemented it the same way Bush did. In fact, I can't fathom a President (Democrat, Republican, Federalist, or Whig) in our history who wouldn't have reacted decisively in the face of what amounted to the most devastating attack on American soil since the War of 1812.

[Ryche]

I love when Dems go crazy about 'how dare Nader run' and take away Democrat votes.

A. Nader is not a Democrat. Why should he give a damn what Democrats want him to do?

B. Give people credit. They know the consequences of their vote. This is America, they're allowed to vote for the candidate they most support. If you don't like it, give them a reason to vote Democrat, other than keeping Bush from being re-elected.

[Dutch]

When Bush was finally pronounced the winner by the Supreme Court.

Actually, he was the winner before the Democrats sued in court and was the winner by their decision, and was the winner by all Democratic rocounts afterward.

Depending on how many lawsuits and recounts John Kerry puts forth, GWB could go down as the only guy to get elected to office more times than FDR.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Ryche

I love when Dems go crazy about 'how dare Nader run' and take away Democrat votes.

A. Nader is not a Democrat. Why should he give a damn what Democrats want him to do?

B. Give people credit. They know the consequences of their vote. This is America, they're allowed to vote for the candidate they most support. If you don't like it, give them a reason to vote Democrat, other than keeping Bush from being re-elected.

You, I, and James Carville have something in common. If you want to win an election, present some new ideas. Anger at the controversial 2000 Election, and running on that anger, cost the Democrats the Senate in 2002. If they think they'll take back the White House in 2004 with that approach, the Democratic Party (and I say this as a Democrat) is self-delusional.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Actually, he was the winner before the Democrats sued in court and was the winner by their decision, and was the winner by all Democratic rocounts afterward.

Depending on how many lawsuits and recounts John Kerry puts forth, GWB could go down as the only guy to get elected to office more times than FDR.

Actually, I've seen stories that suggest that a full, statewide, manual recount of Florida would have given Gore the election...but it was not something Gore ever asked for in the numerous court challenges, and therefore, it's a moot point for historians to debate.

Personally, I've come to terms with the anger I felt by gradually coming to believe that Gore lost Gore that election. Not Bush, not Katherine Harris, not Jed Ed Jim Billy Bob Bush the Governor of the confused state of Florida, and not the US Supreme Court. If Gore runs a smarter campaign, and actually connects with voters, and uses Clinton a lot more on the campaign trail, Gore probably wins the election going away.

[Buccaneer]

Wuss, I was only half-joking. Clinton (which Gore was a part of) was never known for decisive decision-making, even several in his administration was critical of him for that (plus Doonesbury) - plan or no plan. Clinton (which Gore was a part of) preferred to operate by concensus (which is always hard to achieve) and by polls and surveys. That was one of the things I hated about him.

I am a very strong proponent of decisive leadership, from my manager up to my president. That is why I personally like Bush's style (but not some of his policies and administration). Decisive leadership can be wrong at time and it can be right at times but at least it's about being a leader and sticking to your guns without being so self-absorbed in your own image and ego in making sure everyone likes you.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Actually, I've seen stories that suggest that a full, statewide, manual recount of Florida would have given Gore the election...

How about looking at the many stories and analysis that provided hard evidence instead of the stories that "suggested"?

[Buccaneer]

All of this has got me curious so I read an article from Emory Univ http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/...ndecision.html

From that, it contradicted Wuss's notion that Clinton should have been more of a positive factor (which I never believed). Also, I disagree with some of their reform conclusions (most democracies have far worse abuse than ours).

Here's the full article

Of course, the presidency was not the only office at stake in the 2000 election and the battle for control of Congress, like the presidential election, was excruciatingly close. In the House, Republicans barely maintained their narrow majority, as Democrats scored a net gain of two seats. The new House will have 221 Republicans, 212 Democrats, and two independents–the closest party division in almost fifty years. In the Senate elections, Democrats scored a net gain of four seats. Each party will have fifty seats in the new Senate–the first tie in more than one hundred years. Republicans will maintain control of the upper chamber, however, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.

Explaining the Results: Long Term Factors

What do the results of the 2000 election tell us about American politics at the beginning of the twenty-first century?

While no one could have predicted that the outcome of the presidential race would come down to a few hundred questionable ballots in Florida, the fact that both the presidential and congressional elections produced such close divisions is not at all surprising. Political scientists have long recognized that the most important long-term influence on voting behavior and election outcomes in the United States is party identification, and today the American electorate is almost evenly divided between those who identify with the Democratic Party and those who identify with the Republican Party.

