NationStates Jolt Archive

In the 2000 election Nader pulled 3.90% of the vote in New Hampshire and 1.63% in Florida. Gore received 46.80% and 48.84% respectively. Had Nader thrown his support behind Gore the Dems would have pulled in 50.77% & 50.47% - enough to have pulled in 54.09% of the electoral college, more than enough to put them over the top.

Will Nader and his supporters put Bush back in in 2004?

In the 2000 election Nader pulled 3.90% of the vote in New Hampshire and 1.63% in Florida. Gore received 46.80% and 48.84% respectively. Had Nader thrown his support behind Gore the Dems would have pulled in 50.77% & 50.47% - enough to have pulled in 54.09% of the electoral college, more than enough to put them over the top.

Will Nader and his supporters put Bush back in in 2004?
Hopefully we can do it on our own.

No, at least I don't believe Nadar has any where near the support he had last time. Even his most hard core supporters are not supporting him this time. While Nadar doesn't like either Kerry or Bush he has made it quite clear Bush is far worse, so one must question, why is Nadar running at all? Ego?

No, at least I don't believe Nadar has any where near the support he had last time. Even his most hard core supporters are not supporting him this time. While Nadar doesn't like either Kerry or Bush he has made it quite clear Bush is far worse, so one must question, why is Nadar running at all? Ego?

I dare say misguided ego. If it were healthy ego wanting a voice in the process he would do better to throw his support behind Kerry.

"Will Nader and his supporters put Bush back in in 2004? "

I'm not american but here's my two cents anyway. It wasn't Nader who put Bush there. I think it was the american people. Nader is an independent candidate with significant differences in policy to both Bush and Kerry, hence he's standing alone. Apart from the fact that he is a third party candidate (thus furthering the democratic process), the principle of democracy works on voting for who you think represents your views best. If you supress people voting for who they want, if you try to scare them into voting for someone else, then you've stopped living in a democracy.

In the 2000 election Nader pulled 3.90% of the vote in New Hampshire and 1.63% in Florida. Gore received 46.80% and 48.84% respectively. Had Nader thrown his support behind Gore the Dems would have pulled in 50.77% & 50.47% - enough to have pulled in 54.09% of the electoral college, more than enough to put them over the top.

Will Nader and his supporters put Bush back in in 2004?

:headbang:

The coolest thing I've heard of is the following: Nader could choose Kerry's electoral college reps as his own. :fluffle: This way, people could vote for Nader to send a message to the Democrats, :upyours: but people would literally be voting for Kerry's EC reps, :D thus making sure that Bush doesn't win.:sniper:

"Will Nader and his supporters put Bush back in in 2004? "

I'm not american but here's my two cents anyway. It wasn't Nader who put Bush there. I think it was the american people. Nader is an independent candidate with significant differences in policy to both Bush and Kerry, hence he's standing alone. Apart from the fact that he is a third party candidate (thus furthering the democratic process), the principle of democracy works on voting for who you think represents your views best. If you supress people voting for who they want, if you try to scare them into voting for someone else, then you've stopped living in a democracy.

Yes, but Americans live in a stupid First-Past-The-Post system, compounded by an electoral college system that muddle things up even more. Strategic voting is part of the game there because they live in a flawed democratic system.

"Will Nader and his supporters put Bush back in in 2004? "

I'm not american but here's my two cents anyway. It wasn't Nader who put Bush there. I think it was the american people. Nader is an independent candidate with significant differences in policy to both Bush and Kerry, hence he's standing alone. Apart from the fact that he is a third party candidate (thus furthering the democratic process), the principle of democracy works on voting for who you think represents your views best. If you supress people voting for who they want, if you try to scare them into voting for someone else, then you've stopped living in a democracy.

First, the USA is not a democracy. Second, the election is not a democratic process in that it is not one person, one vote. As whoever pulls a simple majority in a state gets all the votes from that state. For example; In 2000 Iowa gave Gore 48.54% and Bush 48.22% of the votes. Gore carried all seven delegates into the electorial college, Bush got none. So those who voted for Bush could have stayed home for all their vote mattered.

Now, out of the text book and into the real world. If Nader and Gore had made a coallition then they would have carried the election. Instead Nader guaranteed that the person furthest from his ideals came to power. Nader may seem to have held on to his "integrity". But he turned his back on his own principles in service of what? His ego?

I wish Nader had the votes and would pull a Perot on Kerry, much like what happened in 92 to Bush Sr.

Yes, but Americans live in a stupid First-Past-The-Post system, compounded by an electoral college system that muddle things up even more. Strategic voting is part of the game there because they live in a flawed democratic system.
How do you mean "first past the post"?

I wish Nader had the votes and would pull a Perot on Kerry, much like what happened in 92 to Bush Sr.
If you add all of Perot's votes to Dole in 96, Dole would have won, too. Of course, this wasn't a big problem for the Dems back then.

Firstly Nader didn't give the last election to George Bush, Jeb Bush did.

Secondly, while I disagree with it, I respect the opinion of Nader supporters who feel they have to vote for Kerry to get Bush out (my mother, despite living in the UK is an American citizen and will be doing precisely that).

What I have no time for whatsoever is the arrogant assumption by Democrats that Nader's votes are somehow theirs by right. What have the Democrats done to meet the needs of Nader's supporters? What precisely has Kerry done to entitle him to anti-war supporter's votes? Nothing. Kerry is almost as much in bed with big business as Bush is. If you want Green votes it's very simple. Tell your leaders to stop acting like Republicans.

There is no way to guarantee that every Nader voted would have voted for Gore in 2000. There is also no guarantee that every Nader voter this year is a would-be Kerry voter. The way Bill Maher puts it, if Nader weren't at the poles, we may just have less voters, you know? For instance, Kerry vs Bush, Kerry get 4 votes, Bush gets 4 votes. Kerry vs Bush vs Nader, Kerry gets 4, Bush gets 4, Nader gets 2.

Nader's got no traction right now, and I'll be surprised if in the end, he outpolls Badnarik of the Libertarian party. He's only on the ballot in a handful of states, and mostly in states that aren't in play right now. So the impact that Nader will have on the election will be negligible at best.

And The Holy Word is right--Nader didnt give the election to Bush. Jeb did that by purging the voter rolls of nearly a hundred thousand legitimate voters, mostly Democrats, months before the election.

How do you mean "first past the post"?

it means an election where there can only be one winner and that winner is decided by whoever has the largest number of votes. it's one of the stupidest and most unrepresentative electoral systems around. and every major election in the us uses it - though sometimes places have multi-winner systems for county boards and shit. it can, and very often does, declare some candidate the winner that a sizeable majority of people don't like and didn't vote for. because of this a particular strategy of strategic voting kicks in that nearly automatically creates a two party system in any country that uses it.

I bet you lot would love proportional representation.

Firstly Nader didn't give the last election to George Bush, Jeb Bush did.

Secondly, while I disagree with it, I respect the opinion of Nader supporters who feel they have to vote for Kerry to get Bush out (my mother, despite living in the UK is an American citizen and will be doing precisely that).

What I have no time for whatsoever is the arrogant assumption by Democrats that Nader's votes are somehow theirs by right. What have the Democrats done to meet the needs of Nader's supporters? What precisely has Kerry done to entitle him to anti-war supporter's votes? Nothing. Kerry is almost as much in bed with big business as Bush is. If you want Green votes it's very simple. Tell your leaders to stop acting like Republicans.

I'm not suggesting he 'gave' the election to Bush. My point is, that Nader's votes added to Gore's totals may have precluded Brother Bush from being able to take the actions he did and may make the difference this time.

I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I am just looking at the numbers and wondering aloud. However, I think it is abundantly clear that those inclined to vote for Nader have much less in common with the Republicans than they do with the Democrats. However by voting for Nader they are pushing the national agenda further away from their goals by in effect voting for Bush.

Nader's got no traction right now, and I'll be surprised if in the end, he outpolls Badnarik of the Libertarian party. He's only on the ballot in a handful of states, and mostly in states that aren't in play right now. So the impact that Nader will have on the election will be negligible at best.

And The Holy Word is right--Nader didnt give the election to Bush. Jeb did that by purging the voter rolls of nearly a hundred thousand legitimate voters, mostly Democrats, months before the election.

I believe you are right regarding Nader. Bush has garnered such strong negative sentiment that his supporters may be more practical this time around.

Regarding Jeb Bush, watch for the purge of voters who have registered in two states, mostly Democrats (Link (http://tampatrib.com/nationworldnews/MGBJ8HEZAYD.html) here but Google will provide dozens.) Florida state officials are leaving it up to local election supervisors but I think we know who holds their strings, they are appointed - not elected to their posts.

it means an election where there can only be one winner and that winner is decided by whoever has the largest number of votes. it's one of the stupidest and most unrepresentative electoral systems around. and every major election in the us uses it - though sometimes places have multi-winner systems for county boards and shit. it can, and very often does, declare some candidate the winner that a sizeable majority of people don't like and didn't vote for. because of this a particular strategy of strategic voting kicks in that nearly automatically creates a two party system in any country that uses it.
OK. Now I get you. The "winner takes all" approach. What are some examples of successful governments that use a multi tiered system and how do they manage the divergence of opinion?

The supposed purge was never proven in the court of law. A settlement was reached.

What I have no time for whatsoever is the arrogant assumption by Democrats that Nader's votes are somehow theirs by right. What have the Democrats done to meet the needs of Nader's supporters? What precisely has Kerry done to entitle him to anti-war supporter's votes? Nothing. Kerry is almost as much in bed with big business as Bush is. If you want Green votes it's very simple. Tell your leaders to stop acting like Republicans.

Exactly.

The supposed purge was never proven in the court of law. A settlement was reached.
I like the use of the passive voice there, Kwangistar. It allows you to note that a settlement was reached without noting that it was Jeb Bush's administration who proffered the settlement in order to avoid having to appear in open court and defend their ridiculous purging plan in public.

And by the way, you're wrong. The purge did happen, and Jeb Bush's administration admitted to it. The purge process is to this day part of the state law code. The problem wasn't that there was a purge--it was that the net was cast so wide so as to disenfranchise voters who had not committed felonies, and it did just that.

What I have no time for whatsoever is the arrogant assumption by Democrats that Nader's votes are somehow theirs by right. What have the Democrats done to meet the needs of Nader's supporters? What precisely has Kerry done to entitle him to anti-war supporter's votes? Nothing. Kerry is almost as much in bed with big business as Bush is. If you want Green votes it's very simple. Tell your leaders to stop acting like Republicans.
By the same token, if you're a Green and you want to even have your proposals considered by the government, stop helping to elect people who despise everything you stand for, namely Republicans.

Look, I voted for a Green for mayor last year, and I side with them on a majority of issues, but the fact is that on the state and national level right now, the game has been rigged by the two major parties so that they and only they can get any electoral traction. It sucks, but that's the way it is, and there's no easy way to get them to relinquish any of that power to a third party. So the most realistic option is to work inside the party most amenable to your interests to get them to adopt your policies, and actively working against them isn't the most effective way to go about it.

I like the use of the passive voice there, Kwangistar. It allows you to note that a settlement was reached without noting that it was Jeb Bush's administration who proffered the settlement in order to avoid having to appear in open court and defend their ridiculous purging plan in public.

And by the way, you're wrong. The purge did happen, and Jeb Bush's administration admitted to it. The purge process is to this day part of the state law code. The problem wasn't that there was a purge--it was that the net was cast so wide so as to disenfranchise voters who had not committed felonies, and it did just that.
Oh, I thought you were talking just about the people who were claimed to have been wrongly taken off the lists, rather than the felons. Everyone knows felons were taken off the lists. This policy is not limited to just Florida. The NAACP (which sued the state of Florida over it) can argue that the policy is racist and violates the constitution all the want, but it isn't changing. Even if it was Jeb's administration who offered the settlement, it was the NAACP which accepted the settlement, instead of arguing their case in court, perhaps because they knew it was faulty? If a settlement denotes a weakness on one side of the case, it can mean a weakness on the side that accepts it as well.

