Ralph Nader's Nutty Ideas

[Yavin4]

I caught the end of the NPR debate between Ralph Nader and Howard Dean, where Nader made two points which he considers the heart of his campaign:

(1) National Referendums or Ballot Initiatives on issues. Now, anyone who lives in a state where they have such initiatives know full well just how regressive these initiaitives are. Ralph, more than anyone, should know that ballot initiatives give the rich and the powerful a tool to enact regressive policies. Proposition 13 in California is probably the most famous of these initiatives, as well as Proposition 48 which has greatly reduced African American enrollment in CA's elite universities. Not to mention, the numerous ballot intiatives throughout the West that have sought to deny Gays and Lesbians their constitutional rights. We're a representative democracy that has a constitution that protects the rights of the minority. Ballot initiatives gives the majority tyrannical power, which gets abused. (See California's horrible budget problems.)


(2)Binding None of the Above votes. Nader wants a line on every ballot that gives citizens the right to say, "None of the Above", and if that choice wins, then the entire election is thrown out and re-started. This just shows the juvenile nature of Nader's political thinking. Like a child that doesn't want his dinner, he wants to throw it out, and then expects a better dinner? Does he honestly believe that we will get better candidates in 30 days after an election? Again, what kind of candidate are you going to get within 30 days of an election?

In that debate, Nader has shown that his positions on major policies are delusional and outside the spirit of progressive American politics. Anyone who supports him, support regressive policies.

[iamjoy]

1. Nader Actually Said That...

None of the above?
That's the stupidest idea I ever heard. I mean, it sounds like something out of a cheesy comedy flick.

What if "None of the above" actually won? We'd have complete anarchy and some extremist would seize power.

There are a lot of things that could be changed about our electoral process that would break the two party system, but neither of these are it.

If you really want an election to be more than picking the lesser of two evil (or the lesser of two weevils) and really gives more power to the people we must change several things. We must do away with the electoral college. We must only put some one in an elected office if the candidate has a true majority of the votes (if a candidate only gets a plurality, there is a run off in 30 days). I am not so sure breaking the strangle hold of special interests, lobbyists and PACs is a good idea. After all, we all say it is bad when corporations or the Christian Coalition does it, but what about the Unions, NAACP, Sierra Club, NARAL, etc?

Ralph Nader is talking and acting like a fool. I don't believe he is conspiring with the GOP to ruin this election, but he is being their unwilling patsy.

[Blue Wally]

6. None of the Above

It does have some useful and positive aspects. If a voter can mark "None of the Above" on his ballot, it would assist in tallying the total vote and find true "undervotes" as opposed to those undervotes caused by people purposely not marking their ballot. Right now, we have a number of undervotes and we don;'t know if they are on purpose or because the voter doesn't know what they are doing in the voting booth.

I think if we look past the current election and our hatred for Bush, we might take a more balanced look at third party candidates and "none of the above" voting. In this election, we are too focused on a vote for anyone or anything other than kerry as being a "vote" for Bush.

[bigbillhaywood]

7. Agree with abolition of electoral college. Other reforms such as

relaxing ballot requirements and streamlining voter registration would be good too. Of course, having a proportional representation system rather than "first past the post" would be great-- but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

By the way, the NAACP is non-profit, and therefore cannot endorse candidates. The only way to break the stranglehold of corporate influence over our political system, is for workers to democratically organize at the point of production on a national scale and conduct class warfare against their employers (nationwide or industry-wide general strikes, occupying their places of employment and running them democratically). As long as we have corporate economic autocracy, it will be a corrupting influence on our political system. Establish democracy in the workplace and the economy, and true political democracy is sure to follow.

[gpandas]

32. way too many americans think unions are

a bad idea. they must be made aware of the lives that were lost and the sacrifices made by early workers. when capitalism ran amok and untethered, children were employed in dangerous factories, workers were paid in scrip, which could only be spent in company stores and for company owned rental homes, and families were savaged when workers were fired for getting hurt, or a little too old and slow. i have read quite a few of your posts, and share your views about corporations and democracy. i believe also that television is the most powerful of all corporate tools, and has led to current corporate thought control. vast numbers of people are being exposed to the corporate message thousands of times a day, every day. there are reasons why good people, people who worship god and jesus, can easily believe that consumerism is the road to happiness, and these reasons are created by corporations.