According to the Voter News Service exit poll of more than thirteen thousand voters in the 2000 election, 39 per-cent identified themselves as Democrats, 35 percent as Republicans, and 27 percent as independents. While this is similar to the partisan division of the electorate in other recent elections, it represents a dramatic change from the 1960s and 1970s, when Democratic identifiers greatly outnumbered Republicans. In the 1976 national exit poll, for example, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a margin of 40 percent to 25 percent. Republican gains in party identification since 1980 have been a major factor in the GOP’s growing success in congressional as well as state and local elections.

Just as striking as the nearly even division of the U.S. electorate was the high level of party [loyalty] in the 2000 presidential election. According to exit polls, Democratic identifiers favored Gore over Bush by an impressive margin of 86 percent to 11 percent. Despite the well-publicized fears of Democratic Party leaders and strategists that many liberal Democrats would be attracted to the candidacy of consumer advocate and Green Party nominee Ralph Nader, only 2 percent of Democrats defected. Republican identifiers were even more loyal, favoring Bush over Gore by a 91 percent to 8 percent margin. Only 1 percent of Republicans cast their ballot for Nader, and virtually none were drawn to the candidacy of Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan. Voters who identified themselves as independents split their ballots almost evenly, favoring Bush over Gore by a 47 percent to 45 percent margin, with only 6 percent opting for Nader and 1 percent for Buchanan.

With almost 90 percent of all partisans supporting their own party’s nominee, the level of party voting in the 2000 presidential election was the highest since at least 1976. Moreover, this pattern was not confined to the presidential race. Exit polls from the ten most hotly contested U.S. Senate races showed a similar pattern. In these races, 84 to 91 percent of Democrats voted along party lines as did 83 to 91 percent of Republicans.

In every one of these close Senate races, the party with more identifiers in the electorate was victorious. As a result, Democrats picked up six previously Republican seats–Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, Florida, Washington, and Minnesota–while Republicans picked up one previously Democratic seat–Virginia. In the eight contests won by the Democrats, Democratic identifiers made up an average of 40 percent of the electorate while Republican identifiers made up an average of 32 percent of the electorate. In the two contests won by Republicans, Democratic identifiers, on average, made up 32 percent of the electorate while Republican identifiers, on average, made up 37 percent. Democratic gains were mainly attributable to a return to partisan voting patterns six years after the Republican landslide of 1994.

Although exit-poll data are not available for individual House races, the national exit-poll data show a very high level of party voting in the 2000 House elections as well. Altogether, 87 percent of Democratic identifiers and 91 percent of Republican identifiers voted for their party’s House candidate. As in the presidential election, independents split their ballots almost evenly, with 49 percent voting for a Republican candidate and 46 percent for a Democratic candidate.

From the presidential election down, this was an extremely partisan election, with the results reflecting the distribution of party loyalties in each constituency. The close-to-even division between the parties in the presidential election, the House, and the Senate, all reflected the close-to-even division between Democrats and Republicans in the national electorate.

The results of the 2000 elections clearly contradict the conventional wisdom that party loyalty in the American electorate has been steadily declining and is now a thing of the past. In fact, there is convincing evidence that the widely heralded decline in partisanship in recent decades was exaggerated and that partisanship in the electorate has actually been increasing since the 1970s. Compared with twenty-five years ago, a larger percentage of American voters identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats and a larger percentage of these partisans cast their ballots along party lines.

What explains this resurgence of partisanship in the U.S. electorate? At least part of the explanation is that since 1980 the U.S. electorate has undergone an ideological realignment. The increasing ideological polarization of the Democratic and Republican parties in the Reagan and post-Reagan eras has made it easier for voters to recognize the differences between the parties’ policy stands. As a result, voters have been choosing their party identification on the basis of their policy preferences rather than maintaining the party allegiance they inherited from their parents. Conservatives raised by Democratic or Republican parents have moved dramatically toward the Republican Party, while liberals raised by Republican or independent parents have moved toward the Democratic Party. The major results of this realignment are that the advantage in party identification that the Democratic Party enjoyed from the 1930s through the 1970s has been drastically reduced and there is now a much closer correspondence between party identification and ideology in the overall electorate.

Since 1980, the ideological center of the Democratic Party has shifted to the left, while the ideological center of the Repub-lican Party has shifted to the right. The increased correspondence between party identification and ideology in the electorate means these two factors are more likely to reinforce each other and that fewer Democratic and Republican identifiers are likely to be attracted to the policies of the opposing party’s candidates.