I believe you are right regarding Nader. Bush has garnered such strong negative sentiment that his supporters may be more practical this time around.

Regarding Jeb Bush, watch for the purge of voters who have registered in two states, mostly Democrats (Link (http://tampatrib.com/nationworldnews/MGBJ8HEZAYD.html) here but Google will provide dozens.) Florida state officials are leaving it up to local election supervisors but I think we know who holds their strings, they are appointed - not elected to their posts.


I love conspiracy theories. Reading the article cited above, there is nothing to say Jeb Bush is going to target democrats for disenfranchisement. Of those illegally double-registered, more happen to be democrats. That's all it says. People registered in 2 states should not be allowed to vote until it becomes clear where they are voting. So I'm confused as to how this conspiracy of Jeb comprimising to help his brother appears sensical to anyone.

Accusations flew about racially motiviated voter intimidation in 2000, but it is very unlikely that any such events occurred. Do you honestly think, with the hundreds, probably thousands, of journalists and partisans staying in Florida throughout November of 2000 and interviewing anyobdy to break the big story, that any actual case of these accusations would go unfound?

The only foul play in 2000 was two teams of lawyers filing hundreds of lawsuits in an attempt to warp the law. Considering how easily Jeb Bush won reelection in 2002, I doubt Florida will be close enough this time to prompt accusations and conspiracy theories like 2000.

Oh, I thought you were talking just about the people who were claimed to have been wrongly taken off the lists, rather than the felons. Everyone knows felons were taken off the lists. This policy is not limited to just Florida. The NAACP (which sued the state of Florida over it) can argue that the policy is racist and violates the constitution all the want, but it isn't changing. Even if it was Jeb's administration who offered the settlement, it was the NAACP which accepted the settlement, instead of arguing their case in court, perhaps because they knew it was faulty? If a settlement denotes a weakness on one side of the case, it can mean a weakness on the side that accepts it as well.I was talking about the people who were wrongly taken off the voting rolls because of the similarities of their names to those of felons. The settlement was in order to keep the NAACP from suing Florida in open court and from having the flawed methodology of the purge list become public. If you really want to know about this subject--because you're woefully uninformed at present, I can tell--then read the reporting done by Greg Palast and Joe Conason on the purge list put together by ChoicePoint for the state of Florida, and look at how deliberately sloppy they were in putting it together. If you want to stay uninformed, well, I can't stop you.

I was talking about the people who were wrongly taken off the voting rolls because of the similarities of their names to those of felons. The settlement was in order to keep the NAACP from suing Florida in open court and from having the flawed methodology of the purge list become public. If you really want to know about this subject--because you're woefully uninformed at present, I can tell--then read the reporting done by Greg Palast and Joe Conason on the purge list put together by ChoicePoint for the state of Florida, and look at how deliberately sloppy they were in putting it together. If you want to stay uninformed, well, I can't stop you.
I've read Greg Palast enough to make me puke from all the slant he puts in his "reporting". For someone who is so adamantly anti-FoxNews, its amazing you can put up with him. The people who were supposedly taken off the lists have never been proven, just peddled around by left-wingers in another attempt to try to find a way to claim that Florida 2000 was theirs after they failed trying to sham their way in by only recounting heavily Democratic districts.

OK. Now I get you. The "winner takes all" approach. What are some examples of successful governments that use a multi tiered system and how do they manage the divergence of opinion?

The Best example I acn think of is Germany.

Germany has 2 legislative houses. The Lower house, or Bundestag, is a proprtional representative body. Let's say 100 people voted in an election in Germany. You vote for a party, not a person on the ballot. If 42 people voted for party A, 32 for Party B, 21 for party C, and 5 for party D, 42% of the legislate seats would go to party A and so on.