[ramblin_dave]

2. NY Post is on it

[KG]

3. gee. those 2 issues are the sum total of his policy positions?

he has no policies worth supporting about consumer safety? the war in iraq? the lack of accoutability in the way major US corporations are run here and abroad? and a bunch of other important issues he's spot on about the the dems. convenietly chose to ignore?

please. get real.

[BillZBubb]

4. Nader is a Repug tool

for gullible fools.

[KG]

5. after watching the dems. bend over for the repooks the last 3.5 years

on major policy decision like the war in iraq, the PATRIOT act, reckless tax cuts etc, it seems pretty clear who's been playing the role of 'repug tool'.

but thanks for the attempt a thoughtful political analysis anyway.

[BillZBubb]

8. That's right, keep ripping the "imperfect" Dems.

Then you can continue to guarantee four more years of Bush*. Maybe that's what you want?

As for tools, who is working to get Nader on the state ballots more: Repugs or Dems? If you'd open your eyes for a moment it might get clear for you.

I'd take Kerry or any Dem except Zell Miller over Bush* any day. And that includes Lieberman. When you ideological purists finally realize that there are really only TWO choices in this next election, maybe we'll have half a chance. Take your pick: Bush or Kerry. One of them will be president. Don Quixote aka Nader can accomplish only one thing: help Bush*.

If you support and vote for Kerry, he might win. If you support Bush* or Nader, or trash Dems and Kerry, you are helping Bush* get elected. It's a free country, if you're foolish enough to back a loser like Nader, go right ahead.

[TransitJohn]

10. There's only two choices?

Man, sorry the (dis)information machine has got to you so badly....Chalk up another victory for the thought police.

This is a republic of MANY choices.

[BillZBubb]

18. There are only two practical choices.

Don't try to be cute. Either Bush* or Kerry will be the next president. PERIOD. If that's too difficult to understand, there's not much point in a discussion.

Oh, and nice touch with "republic". I know exactly where you're coming from!

[library_max]

34. To paraphrase Edmund Burke:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to waste their vote on Ralph Nader.

[KG]

13. gee, thanks for the lecture, but dig this: i've heard it all before

:boring:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

20. Because you dont get to decide who belongs and who doesn't

thankfully.

[BillZBubb]

22. ??? Your message makes no sense

I never claimed to decide who belongs and who doesn't. I would like to know why someone who supports Nader's candidacy--when he has no chance to win and will only help Bush*--is here. Seriously!

If it's Democratic Underground then it seems one would support the Democratic ticket. Shouldn't someone who doesn't be at "Nader Underground" or whatever he's got? Is that unreasonable?

[Forkboy]

24. It makes sense to me

[Imperialism Inc.]

33. Democracy that's why.

The voters decide, not rabid partisans on an Internet message board.

I don't support Nader's candidacy. I won't vote for him. I don't think he should run because it is crucial to get rid of Bush. I think it sucks that if he gets on it will be through the money of GOP backers.

But, if he does make it on the ballots then I will not bash the ideas of his that are good. I will not make absurd statements like he sold out and is working for Bush. If 15% or so want to hear him (not will vote for him but want to hear him) then I support his inclusion in the debates.

I have an almost draft aged son so I have as much riding in this as anyone, but I will not buy "we have to thwart democracy to save it" from Democrats any more than I will from Republicans.

[KG]

25. yo Fork!

wassup, bro?

:hi:


thanks for jumping in, but ya know, after 3.5 years, i've gotten to where i can handle the amatuer nader haters. :)

[Forkboy]

27. heh

sorry,couldn't help myself :)

:hi:

[BillZBubb]

29. Is that what the Nader apologists are all saying?

Help Dubya, push Nader?

[Forkboy]

30. I dont know any Nader apologists

I'm trying to get people to ignore him and not play into the GOP's hands.Not having much luck though :shrug:

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iamjoy]

23. And What Were Dems Supposed To Think?

Honest, I've heard Dems ripped for being too much like Republicans, and it always makes me a little indignant. Do people not remember back 10 - 12 years?

The way I see it is, in 1992, Clinton was elected president. As a liberal, I cheered, even though Clinton was not lock step with liberal philosophy. Of course, the Repubs tried to paint him as some sort of McGovern. And Clinton did push for some progressive reform, he signed FMLA (which Bush wouldn't), Mrs. Rodham-Clinton went to Congress to try to do something about health care and the uninsured.