Short-Term Forces and the 2000 Election

The outcome of any election is a product OF both long-term forces, such as the distribution of partisan and ideological loyalties in the electorate, and short-term forces peculiar to that election, such as the personal strengths and weaknesses of the candidates and the issues of the campaign. The closeness of the 2000 election reflected the fact that not only were long-term forces evenly balanced, but so were short-term forces.

Numerous polls conducted during the 2000 election campaign found that the American people generally saw Al Gore and George W. Bush as having distinct personal strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps the two most important qualities that voters look for in a political leader are competence and trustworthiness.

In this election, voters generally gave Gore higher marks than Bush on qualities relating to competence

such as knowledge, intelligence, and experience; on the other hand, voters generally found Bush to be more honest and trustworthy than Gore. For example, an October 2000 Newsweek poll asked a national sample of registered voters to rate Gore and Bush on a variety of personal traits. Eighty-two percent of the respondents described Gore as “intelligent and well informed” compared with 69 percent for Bush. On the other hand, 63 percent of the respondents described Bush as “honest and ethical” compared with only 52 percent for Gore.

The voters were also closely divided in their assessment of the major issues in the 2000 election. Political scientists generally divide issues into two types, prospective and retrospective, and retrospective issues usually play a major role in presidential elections. Every presidential election is, to some extent, a referendum on the past performance of the incumbent president, and the 2000 election was no exception. What surprised many election scholars and many Democratic Party strategists, however, was that Gore did not benefit more from the strong performance of the U.S. economy and President Bill Clinton’s high job approval rating in the months preceding the election.

Why did Gore fall short of most scholars’ expectations? At least part of the explanation may lie in the ambiguous legacy of the Clinton administration. After any administration has controlled the White House for eight years or longer, regardless of the popularity of the President or the state of the economy, there is generally a growing sentiment among the electorate that it’s time to replace the in-party with the out-party. To some extent, Gore’s problems merely reflected this “time for change” factor at work. However, the phenomenon of “Clinton fatigue” in the 2000 election appeared to involve more than this normal “time for change” sentiment.

Data from the 2000 national exit poll show that there was an extraordinary split in voters’ opinions about President Clinton. On the one hand, 57 percent of the voters approved of President Clinton’s job performance, while only 41 percent disapproved. On the other hand, only 36 percent of the same voters had a favorable opinion of Bill Clinton as a person while 60 percent had an unfavorable opinion.

Voters who approved of President Clinton’s job performance were much more likely to be conflicted in their view of Clinton than voters who disapproved of his job performance. Almost all of those who disapproved of his job performance also had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton as a person. In contrast, 36 percent of voters who approved of Clinton’s job performance had an unfavorable opinion of him as a person. Furthermore, these conflicted voters were substantially less likely to vote for Gore than voters with consistently positive opinions about President Clinton. Voters who approved of Clinton’s job performance and had a favorable opinion of him as a person preferred Gore to Bush by a margin of 85 percent to 12 percent. However, voters who approved of Clinton’s job performance but who had an unfavorable opinion of him as a person favored Gore over Bush by a much smaller margin of 63 percent to 33 percent.

Vice President Gore defeated Governor Bush by a margin of 77 percent to 20 percent among all voters who approved of President Clinton’s job performance. In contrast, Bush defeated Gore by a more decisive margin of 88 percent to 9 percent among all voters who disap-proved of President Clinton’s job performance. The fact that one out of five voters who approved of the President’s job performance voted for the Republican presidential candidate clearly reflected the ambivalence many of these voters felt about Clinton. Based on these findings, it seems very likely that the Monica Lewinsky scandal cost Gore a decisive victory in the presidential election.

The Nader Factor

The impact of the Monica Lewinsky scandal was not the only problem Gore faced in his bid for the White House. Another major obstacle was the Nader candidacy. Even though the Green Party nominee ultimately won less than 3 percent of the national vote, he may very well have cost Gore the election.

In contrast to other recent third-party candidates, including Ross Perot, Nader did not take votes equally from the two major party candidates. According to data from the national exit poll, when Nader voters were asked how they would have voted if Nader had not been on the ballot, they chose Gore over Bush by a margin of 50 percent to 20 percent, with the remaining 30 percent indicating that they would not have voted. Projecting these results onto the national popular vote, it appears that if Nader had not been on the ballot, Gore would have defeated Bush by a margin of well over a million votes. More importantly, it seems almost certain that Gore would have carried both Florida and New Hampshire and thereby had a clear majority in the Electoral College.