It creates a parliament with usually around 5 parties represented. Almost always 2 or more parties must form a coalition to create a majority and choose a Prime Minister. Coalition governments come with their own problems.

These systems are not 100% representative either because you bote only for a party, and because there is usually a vote threshold to get into parliament. In Germany, if your party doesn't get 5% of the vote, you don't get any seats. I see advantages and disadvantages to both systems, it is a matter of personal preference. Let's not forget that having districts allows a local man to get into congress who is more liekly to represent his constituents since he is accountble to a specific group of 700,000 people and not accountable to a party who selected him.

By the same token, if you're a Green and you want to even have your proposals considered by the government, stop helping to elect people who despise everything you stand for, namely Republicans. What green proposals have the Democrats considered?

Look, I voted for a Green for mayor last year, and I side with them on a majority of issues, but the fact is that on the state and national level right now, the game has been rigged by the two major parties so that they and only they can get any electoral traction. It sucks, but that's the way it is, and there's no easy way to get them to relinquish any of that power to a third party. So the most realistic option is to work inside the party most amenable to your interests to get them to adopt your policies, and actively working against them isn't the most effective way to go about it.But if you take the argument that Greens should vote for Democrats to get the Republicans out precisely the same argument will be used again the next election. We have a similar situation in the UK with Blair. It isn't until mainstream politicians start realising that people aren't all going to vote for them, whatever they do, that they start taking notice.

By the same token, if you're a Green and you want to even have your proposals considered by the government, stop helping to elect people who despise everything you stand for, namely Republicans.

Look, I voted for a Green for mayor last year, and I side with them on a majority of issues, but the fact is that on the state and national level right now, the game has been rigged by the two major parties so that they and only they can get any electoral traction. It sucks, but that's the way it is, and there's no easy way to get them to relinquish any of that power to a third party. So the most realistic option is to work inside the party most amenable to your interests to get them to adopt your policies, and actively working against them isn't the most effective way to go about it.
Well said.

without third parties ( in theory) our presidents look like this :
Reagan 1981-1989
Bush 1989-1997
Dole 1997-2001
Gore 2001-

crazy huh?

:headbang:

The coolest thing I've heard of is the following: Nader could choose Kerry's electoral college reps as his own. :fluffle: This way, people could vote for Nader to send a message to the Democrats, :upyours: but people would literally be voting for Kerry's EC reps, :D thus making sure that Bush doesn't win.:sniper:
Shit that's slick

For once the electoral college is good for democracy.

slick but illegal. look it up.

Nader didn't give Bush the election. The Democrats did, by moving so far to the right, thus losing the liberal support base.

I think that the Nader idea that the Democrats will just keep losing elections until they are forced to return to the left, or at least respect third parties, is a good one. Sure, maybe a few Republican presidents will disservice the USA in the short term, but it will make for a healthier America in the long run.

slick but illegal. look it up.
How? Where? Couldn't you just explain briefly here?

I love conspiracy theories. Reading the article cited above, there is nothing to say Jeb Bush is going to target democrats for disenfranchisement. Of those illegally double-registered, more happen to be democrats. That's all it says. People registered in 2 states should not be allowed to vote until it becomes clear where they are voting. So I'm confused as to how this conspiracy of Jeb comprimising to help his brother appears sensical to anyone.

Accusations flew about racially motiviated voter intimidation in 2000, but it is very unlikely that any such events occurred. Do you honestly think, with the hundreds, probably thousands, of journalists and partisans staying in Florida throughout November of 2000 and interviewing anyobdy to break the big story, that any actual case of these accusations would go unfound?

The only foul play in 2000 was two teams of lawyers filing hundreds of lawsuits in an attempt to warp the law. Considering how easily Jeb Bush won reelection in 2002, I doubt Florida will be close enough this time to prompt accusations and conspiracy theories like 2000.