And then, in 1994, the Republicans made sweeping gains in both the House and the Senate as well as state governments. Immediately, the media started talking about mandates. What the heck was any logical liberal supposed to think?

If you "listen" to the Freepers, do you think they rip Bush and the GOP for not being Conservative enough? Or do you think they are pragmatic enough to realize that no matter how many candidates are on the ballot, we in effect have two choices?

And if you want to claim some sort of moral superiority for being more tolerant of dissent, go right ahead. You can be morally superior and stand up and proudly say you voted your conscience all through Dubya's second term.

[leftistagitator]

28. Hmm, the majority of Dems voted against the tax cuts

And the only significant block of Congressmen to oppose the Iraq War were from the Democratic Party. The PATRIOT act was passed directly after 9/11, and Ralph didn't say a thing about it until he decided to run for office again. I guess it was too unimportant to protest, too useful in an election to ignore. Ditto for the Iraq War. Nader was far more concerned with the NFL than he was in stopping any of these things from passing. It's easy to be morally pure when you don't have to vote on the bills or do anything to stop then.

Of course, John Kerry does want to change the PATRIOT act to remove to library snooping, add judicial oversight, and limit it's use to terrorist related cases only. And unlike Nader, he could get elected, but I suppose you'd rather have Ashcroft chasing down drug deallers with anti-terrorism squads. He also wants to cancel Bush's tax cuts. And John Kerry has a strong anti-War history in the Senate, having opposed Vietnam and the first Gulf War and voting for the Iraq War only after Bush* declared that if the IWR failed he would invade Iraq under the first Gulf resolution without going to the UN. That must be what makes him Bush-lite. So every single issue you listed Kerry is far better than Bush* on, does it matter to you?

[sandnsea]

9. Enlighten us

Based on his actual written policy positions on his web site, tell us how he's so different on Iraq, corporate malfeasance, etc., than the Dems?

[bigbillhaywood]

11. Delete, what's the use?

[sandnsea]

14. I haven't seen it

I've seen the electoral college and third party stuff, but as to specific policies of Nader, I haven't seen them really gone into on DU. I've seen what people THINK Nader is saying based on his campaign soundbytes, but NOT what he actually has on his web site on these issues.

[Meritaten1]

12. I think Nader's behaving like a hypocrite this year

He contends he wants to advance consumer safety, corporate responsibility, etc.,... but he knows that a second Bush term would be disastrous for everyone who believes in those things. Yet Nader still campaigns in swing states, even though he presumably realizes that by drawing away Democratic votes he increases the possibility of a second Bush term.


Just check out: http://www.DontVoteRalph.net

How can Nader the ethical purist justify accepting help from Mr. Rove?

[Yavin4]

15. He Said That These Issues Were The Cornerstone of His Campaign

He used those words. Ballot initiatives and None of the Above voting are the bedrock of what he wants. Watch the debate for yourself.

[Imperialism Inc.]

16. But isn't he for major campaign finance reform?

That pretty much kills your argument in 1.
2 is a OK idea and used in Russia. So I guess the Russians are just children? "against all" has won there in some regional elections and shows voter dissatisfaction.

[durutti]

19. Truly silly, Yavin.

I don't support Nader, but:

1. Reactionaries are able to more effectively propose referenda because they have more money. That fact alone doesn't invalidate the idea of referenda on the issues. In fact, as it embodies democratic ideals, such a proposal is inherently progressive.

By this same logic, we should support a constitutional amendment to make it so that conservative states no longer have Senators or Representatives.

2. Many other countries (and indeed, municipalities in this country) allow voters to choose "None of the Above".

[Radical Activist]

31. Referendums are just as often good as bad

They have served as the only way to pass progressive legislation opposed by politicians in the pockets of big money campaign donors. Many living wage ordinances and minimum wage increases have passed by referendum in cities across the country. It might also be the most likely way to get meaningful campaign finance reform.

I grew up in a state without referendums and I wish we did have them. It might get some things done that the moderate Democrats leading the state are too chicken to try, like universal healthcare and decriminalizing marijuana. Either you trust the people to rule or you don't. I'm a small d democrat so I trust the people, even if they screw up now and then.