What Next? The Outlook for Reform

The 2000 presidential election exposed serious flaws in our electoral process. As a result of the prolonged battle for Florida’s twenty-five electoral votes, the American people learned what election officials have long known–that every election year, hundreds of thousands of American citizens are effectively disenfranchised because of overcrowded polling places, poorly trained poll workers, confusing ballot forms, faulty voting equipment, and inadequate voter education.

According to the nonpartisan Center for the Study of the American Electorate, last year more than two million ballots were invalidated across the nation. These problems exist in every region of the country and almost every state. In Georgia, for example, thousands of punch-card ballots were invalidated in Fulton and DeKalb counties because voters failed to cleanly punch out a hole corresponding to a presidential candidate or punched out more than one hole. Moreover, these problems have a disproportionate impact on lower-income and minority voters, who are more likely to encounter obsolete voting equipment and have more difficulty understanding complicated ballot forms than affluent white voters.

What is needed is a national effort to correct these problems before the 2004 presidential election. Congress and state legislatures should provide funding so that every precinct in the nation, not just those in the most affluent counties, can have modern voting equipment that accurately records every vote and lets voters know when they have made a mistake. Funding should also be provided to increase the number of polling places and train poll workers to answer voters’ questions and assist those having difficulty with voting equipment.

Congress also should encourage states to develop simpler, more uniform ballots for use in presidential and congressional elections. State and local governments, the media, and private organizations should make greater efforts to educate citizens about the voting process. Turning out voters on Election Day does no good if these voters don’t know how to properly cast their ballots.

Finally, almost every other democracy in the world makes it easier for their citizens to vote than we do in the United States. We should seriously consider changing our voting laws to hold national elections on weekends or to make Election Day a national holiday. This would make it much easier for working Americans to find time to get to the polls.

The reforms I am advocating would help ensure that election results more closely reflect the will of the voters. All of them can be accomplished through legislative action. They do not require amending the Constitution, as would abolishing the Electoral College. They only require political will and a modest financial investment. Surely our democracy is worth that much.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How about looking at the many stories and analysis that provided hard evidence instead of the stories that "suggested"?

Um, Bucc, I've read most of them. Trouble is, I've read analyses that argued both ways. I'm afraid, unlike others (including yourself, by all appearances), that I like to try to keep an open mind on the issue.

The whole point in the use of the word "suggested" is that there are articles I've read that "suggest" a Bush win, whereas I also read a pretty convincing New York Times article that argued a Gore win in a full manual recount would have happened.

The irony is that the recount Gore was looking for (and ultimately got shot down by the US Supreme Court (select counties only) would have lost him the election. That point is pretty much settled by most of the analyses I've read

Thanks so much for splitting hairs on what is obviously a far from definitively answered historical question. I really appreciate the fact that you believe yourself better read on this issue than I am.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

All of this has got me curious so I read an article from Emory Univ http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/...ndecision.html

From that, it contradicted Wuss's notion that Clinton should have been more of a positive factor (which I never believed). Also, I disagree with some of their reform conclusions (most democracies have far worse abuse than ours).

Here's the full article

[/color][/size][/font]

Interesting. I agree with most of their reform conclusions. The electoral process in this country is about as voter-hostile as I can imagine. Study after study I've read since the 2000 election suggest much of the same conclusions as this one. Certainly, this process is more hostile than in most other Western democracies (or do you think it a startling coincidence that the US typically has the lowest voter turnout as a percentage of Western democracies. The voter registration process is particularly cumbersome. I think that election day should be a day off work...anecdotally, I know a number of people who don't vote (or haven't in the past) simply because of the burden of getting time off work, etc.

And the lack of attention paid to educating people about voting is a shame.

[Galaril]

There was apoll released and it does appear Nader could very well play spoiler.Election poll

[Galaril]

bump

[BishopMVP]

Poll seems suspicious. Only 2% undecided? I'd love to see what the question was, but it doesn't say in the article.

Also interesting that 37% had solid backing for Bush and 26% had solid backing for Kerry, despite Bush only leading 46-45 overall.

[Bubba Wheels]

Skull and Bones vs. Skull and Bones...interesting.

[stevew]

If its this close during the general election 46/45/6, I strongly doubt that most Nader voters vote for him and instead do decide to vote for Kerry.

But the way the democratic establishment is bashing Nader is pretty harsh in my opinion.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why don't you blame the Democratic candidate for losing the far left? Nader doesn't see any difference between the two parties, since he's a socialist and the two parties are very capitalist, so who does he care gets in the White House? He is running because he feels neither party backs his interests.