At the end of the day the Florida election went on the books with Bush winning by 0.01% 1/100th of 1% of the vote. Of course there will be strong advocacy - what do you think lawyers do? Pursue justice or try to win for their client?

I did not suggest there is a conspiracy. What I showed is there may well be an issue with absentee ballots being discounted where registration rolls show a dual or multiple voter registration. Since the investigation by the NY Daily News showed the majority to be Democrats and non-Republicans and given the close vote in 2000 Florida ballots could well be an issue again.

Sorry. No secret societies or shadow governments. Just politics and potential legal manuvering in a very close state. :rolleyes:

Nader didn't give Bush the election. The Democrats did, by moving so far to the right, thus losing the liberal support base.

I think that the Nader idea that the Democrats will just keep losing elections until they are forced to return to the left, or at least respect third parties, is a good one. Sure, maybe a few Republican presidents will disservice the USA in the short term, but it will make for a healthier America in the long run.

pardon me but gore got more votes than any democrat in the history of america and a greater percentage of the vote then any democrat since carter ( 1976). If his candidacy was a shift to the right than that would be a good thing ( at least according to his showing). despite the fact that he got more of a share of the poular vote than carter, mondale, dukakis, and clinton , he still lost. reason is the republicans got out the vote and RALPH NADER TOOK AWAY 2% OF HIS VOTES

How? Where? Couldn't you just explain briefly here?

sure. the constitution. It says that based on the majority of votes in a state the electoral votes of that state go to a candidate. Only if nader WINS A STATE ( impossible) would he have any effect on the electoral college. Even if he did ( shocking) he could never transfer them to another person. That is not constitutional.

slick but illegal. look it up.

I don't think it is. I seem to remember from my history class that similar things have been done in the past.

Regardless, I don't think Nader would ever agree to it. He seems to view the Democrats with just as much contempt as he does the Republicans.

sure. the constitution. It says that based on the majority of votes in a state the electoral votes of that state go to a candidate. Only if nader WINS A STATE ( impossible) would he have any effect on the electoral college. Even if he did ( shocking) he could never transfer them to another person. That is not constitutional.

Electors, I believe, are legally permitted to vote for whomever they want, regardless of who won their state. If Nader wanted to (emphasis on "if"), he could ask his electors to vote for Kerry instead.

Not that any of this will transpire anyway. If Nader announced ahead of time that he was going to do this and people got behind it, the votes might even be split, resulting in Bush taking practically every state.

By the way , if you were , say, 55 years old:
In your life time the democrats have recieved more than 50% of the vote only twice. ( 1964 and 1976)
In your life time the Republicans have recieved more than 50% of the vote 6 times ( 1952,1956,1972,1980,1984, and 1988.
In your life time 3 elections have been decided by third party candidates ( 1992,1996, and 2000). Playing to a liberal base wont help. We have a distinct new trend in the last 15 years of close elections decided by candidates who arent in the mainstream. The democrats have a tough time getting lots of votes to begin with and this new third party thing is their downfall.

I don't think it is. I seem to remember from my history class that similar things have been done in the past.

Regardless, I don't think Nader would ever agree to it. He seems to view the Democrats with just as much contempt as he does the Republicans.

nope. never. I am majoring in history and my particular favorite is american history. A candidate must win a state to get its electoral votes. which state would vote in nader? secondly if that happened the electoral votes would go to him no matter what he said or did.

of the last 6 elections :
3 have been clear republican victories
2 have been would be republican victories spoiled by a third party
1 has been a democrat victory spoiled by a third party

the last time a third party candidate got electoral votes was george wallace in 1968.

sure. the constitution. It says that based on the majority of votes in a state the electoral votes of that state go to a candidate. Only if nader WINS A STATE ( impossible) would he have any effect on the electoral college. Even if he did ( shocking) he could never transfer them to another person. That is not constitutional.
Surely if a vote for Nader and a vote for Kerry go to the same electoral representative, wouldn't that mean that that rep gets Kerry votes + Nader votes to determine if it is they who represent their state?

