May 5, 2004

A Vote For Nader = A Vote Against Bush?

Imagine that, instead of voting for president in November, you would be voting for a representative who would then go on to cast a vote for president.

That, in a nutshell, is what you are doing when you cast your vote in a presidential election. You send an elector to vote for your candidate. In reality, you’re voting for which elector is sent to represent you.

Now, imagine that you could vote for someone other than Kerry… say, Ralph Nader. But if it turned out that your vote was in the vast minority, your vote would go to Kerry. That, theoretically, is what would happen if Ralph Nader decided to choose his electors to be the same people that are the Democratic Party electors. You and I would still have the choice to vote for Bush, Kerry, or Nader, but when it came down to the elector vote, the Kerry/Nader electors would have to decide whether they were for Kerry or Nader. And if they were to decide based on the number of votes, they would go for Kerry.

Personally, I will be voting for Kerry. But a move like that described above would allow anyone who wanted to vote for Nader and against Bush to essentially have Nader as a first choice and Kerry as a second choice. 2-for-1 voting.

If Nader wants more votes, this would free up people who would otherwise be afraid to vote for him, because of a strong dislike for Bush. And no one could accuse Nader of being a spoiler in the 2004 election.

Read all about it in this NYT op ed piece.

Would Nader do it? Is he considering it? He only really need do it in the battleground states. Very interesting.

Posted by James at May 5, 2004 9:55 PM
Create Social Bookmark Links
Comments

George Bush is getting hammered on the war and his numbers are at an all time low but John Kerry is not benefiting in the least.

I think you hellbound Democrats went and nominated the wrong candidate AGAIN...

Posted by: Steve at May 6, 2004 7:50 AM

Steve, you were praying they dump Dean. You got your wish. If Dean were the nominee now, he would quite possibly be ahead more. Ifs and buts...

The election is 6 months out. Everyone should keep his pants on. The guy hasn't even chosen a running mate.

Posted by: James at May 6, 2004 8:34 AM

BTW - to clarify my description -- Nader voters would be voting for Nader, but in actuality voting for Kerry's delegates.

Posted by: James at May 6, 2004 9:15 AM

James, had Dean won the nomination, there's no way he'd be ahead.

Kerry's problem is that he's allowed the Republicans to define him. In the latest polling data, the biggest concern with JFK II is that he 'flip flops'. That's right out of the GOP playbook.

Kerry also has a problem with the war. No one with two braincells to rub together believes that he voted for the war on principle. He voted for the war because it was the politically expedient thing to do given the prevailing climate.

Now he has to split hairs on an issue that matters deeply to Dem voters and it gives Nader just enough of an edge to make life difficult.

He should just come right out and say that he feels misled by Bush and that the war was a mistake. While developing a palatable exit strategy he'll be able to spotlight GWB as a failed leader.

The "me too" approach - whether in Iraq or in Israel/Palestine - just isn't cutting it.

Posted by: Steve at May 6, 2004 1:41 PM

Well, I agree with you completely about what Kerry should do. He already has said he felt he was misled. This is the maddening thing about Kerry coverage. The flip-flops are manufactured.

Whether it's a flip or a flop he needs to come out against the debacle this war has become, tap into those people who also feel misled by Bush and support the middle east roadmap.

On Dean: he's be more credibly against the war at this point. I don't htink it's easy to predict what that would mean. Manyt things have happened since Iowa. Clarke, Abu Ghraib, Condi Rice...

I really think it's tough to know where Dean would be now.

Posted by: James at May 6, 2004 3:57 PM

You guys see Jon Stewart last night giving advice to Kerry? "Come to think of it, how does Bush do that?!"

Posted by: Bil at May 6, 2004 6:35 PM

Wow my typing is poor!

I'll try to catch the Daily Show tonight. DO they review the entire week on the weekend? If not, they ought to. God knows it's Comedy Central's best show. Yes, they have other good ones like Chappelle, but Daily Show transcends comedy.

I'm using that word "transcend" altogether too much.

Posted by: James at May 6, 2004 6:43 PM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved