NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading in the October 4th issue of Time magazine. There is a little blurb that states that the Democrats have been challenging Ralph Nader's ballot petitions in court. I am wondering why? I am interested in the full story because it appears that someone is trying to subvert democracy. Why should Nader, or anyone else for that matter, not be allowed to run for president if they meet all the requirements set in the constitution?

Because a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Or at least many Democrats think so.

Myself, I think a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.

I have heard that but even if a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, what does it matter? Does that make it so other parties cannot have anyone run for president?

I have heard that but even if a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, what does it matter? Does that make it so other parties cannot have anyone run for president?

No, it's just that if you're in a third party, you have to dot every i, cross every t, and then chuck and pray to get on the ballot. You CAN run, but if you mess up paperwork, they'll be on you in a second like white on rice on a paper plate with a glass of milk.

Here's the thing. The Democratic party is challenging Nader's candidacy on state ballots for two reasons. The first is pragmatic. They're afraid that Nader's candidacy will siphon votes away from Kerry, which is likely, although I think Nader's impact will be minimal at best this time around.

The second--at least in some states--has to do with election law in general. If you take the route Nader has in many states--petitioning to be on the ballot by gathering signatures--then you need to be sure that you're getting legitimate signatures. Nader hasn't done that. In state after state, his petitions have come back with 30 or 40% false signatures, forgeries or people who just don't exist. Why shouldn't he be challenged if people suspect that his petition is illegitimate? He shouldn't be above the law.

And while the Democrats look a little bad for being so aggressive on this, I guarantee you that if there were a third party headed by, say, John McCain who was going to siphon votes away from the Republicans, they'd be just as aggressive, if not more so.

and 3)
in many states nader didnt get himself on the ballot, the republicans did. so it pisses off the dems and makes them do stupid things like this.

nader isnt going to make a difference in this election. he isnt a party candidate and everyone remembers what happened last time when they voted for him. only people who would NOT vote for kerry will vote for nader

I've only recently come to realise quite how "two-party" American politics is.

I've only recently come to realise quite how "two-party" American politics is.
It surely is, and it's not going to change any time soon, either. Both parties have done a pretty damn good job of rigging the game against any emerging third party. In the House of Representatives, there's one independent who almost always votes with the Democrats. In the Senate, same story. And they're not members of a third party either--they're just independent.

It's quite "two-party" in the UK, but the US seems much worse.

The second--at least in some states--has to do with election law in general. If you take the route Nader has in many states--petitioning to be on the ballot by gathering signatures--then you need to be sure that you're getting legitimate signatures. Nader hasn't done that. In state after state, his petitions have come back with 30 or 40% false signatures, forgeries or people who just don't exist. Why shouldn't he be challenged if people suspect that his petition is illegitimate? He shouldn't be above the law.

I can see how if the signatures are a little shady how an investigation would be in order. I haven't heard that angle before.