BTW, I'm perfectly willing to admit I might be wrong here, I don't know the system in this much detail.

treason is the republicans got out the vote and RALPH NADER TOOK AWAY 2% OF HIS VOTESWhat do you mean "his votes"? What right did Gore have to them? What had he done to earn them? Your arrogance demonstrates precisely why many people voted Nader in the first place. No-one owes the Democrats a free ride.

There is no way to guarantee that every Nader voted would have voted for Gore in 2000. There is also no guarantee that every Nader voter this year is a would-be Kerry voter. The way Bill Maher puts it, if Nader weren't at the poles, we may just have less voters, you know? For instance, Kerry vs Bush, Kerry get 4 votes, Bush gets 4 votes. Kerry vs Bush vs Nader, Kerry gets 4, Bush gets 4, Nader gets 2.
Mmm, logical posts ALWAYS get ignored.

The Best example I acn think of is Germany.

Germany has 2 legislative houses. The Lower house, or Bundestag, is a proprtional representative body. Let's say 100 people voted in an election in Germany. You vote for a party, not a person on the ballot. If 42 people voted for party A, 32 for Party B, 21 for party C, and 5 for party D, 42% of the legislate seats would go to party A and so on.

It creates a parliament with usually around 5 parties represented. Almost always 2 or more parties must form a coalition to create a majority and choose a Prime Minister. Coalition governments come with their own problems.

These systems are not 100% representative either because you bote only for a party, and because there is usually a vote threshold to get into parliament. In Germany, if your party doesn't get 5% of the vote, you don't get any seats. I see advantages and disadvantages to both systems, it is a matter of personal preference. Let's not forget that having districts allows a local man to get into congress who is more liekly to represent his constituents since he is accountble to a specific group of 700,000 people and not accountable to a party who selected him.

The US has something similar in the House of Representatives. In the House, representation is based on the number of people living in each state. There are a total of 435 representatives in the House. Each member represents an area of the state, known as a congressional district. The number of representatives is based on the number of districts in a state. Therefore, states with larger populations have more representation than states with smaller populations. Each state has at least one congressional district and therefore one representative in the House.

Anyone can run for office and there may be members not affiliated with the two major parties. However it is virtually impossible to get anything done without the support of other Congressmen. Placement and positions on committees (which determine what goes before the entire House for consideration) are based on seniority and political favor. Voters in a district tend to vote with one of the two parties because if they want anything actually done in their favor they must have their voice heard, not squelched. It is indeed the tryanny of the majority.

That is balanced by the Judicial branch. Anyone can bring suit against the government in a court and many times you will have the judiciary decide issues against the wishes of the Legislative and Executive branches.

There is much comment on the "Activist Judiciary" by those who oppose their decisions. But they were made the necessary balancing point to curb the excesses of the other two branches. They are the saving grace that holds back utter tyranny in America.

Hopefully we can do it on our own.

Bush sucks, get that through your head, he started a dumb war over terrorism, but no terrorists that attacked us in 9/11 came from Iraq. In fact most of them came from Saudi Arabia, but Bush wouldnt attack there, why? He is good friends with the Saudi royal family. All he consentrates on is 9/11 and negative attacks on Kerry that he cleverly discuised, except the Navy has records that Kerrys swift Boat was under attack. Hmm.

The US has something similar in the House of Representatives. In the House, representation is based on the number of people living in each state. There are a total of 435 representatives in the House. Each member represents an area of the state, known as a congressional district. The number of representatives is based on the number of districts in a state. Therefore, states with larger populations have more representation than states with smaller populations. Each state has at least one congressional district and therefore one representative in the House.

Anyone can run for office and there may be members not affiliated with the two major parties. However it is virtually impossible to get anything done without the support of other Congressmen. Placement and positions on committees (which determine what goes before the entire House for consideration) are based on seniority and political favor. Voters in a district tend to vote with one of the two parties because if they want anything actually done in their favor they must have their voice heard, not squelched. It is indeed the tryanny of the majority.

