Bully Magazine on the Ralph Nader candidacy

[Colin Ex]

http://www.bullymag.com/3.15.04/nader-031504.asp

Granted, this is not the best-written zine around, but I feel they make a few solid points.

Exerpts:

"1. Somehow embedded in the whole idea of democracy was the idea that anyone could run for President. Now I know much like soft drinks, most Americans like they're Presidential candidates in two easy to recognize flavors. However, much like not being satisfied with the missionary position and Budweiser, there's a certain percentage of Americans who actually favor something other than limited finite choices. Our election laws are created to allow us this variety, so long as the candidate in question gets on the ballot.

2. To say that Nader will be stealing votes from the Democratic candidate, and in essence, getting Bush elected, requires incredible narcissism (far worse than what Todd Gitlin accused the consumer activist of in Salon). It unfortunately reveals the true problem with the Democratic Party — namely that for far too many years they assumed that certain votes were 'theirs.' Sorry but the vote is not yours until its cast and if you don't earn it, you don't get it."

End of excerpts.

[qb]

1. I wouldn't mind if he was out there campaigning on the issues.

The problem is he tell lies like, "There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans" and "I'll draw votes mainly from independents and conservatives."

We don't need another liar in the fray.

[Colin Ex]

2. That's cool. What did you think about the article?

:-)

[LiberalBushFan]

3. here's what I think

The two points are based on principles that are irrelevant given the current practical situation. Secondly, the first argument has been rebutted a million times here and elsewhere, in that no one is saying he doesn't have the "right" to run. Bringing up that strawman discounts it already. We're not saying he has no right to run, we're just saying running has obvious consequences (very, very bad consequences) and that those consequences are his fault, and therefore that he deserved and will deserve to be blamed for them. I'd have no problem with him running if we had a ranked voting system, but he knows that we don't have one.

[Colin Ex]

4. How do you feel about the Democratic party "deserving" votes?

As addressed in point #2 of the snippet above.

-C

[LiberalBushFan]

10. It's not about what the Democratic party deserves

The point is that the nation does not deserve a President who does not have the majority of support. People, all people, deserve fair elections. A system that lets you win with a plurality is inherently not fair, it's flawed. And what Ralph Nader is doing is exploiting a flaw in the voting system. For someone with a small percentage of the votes to change the result of a winner-takes-all election is not democratic. We NEED a two-party system until this flaw is fixed. There are other ways to run which do not exploit the flaw, such as running in the Democratic primary or if that's not possible then to at least drop out before the voting starts.

In other words, his second argument is a strawman as well.

[Colin Ex]

12. I don't think I follow.

A) The point is that the nation does not deserve a president without a majority of support.

2) A system that lets one win with a plurality is inherently unfair. (I don't understand where you're coming from there -- could you expound?)

III) Ralph Nader is exploiting a flaw in the voting system. (A flaw in a majority system or a plurality system? Please expound.)

I also do not understand why you feel a two party system is necessary "until this flaw is fixed," when you also postulate that plurality systems are not fair.

-C

[LiberalBushFan]

13. Right now we have a plurality system

A ranked voting system is a majority system.

Oh, and by two-party system I was NOT referring to a voting system, I was just saying potential third parties should work within existing parties unless their motive is to exploit the system to get someone other than their own nominee elected.

[Colin Ex]

14. Fair enough.

Thank you for keeping it calm! :hi:

-C

[LiberalBushFan]

16. I had an error in the second paragraph that probably confused you further

which I just fixed. You are quite calm as well, for a Nader supporter, if you are one.

[mzmolly]

5. "Sorry but the vote is not yours until its cast and if you don't earn it."

Do tell me what it takes to earn the vote of Mr. Wohlrob?

I'll read the article, bet I can't find out........................

Nope, couldn't find any info on what is in fact important to Mr. Wohlrob.

Huh, imagine that. :freak:

[Colin Ex]

6. I kind of suspect

that the article is not about Mr. Wolthrob's priorities in 2004 and what he thinks about November, merely his opinions on the reaction to the Nader declaration and candidacy in 2004.

In other words, Mr. Wolthrob is not a pundit and he has gracefully chosen not to wave his opinions about November in anyone's face. I find it admirable.

-C

[sangh0]

7. He has?

he has gracefully chosen not to wave his opinions about November in anyone's face

Then why did he write that article? Is that not an opinion?

[Colin Ex]

8. The article is regarding the declaration of candidacy of Nader

and the Democratic response to it. Not the election in 2004. Although they are related, one can discuss Nader's candidacy without discussing November 2004.

I think we're disagreeing on the scope of Wolthrob's opinion here.

-C

[sangh0]

9. Nader's candidacy has nothing to do with Election 2004?

Since when?

And I'm sure that the author has an opinion on the subject. He just chose not to share it with us. To portray Nader's candidaacy as another alternative for voters is to assume that he does offer an alternative. IMO, he does not. Nader only offers the opportunity to use lies to convince people that there is little difference between the two major parties.

[Colin Ex]

11. There's no doubt that he has an opinion on it.

As best I can tell, Wolthrob is going on the assertion that he'll be able to present a more rational presentation of the controversy surrounding Nader's candidacy (which, remember, is what the article is about) by focusing on the beast at hand. Granted, he could (and will in all likelihood) write plenty about November, but has fortunately chosen to limit the discussion of that.

Perhaps you could share the rationale behind your opinion that all Nader offers is lies?

-C

[sangh0]

15. "a more rational presentation of the controversy"

I think the word you were looking for was "objective" and not "rational". However, without revealing his own opinion on the issue, it's hard to tell if that objecitvity has been achieved.

As far as Nader, my rationale is that I don't see him offering anything but lies. Could you identify anything he is offering that isn't a lie?