"How to Handle Nader"

[GreenPartyVoter]

In 2000, Al Gore beat George W. Bush in the state of New Mexico by a mere 356 votes--a slimmer margin than in Florida. Ralph Nader polled 21,000 votes. Nader not only nearly cost Gore the state, but forced him to expend valuable resources there in the campaign's waning days, draining his effort from Florida.

Flash forward to 2004. Once again the Democratic and Republican candidates are locked in a tight race nationally. Once again Nader's entry into the race threatens Kerry's hold on New Mexico. And once again two candidates who share many views and bases of support--and who ideally could work together to challenge George Bush on the economy, the war in Iraq, the future of social security, the environment, political reform and health care--instead are players in a Cain and Abel drama, courtesy of the all-or-nothing, winner-take-all nature of our presidential election method.

Yet there is a way out--if New Mexico Democrats decide they want one. Democrats control New Mexico's state legislature, and one of Kerry's leading vice-presidential contenders, Bill Richardson, is governor. Democrats could pass into law--right now--a runoff or instant runoff system with a majority requirement for president to ensure that the center-left does not split its vote between Kerry and Nader.

Here's how. The Constitution mandates the antiquated Electoral College system for electing the president, in which there is a series of elections in the fifty states and the District of Columbia rather than one national election. But the Constitution specifically delegates to states the method of choosing its electors. States historically have used a variety of different approaches, including letting the state legislature appoint electors, as threatened by Florida Republicans in 2000. Nebraska and Maine, for example, award two electoral votes to the winner of the statewide vote and one vote to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district (a flawed approach that would boost Republicans if in place nationally).

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0721-02.htm

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Kick, esp for any New Mexico residents. Love to hear their input on this!

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Another kick for the New Mexico crowd. :^D

[sangh0]

2. More Nadirite extortion

More "Nadir didn't play spoiler in 2000, but if Kerry isn't careful, Nadir will play spoiler AGAIN in 2004"

The extortion didn't work the 1st time, and we're never going to have another Presidential race decided by 537 votes.

Screw Nadir and any policy his name is used to justify. If you really want IRV, I suggest you stop attaching Nadir's name to it. It doesn't help

[dmkinsey]

3. I'll kick for that

:kick:

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Really, that's pretty petty to give up on the possibility

of ensuring Kerry winning N.M. just because you hate Nader and Greens.

Also, I am not so sure that the authors of this article ARE Naderites or Greens. Why don't you email them and ask them if they are indeed trying to extort something from you (as Naderites or other), or if they see a possiblity of improving our election system?

[sangh0]

6. You don't want to get it

Nadir has nothing to do with whether or not Dems win, and using extortion to get support for IRV will only undermine any support IRV might get. Call me names if that's what floats your boat, but if you truly care about IRV, you'll stop trying to extort support for it.

Like many people, I don't give into extortion. I give to charity, but not if they try to extort from me. Thankfully, charities are smarter than that. I can't say the same for everyone.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. What I see as pragmatism you see as extortion.

I see the possibility of a close race in N.M. and a way around that, but the NAder and Greens get your glasses so steamed up that you can't see what is right in front of you.

Too bad you are such an idealistic purist and aren't willing to be pragmatic about a very serious situation. Or do you really want Bu$h for four more years?

[Forkboy]

9. I can only guess who you're arguing with

(thanks to a mod enforced ignore :) ) but I LOVE seeing the purist argument turned back on the people who use it on others all the time.It's so fitting!

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. You are an excellent guesser. Feel free to come to my house

next time we play charades! *lol*

[sangh0]

13. Can I play?

I'm gonna guess that the post you were responding to had a short subject line, and no more than two sentences in the body of the post

How'm I doin?

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Sure you can play. Never let it be said that I am a bad hostess.

(Are you two on mutual ignore?)

[Forkboy]

15. We're both forced to ignore each other

because we can't play nice.I dont understand it,I'm sooooooo easy to get along with ;-)

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Well, better a forced ignore than one or both of you getting

kicked off DU. The place just wouldn't be the same. *g*

[sangh0]

12. "Do this or else bad things will happen to you" is extortion

You're free to view it as you please, but many will see it as extortion.

Too bad you are such an idealistic purist and aren't willing to be pragmatic about a very serious situation.

Pretty ironic for you talk about pragmatism while pushing an policy that has little chance of being implemented months before the election.

Or do you really want Bu$h for four more years?

Again, extortion doesn't work with me

[dmkinsey]

5. IRV is a favorite

of the Green Party because it's effect would be to build and strengthen minor parties,like the Greens.
If the Green Party wants IRV it is their job to work for it and build enough support to pass it.
IRV in the long term is clearly a bad deal for the Democratic Party since a successful IRV system would split the left vote between the Dems and Greens.
Just because we're called the DEMOCRATIC PARTY doesn't mean that we're obligated to support minor parties. We're obligated to recruit, support and elect Democratic candidates.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Actually, some think that IRV is not more likely to strengthen minor

parties and it is not my preferred method of perferential voting for that reason. However, it would be good in this instance because N.M. is very close right now.

http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm

[Octafish]

10. Does Ralph need the money?

Another questions: Does the Bush economy benefit him more than it does most Americans?

Nader's "Grassroots" Campaign... Courtesy of the GOP

By Jeff Cohen, AlterNet. Posted July 20, 2004.

Ralph Nader's campaign now depends on folks like Dick Armey and the Reform Party to get on state ballots.

Four years after the Florida debacle, with nearly all of Ralph Nader's longtime progressive allies now tactically supporting Kerry in swing states to retire the Bush regime, the Nader campaign has created none of the grassroots thunder of 2000. Indeed, it has been a hollow enterprise – attracting a few left-wing sects and polemicists.

Given this vacuum, it's no surprise that pro-Bush forces have rushed to Nader's side. What is a surprise is the brazenness of their support. And, how readily Nader has accepted the rightwing help.

Nader has complained – correctly in at least one state – of covert Democratic efforts to keep him off ballots. But in Michigan, he has no such excuse. In that key battleground state, after Nader volunteers had collected only 5,000 of the 30,000 signatures necessary to get on the ballot, Michigan's Republican Party came to the rescue with 43,000 Nader signatures.

Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese initially took a principled stand, telling Associated Press last week that the campaign would not accept the GOP's help: "We won't take any signatures from them." But within hours he flip-flopped, AP reported, saying the campaign might accept the Republican signatures if state officials did not certify Nader as the nominee of the Reform Party in Michigan, which is split into two factions.

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19290/

Go Ralph. You know where you can go.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. One last kick.