That is balanced by the Judicial branch. Anyone can bring suit against the government in a court and many times you will have the judiciary decide issues against the wishes of the Legislative and Executive branches.

There is much comment on the "Activist Judiciary" by those who oppose their decisions. But they were made the necessary balancing point to curb the excesses of the other two branches. They are the saving grace that holds back utter tyranny in America.

How can so many parties work together?

slick but illegal. look it up.
What part is illegal? Delegates to the Electorial College can vote as they wish. They are not bound to a given candidate otherwise why meet at all?

Besides Soulseek's point is invalid. The candidate who gets the majority of the votes gets ALL the delegates to the EC. If Kerry gets a majority Nader gets zilch therefore has zilch to offer. Nader is only a factor before the vote, not after.

treason is the republicans got out the vote and RALPH NADER TOOK AWAY 2% OF HIS VOTES

What do you mean "his votes"? What right did Gore have to them? What had he done to earn them? Your arrogance demonstrates precisely why many people voted Nader in the first place. No-one owes the Democrats a free ride.

Ah! Now I see why you made your earlier comment on the "entitlement" attitude. It is one of the very things that people dislike about Democrats. All about entitlement and not a word about taking responsibility for oneself.

The US has something similar in the House of Representatives. In the House, representation is based on the number of people living in each state. There are a total of 435 representatives in the House. Each member represents an area of the state, known as a congressional district. The number of representatives is based on the number of districts in a state. Therefore, states with larger populations have more representation than states with smaller populations. Each state has at least one congressional district and therefore one representative in the House.

Anyone can run for office and there may be members not affiliated with the two major parties. However it is virtually impossible to get anything done without the support of other Congressmen. Placement and positions on committees (which determine what goes before the entire House for consideration) are based on seniority and political favor. Voters in a district tend to vote with one of the two parties because if they want anything actually done in their favor they must have their voice heard, not squelched. It is indeed the tryanny of the majority.

That is balanced by the Judicial branch. Anyone can bring suit against the government in a court and many times you will have the judiciary decide issues against the wishes of the Legislative and Executive branches.

There is much comment on the "Activist Judiciary" by those who oppose their decisions. But they were made the necessary balancing point to curb the excesses of the other two branches. They are the saving grace that holds back utter tyranny in America.

How can so many parties work together?

I do not understand your question. Please restate it.

face it. America is a two party nation, always has been, always will be.

Bedtime. Good night all. Thanks for the thoughts.

What part is illegal? Delegates to the Electorial College can vote as they wish. They are not bound to a given candidate otherwise why meet at all?

Besides Soulseek's point is invalid. The candidate who gets the majority of the votes gets ALL the delegates to the EC. If Kerry gets a majority Nader gets zilch therefore has zilch to offer. Nader is only a factor before the vote, not after.The electors are now bound by state law. In the past, they could have theoretically changed their votes, but now in most, if not all, states, the electors are bound by state law to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in that state.

OK. Now I get you. The "winner takes all" approach. What are some examples of successful governments that use a multi tiered system and how do they manage the divergence of opinion?

its more than just winner-take-all, which you would have to have for any election of a single person position like president. the idea of whoever gets the most votes, and not necessarily a majority of them, wins is really what causes there to only be two competitive parties in each district. there are other methods of voting even for single person positions that better show which candidate is most approved of by the most people. ranking voting systems, for example, where you essentially vote for the candidates in the order of your preference for them. or even just run-off elections between the top 2 choices. however, every voting method will have some quirks of strategic voting which need to be understood and dealt with - see the last french presidential election - but i think "first past the post" is particularly dumb and leads to some particularly stupid outcomes.

as for successful government using other systems, i'm not really the one to talk to (i'm an anarchist after all) but wikipedia.org has a list of voting systems in use in various countries somewhere. but it seems to me that it is better to publicly work out how to deal with the actual divergence of opinion in a group of people than to lock some opinions (which equates to some people) out of the process entirely.