So...who else voted Nader?

[A.J. Hakari]

Hey all. I know that there've been topics upon topics about various elements of the election from a couple of weeks ago, but I'm here to ask a question I haven't seen discussed too much around here:

Did you vote for Nader?

I know, voting for Nader was pretty much a lost cause, that it would've been better to vote for Kerry to keep Bush out of office, or what have you. But this year, Nader didn't seem to stir up as much notice as he did in the last election, and the votes he did receive wouldn't have really made much of a difference if they had gone to either Republicans or Democrats.

So, once again, my question is this: Did you vote for Ralph Nader? If so, then why?

I did, and I came to that decision only when I was standing in the voting booth. I voted because out of the candidates on the ballot, I imagined each one being in charge of the country. Nader was the one I imagined trusting most (or at least the one whose administration I would less fear living under). It all came down to who I could vote for and fall asleep with a clean conscience on election night, even if it was obvious my candidate didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. In the end, I was 1 of a whole 126 people in my county who went with Nader (my Wisconsin county went in favor of Bush, though it was a pretty narrow victory over Kerry).

So, is there anyone else out there who went Nader, or am I all alone on this one in Schmoeland?













Oh, and I'm now shamelessly going to pimp the fact that I'm at 30,000 posts now. Bow down before me.

:p

[JohnTheHenchman]

I did not vote for Nader for various reasons...he's for more government (but in the right places?) and he's the "celebrity" third party candidate, meaning every election there's always one third party candidate who the media decides to give some attention to and it's him, despite the fact that he was on the ballot on some 35 states as opposed to the Libertarians ballot access in all but two.

But those things aside, he's a good guy. I think he calls it how he sees it, he used to be a democrat and the party left him so he's been sticking it to the big boys ever since. And the man is first and foremost an advocate for the American people.

He's a good man, a man deserving of a vote, and although he won't get my vote...he offers somethign different to what many think are our only choices, so his cause is worthwhile.

My only gripe is that he's portrayed as the only alternative candidate.

[TheDeadWalk]

I wouldn't have voted for him, but I just wanted to note that the state of Ohio took him off the ballot.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
I wouldn't have voted for him, but I just wanted to note that the state of Ohio took him off the ballot.

D'oh!!

I wonder who that was better for, Democrats or Republicans. According to Dems, he was "taking votes away". Yeah, but from whom?

:confused:

[Neesh]

Originally posted by Adam J. Hakari
I know, voting for Nader was pretty much a lost cause, that it would've been better to vote for Kerry to keep Bush out of office, or what have you.
and you also say:

So, once again, my question is this: Did you vote for Ralph Nader? If so, then why?
I did, and I came to that decision only when I was standing in the voting booth. I voted because out of the candidates on the ballot, I imagined each one being in charge of the country. Nader was the one I imagined trusting most (or at least the one whose administration I would less fear living under).

Adam.........
Your decision making process was flawed. This is serious stuff, to anyone who cares, and I can tell that you do.
This election was going to be a very close one, we all knew that well in advance of Nov. 2. There is a very simple and logical way to best cast your vote, if you are (were... its all in the past now) in favor of getting Bush out of office. I am not pro-Kerry either, but I think that you and I (and millions of others....) are on the same page, in that we wanted Kerry to win, simply because we wanted Bush to lose.

The logic is very simple. The first thing you need to do is decide if you are in a swing state. Thats pretty easy, do a little bit of research; in alot of states it was clear if they were swing states. You live in Wisconsin, obviously a swing state - and a state where it was very close between Bush and Kerry. 11,000 more votes for Kerry than Bush is what won Kerry your 10 electoral votes. Your state was one of the closest in the country.

Once you know that youre in a swing state, you should cast your vote to the guy that can get Bush out of office. That means Kerry. You took a huge risk in voting for Nader in your state. Of course its water under the bridge now... But what if it had come down to Wisconsin as the deciding state in the election?

If you don't live in a swing state, vote for whoever you want. If you vote in NY for example, or MA, a vote for Nader is a very safe vote. (Because it was obvious that those states were going to go blue.) In a swing state, its not a safe vote.

Another example. New Mexico was a swing state. A very close race. Bush got 370,706 votes, Kerry 362,340. (I'm getting these figures from cnn.com.) Nader, and all of the other party nominees combined got 8,344 votes. If all 8,344 of those people had cast a vote for Kerry, that would've brought his total up to 370,684.... which would've made for a difference between Bush and Kerry of 22 votes !! And these figures don't count in write-ins, or discarded votes, which obviously would account for more than 22 votes. If all of these people really wanted Bush out of office (an obvious assumption), then they should've thrown their vote to Kerry. Then Bush would've had 5 less electoral votes, and Kerry would've had 5 more. Not enough to change this election, but it does illustrate the point.

Ah well, live and learn! And dont give up hope...... :)

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by jeo4
D'oh!!

I wonder who that was better for, Democrats or Republicans. According to Dems, he was "taking votes away". Yeah, but from whom?

:confused:

People who voted for Nader were most likely to vote for Kerry as opposed to Bush.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Neesh
and you also say:



Adam.........
Your decision making process was flawed. This is serious stuff, to anyone who cares, and I can tell that you do.
This election was going to be a very close one, we all knew that well in advance of Nov. 2. There is a very simple and logical way to best cast your vote, if you are (were... its all in the past now) in favor of getting Bush out of office. I am not pro-Kerry either, but I think that you and I (and millions of others....) are on the same page, in that we wanted Kerry to win, simply because we wanted Bush to lose.

