You can continue whining about Nader if you want to, but at least realize the following (from http://www.gp.org):
The Supreme Court Spoiled:
Al Gore won the 2000 election. George W. Bush became President when a biased US Supreme Court allowed election manipulation by Florida Republicans.
Al Gore Spoiled:
Gore ran a weak campaign with no clear message. He failed to defeat Bush in the debates and even lost his home state of Tennessee. Millions of Democrats voted for Bush compared to the few hundred thousand who voted for Nader.
Democratic Senators Spoiled:
When the Black Caucus challenged Bush’s election victory in January 2001, not one Democratic Senator stood up in support. Senate Democrats failed to push for an investigation of the Florida vote debacle.
The Democratic Party Spoiled:
For many years, Democrats never objected when officials removed African American and other voters from the voter rolls in Florida and other states. Why didn’t the Democrats sue when 90,000 Florida voters were disqualified earlier in 2000? Why were Democrats (including Gore) silent about disqualified votes in the weeks after the election?
it’s kind of a rant against a million other things.
<
p>I suppose anyone has a right to run for President, but it’s pretty clear to me at this point that Nader isn’t running because he wants to help create a better America. There are lots of things Nader could be doing to improve the country, running for President is a cheap PR trick that won’t help one iota. It’s kind of like when that porn star ran for the gubernatorial override election in California that Arnold ended up winning…
Did People Blame The Porn Star For Ah-Nold Winning?
Your comparison, not mine …
I agree that we should get past the “spoiler” argument, as it is simply an excuse for not being able to convince a particular person to vote for you. All candidates should work to earn their votes, not just treat some as entitlements.
Interestingly, both [John McCain http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1758%5D and [Barack Obama http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1755%5D have endorsed instant runoff voting. (I don't know where Hillary Clinton stands.) We know that Ralph Nader, and presumably all of the Green candidates, support IRV. So it could end up that all of the candidates on the November Presidential ballot will support IRV. Sounds like a good opportunity to raise the issue. Might someone in the MSM have the guts to raise this during the debate season? I won't hold my breath. But for the good folks in the blogosphere, this might be a convenient opening to discuss election reform in general.
Are you certain? McCain also? (Are you sure about that?)
If so, and all the candidates support the idea (at least verbaly) than this would certainly be the time for action …
Might be the best and only time the stars line up like that IMO …
His support appears to have been in 2002 … I wonder if he has drifted some since then ???
If McCain has changed his mind in the past 6 years, I would love to find out, then ask why. If anything, our election system has gotten worse during that time, so it would be fascinating to hear his comments on IRV now.
Other IRV supporters include the Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean and US Senator Bernie Sanders.
Run east. Go to Chatham, then run east. Don’t worry about the sand or the water, keep running. Run to the east. Run, Ralph, run. See Ralph run. Run to London. Run to Europe. Ignore the sharks. Keep running. East.
“Al Gore was a terrible candidate in 2000”
<
p>Bullcrap. Despite a media jihad against him, and a Naderite left who deserted him, he won the popular vote.