simply put.
to minimize someone's vote is an insult to the concept of Democracy in itself.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
simply put.
to minimize someone's vote is an insult to the concept of Democracy in itself.
It's a two-party system, and votes have consequences.
Not very many people did, but they were enough to siphon off votes from Gore and thus handing the election to Bush. It would be a similar situation if Trump or Sanders ran as 3rd party candidates, much as it was when Perot ran. The US is set up as a two party system where a mildly popular 3rd party candidate will almost always tip the election towards one of the two parties.
It's an election so votes are supposed to have consequence if the system is being correctly implemented.
And what if neither of each party's respective candidate resonates with the voter? If a candidate leaks votes to a 3rd party then that's the fault of their platform, not the voter.
Tell that to all the war victims and everyone who lost their shirt in the recession.
Not when the system is setup as a two party system. The US can't currently sustain a 3rd party without tipping all elections towards one of the two existing parties.
Correct. Its all fun and games until some minnow comes in and takes 1% of one party's votes and gifts the election to the other side.
This is what I have been saying all along. To Raoul's response. Both parties are responsible for that. Bill Clinton and Bush.
'The system's broke, which is why we can't change it'.
See my previous post. Nader had every right to run, but let's not pretend his participation didn't gift the world with 8 years of Dubya.
To be fair, Perot didn't change the outcome of '92, but it's an anomaly that requires a lot of factors to happen.
There was a point when Perot was leading in the polls but abruptly dropped out because he claimed an issue with his daughter. He got back in later and his numbers never recovered.
They couldn't have 'siphoned' votes from Gore considering he never initially owned nor was he obligated to the votes of those who ultimately voted for Nader. In a democracy you're supposed to garner votes through the merits of your platform, not assume they'd passively come streaming in because of who your opponent is.
Fortunately, some people don't consider politics to be exclusively dichotomous and actively seek to gift their vote for the platform they most agree with.
Exit polls in the end show that he drew significantly more voters from Clinton than Bush, almost a 2-1 margin. What killed team Bush that election was his violation of the no new taxes promise. His ceiling remained appallingly low the whole cycle for an incumbent.
That's how it works in a two party system. Votes lean either left or right and when a third party candidate who leans left or right joins in, it affects the side he is on detrimentally. In Nader's case, he was basically an environmental/consumer conscious version of Sanders, so we knew where his votes would come from. Hint - not Bush.
I think the electoral system is vastly outdated and should change, which you do by working hard to elect legislators that are willing to do it, and make it a policy plank within the party. A vote is part of a collective action that has consequence by design, it's not merely a narcissistic projection of your values. I'm not saying you cannot vote for a third party, I'm saying at least have the balls to say "yeah Bush and Gore would've been as bad as each other, I don't care who got in". Denying actual cause and effect is laughable.
Bush won Florida by 500 votes. Nader got 97,500. I'm sure a good portion of those had the decency to at least feel a little regret.
Liberals in 1980 expressed similar fears about the nuclear consequences of a Reagan presidency. The left's predilection for Manichean caricatures of their political opponents can lead them into serious error.
Whatever else he may do, I doubt Trump will blow up the world.
Nader's participation basically changed the trajectory of the US and by proxy the world. 9/11, both wars, the great recession, multiple QEs etc.
This is getting very silly.
Then Gore has himself to blame for 'losing' a considerable amount of votes to Nader. Obviously a fair amount of those on the left did not believe he was progressive enough.
You're also making out that Bush, Gore and Nader were the only 3 candidates in the election. There were numerous other 3rd party candidates, including those on the right. Its just as feasible that someone on the right could have crippled Bush, alas it was not the case. Hence it was to the testament of Nader's strong campaign and the inability of Gore to captivate the progressive base which led to the outcome we got. (Well actually it was the Supreme court, but lets not get into that).
Liberals in 1980 expressed similar fears about the nuclear consequences of a Reagan presidency. The left's predilection for Manichean caricatures of their political opponents can lead them into serious error.
Whatever else he may do, I doubt Trump will blow up the world.
God. I actually agree with you.
The numbers Nader racked up are clear. He racked up far more votes (nearly 3m) than any other 3rd party candidate. He knew exactly what he was doing at the time and what the repercussions might be, and he still marched on with the likes of Phil Donahue cheering him on.
..and lets not forget the role of the Supreme Court that was a result of the two party system that 'appointed' Bush.
Comparing Bernie to Ralph Nader is once again, laughable. Stop with the nonsense. About as accurate as saying Bernie has as much a chance as Ben Carson. I don´t know if you get it or not, but Sanders has proved himself to be an extremely serious candidate with massive support from the Democratic party, and nearly knocked off a shoe in candidate of the Democratic machine.
And how can you say he doesn´t have allegiance to the Democratic party? He´s running on their ticket, votes totally along their lines, and is getting nearly half their votes. Face it, he is a Democrat except for the label, and always has been. He would never run as a third party candidate so your comparison is dead in the water.
It was Florida in the end right? and SCOTUS stopped the recount.
Different Presidents have different policies with respect to intelligence gathering and what the threshold of getting involved in foreign wars. Who is to say a Gore administration wouldn't have acted more forcefully when initially briefed about the possibility of a domestic attack.
The recount that, from most independent analysis, would still have W winning by 100-200 odd votes.
He's not really a Dem. He hasn't raised much if any money for them, isn't a part of their apparatus (which is currently controlled by the Clinton cartel), and has spent 36 years as an Independent. He may be a Democrat in name at the moment, but his entire life and policy positions have not been consistent with those of the Democratic party.
And ?
And who is to say a Gore administration wouldn't have made even more of a bollocks of it, more attacks happened, even more bloodlust from the American public and even more reckless foreign policy.
Ralph Nader could've stopped WWIII.
Trudat, Gore fecked it up mightily (although he still won the election!). He didn't let Bill campaign for him, did shit in the dabates and was just an awkward candidate.
had data that supported both sides. The point being Bush was appointed by cronies from his own party. A result of the two party system that a number on here want to see go on.
I would've taken the Clinton/Gore approach over the Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld approach any day of the week.
terrible platform and he was a boring candidate.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean Ralph Nader is responsible for 9/11 really, does it.
Liberals in 1980 expressed similar fears about the nuclear consequences of a Reagan presidency. The left's predilection for Manichean caricatures of their political opponents can lead them into serious error.
Whatever else he may do, I doubt Trump will blow up the world.
What's funny is that Reagan actually nearly did the opposite and sign away all US nukes!
Including you apparently, who supports that "Democrat" Bernie Sanders on becoming President.
- Status