The logic is very simple. The first thing you need to do is decide if you are in a swing state. Thats pretty easy, do a little bit of research; in alot of states it was clear if they were swing states. You live in Wisconsin, obviously a swing state - and a state where it was very close between Bush and Kerry. 11,000 more votes for Kerry than Bush is what won Kerry your 10 electoral votes. Your state was one of the closest in the country.

Once you know that youre in a swing state, you should cast your vote to the guy that can get Bush out of office. That means Kerry. You took a huge risk in voting for Nader in your state. Of course its water under the bridge now... But what if it had come down to Wisconsin as the deciding state in the election?

If you don't live in a swing state, vote for whoever you want. If you vote in NY for example, or MA, a vote for Nader is a very safe vote. (Because it was obvious that those states were going to go blue.) In a swing state, its not a safe vote.

Another example. New Mexico was a swing state. A very close race. Bush got 370,706 votes, Kerry 362,340. (I'm getting these figures from cnn.com.) Nader, and all of the other party nominees combined got 8,344 votes. If all 8,344 of those people had cast a vote for Kerry, that would've brought his total up to 370,684.... which would've made for a difference between Bush and Kerry of 22 votes !! And these figures don't count in write-ins, or discarded votes, which obviously would account for more than 22 votes. If all of these people really wanted Bush out of office (an obvious assumption), then they should've thrown their vote to Kerry. Then Bush would've had 5 less electoral votes, and Kerry would've had 5 more. Not enough to change this election, but it does illustrate the point.

Ah well, live and learn! And dont give up hope...... :)

With all due respect, you telling this guy his decision was flawed is a load of crap.

I live in NJ, which for this election atleast, was somewhat up for grabs. Kerry ultimately won, but had Bush campaigned here a bit more, he could have just as easily taken it. Did any of this change my vote? Absolutely not. I still went with Badnarik....and why...why would I choose a guy who would lose when the Democrat and the Republican would be close?

It's a little something called principle. To some people...Ralph Nader is their choice and maybe they saw that voting for Kerry was throwing their vote away, if there was no conviction behind it. And they are entitled to that...because they are most likely law-abiding American citizens. That gives them the right to vote for whoever the hell they want.

I'm not advocating Nader either. Nader stands for more government regulation, higher taxes, etc...and while socially he is a progressive, I just don't feel that he would be good for the country.

Does that mean people should not vote for him? If they believe in Nader, then they have every right to show that they believe in him. That's what's great about this country...it's not just two men on a ballot...it's plenty of people.

I don't want to seem like I'm attacking you, but to be quite honest, I really can't stand when people say things like you have. Voting for John Kerry because he isn't George Bush is not a good reason to vote for him. Kerry is more hawkish about the war than Bush, for that matter...atleast he came off like that.

All I'm saying is that just because a person did not vote for who you wanted them to vote for, it doesn't mean they don't know how to think. On the contrary, really, for if he sees what's good in Nader that so many other people don't....he clearly is thinking and he clearly sees that it's the person that best represents him.

Voting isn't a joke, but voting for a person you don't believe in because they could win is.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
People who voted for Nader were most likely to vote for Kerry as opposed to Bush.

I don't buy that. People who voted for Nader would probably have voted Green Party as opposed to a centrist like Kerry.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
I don't buy that. People who voted for Nader would probably have voted Green Party as opposed to a centrist like Kerry.

Assuming there is no Green, LIbertarian, Reformist, or Fruit Loops party, the folks who would vote for Nader would most likely vote Democratic as opposed to Republican. The democrats hold more views that are shared with the green party, or at least more similar to, than republican.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Assuming there is no Green, LIbertarian, Reformist, or Fruit Loops party, the folks who would vote for Nader would most likely vote Democratic as opposed to Republican. The democrats hold more views that are shared with the green party, or at least more similar to, than republican.

Then by that logic, I would have voted for George Bush for President, if there wasn't a Libertarian party.

[The Postmaster General]

Neesh, I don't think you should slight any person for choosing to participate in the American politcal system, if they are not doing anything "wrong".

We have (arguably) the best system in the world, and it only works if we keep it open to everyone. Yes, I disagree with people like David Duke, for instance, for running, but I gladly accept their bids, and the outcry from any supporters they might have. It is very important to know how much each voice is represented so we can continue progressing our country and making it the best it can be.

Nader didn't cause Kerry to lose. And I think Gore losing his home state had everything more to do with him losing in 2000 than Nader did. Tennessee would have given him the electoral votes, but no president in history has ever lost their home state.

But instead of thinking about things like that, and with faulty voting machines, the supporters have spent the last years complaining about people who voted for who they believed in.

Those are just my opinons, though.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Neesh, I don't think you should slight any person for choosing to participate in the American politcal system, if they are not doing anything "wrong".

We have (arguably) the best system in the world, and it only works if we keep it open to everyone. Yes, I disagree with people like David Duke, for instance, for running, but I gladly accept their bids, and the outcry from any supporters they might have. It is very important to know how much each voice is represented so we can continue progressing our country and making it the best it can be.

Nader didn't cause Kerry to lose. And I think Gore losing his home state had everything more to do with him losing in 2000 than Nader did. Tennessee would have given him the electoral votes, but no president in history has ever lost their home state.

But instead of thinking about things like that, and with faulty voting machines, the supporters have spent the last years complaining about people who voted for who they believed in.

Those are just my opinons, though.

I agree with this, everyone forgets about Gore losing Tennessee. I think even when Reagan won 49 states, his opponent still won his home state.

But, it's easy to blame Nader. Though no one blames Perot for the loss of George H. W. Bush. Hell, my father acknowledges that without Perot, Bush might have won, but he also acknowledges that Perot had a lot of good ideas and had appeal and you can't fight it.