Why get angry at that? Because Bush can capture the far right vote but Gore/Kerry can't get the far left?

Thank you for saying this. The Democrats stink, i hate them, at times i hate them more then republicans. Atleast with republicans i know exactly what to expect, democrats just give me the creeps lately because they are so "slimy" seeming. Nader has my vote already!

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Thank you for saying this. The Democrats stink, i hate them, at times i hate them more then republicans. Atleast with republicans i know exactly what to expect, democrats just give me the creeps lately because they are so "slimy" seeming. Nader has my vote already!

A vote for Bush,Thanks for four more lovely years under King George

[Tekneek]

Anger at the other voters because they don't like your candidate of choice? That's a bizarre way of thinking.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. I'll be sure to check the ballot, but I am willing to bet you $1 million that it will not have this next to one of the choices: "Ralph Nader and George W. Bush." If the Democrats/Kerry want those votes, I suppose they will have to get out there and win those votes. Expecting to get them by default is idiotic.

[timmae]

Ok, I haven't thought this through fully yet, but bear with me... let's just see where it takes us.

Lets say that the presidential race is a business. You have 2 fairly astute project managers who are fighting against each other to win the eyes of the 'ceo'. Their competition between each other raises the expectations of the company and the company is presumably better off for it. All of a sudden one of the lowly supervisors shows that he too has some promise as a project manager. The 2 project managers are worried about this third 'candidate' and that he might steal some of their thunder. This new guy starts bringing up some issues that don't put either of the 2 project managers into a good light. However, a case could be made that the third candidate raises expectations yet again for the company as a whole. Should the president of the company resist the charge of others because he has 2 good candidates already for a single position higher in the company?

Discuss... and rip into me for my childish comparisons.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Galaril

A vote for Bush,Thanks for four more lovely years under King George

I have seen nothing to bring me towards Kerry, and as much as i would like to see Bush out, Kerry needs to win me over and he hasn't. Kerry is just as rich, actually i think he is more rich, then Bush. They are both Skull & Bones guys. And they both talk out thier ass and you are supposed to think its ok that they give you one opinion/reason for something, and then completely change that later and it's supposed to be no big deal.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Cringer

And they both talk out thier ass and you are supposed to think its ok that they give you one opinion/reason for something, and then completely change that later and it's supposed to be no big deal.

There you go. I feel this same way and no serious change will ever be implemented as long as people keep blindly handing their votes over to the Republocrats/Demopublicans.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

There you go. I feel this same way and no serious change will ever be implemented as long as people keep blindly handing their votes over to the Republocrats/Demopublicans.

Idealists

[Ryche]

Thank you for saying this. The Democrats stink, i hate them, at times i hate them more then republicans. Atleast with republicans i know exactly what to expect, democrats just give me the creeps lately because they are so "slimy" seeming. Nader has my vote already!

A vote for Bush,Thanks for four more lovely years under King George

Sounds like there's a good chance Cringer still wouldn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans even without Nader. Kind of silly thinking his vote should belong to Kerry.

[Bubba Wheels]

My opinion: We get exactly what we deserve. We have a two party system because voters AND the media are basically lazy with short attention spans. Nothing bears this out more than the pathetic participation of voters in the primary season. Basically, people allow about 10% of the registered voters to pick two persons and then they wind up voting for the person that they hate the least. The pathetic media conspires in this by giving us nothing but sound-bites and group think (say what you will about Limbaugh, but he is absolutely right when he says "if you miss the NY Times, read the Washington Post, if you miss that, watch CNN, if you miss that, watch ABC, ect..."

If we really wanted to change things we as a whole would have done something about this long ago, but we don't so we do get exactly what we do deserve. I have often thought that we should create two new parties, and call them simply "conservative' and 'liberal', candidate would have no individual say but would have to adhere strictly to an ideological party line, and then these could always be the two 'default' parties for those unhappy with the two main party runners.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Sounds like there's a good chance Cringer still wouldn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans even without Nader. Kind of silly thinking his vote should belong to Kerry.

Thank you, this is correct. In trying to define myself politically i have looked in a lot of areas. My problem here is that i can't be nailed down to one "party." This started with the last presidential election, i liked Nader and the Greens, but had problems with some of thier ideas/goals. I also found the Libertarian Party, and like/agree with many of thier ideas and stances on issues. The same with the Greens though, i have problems with certain things that keeps me from going full force into it.

What i need is some freakish Green/Libertarian combo party, and i will be happy.