Nader off the ballot in Florida, for now.

I'd like to see Ralph voluntarily get out and throw his votes to the "lesser of two evils." If it had to be done by force, nice work if someone figured out how.

To muck with the electoral college again is not a favorable scenario to those of us who would like to see Mr. Bush pack it and go.

If we are to have third party candidates, it will be necessary to change our electoral system. There are undemocratic forces built in as "checks" - such as the fact that the unpopulated states still get two senators per state.

And the electoral college is a nifty little conspiracy to simulate unanimity isn't it (with a tiny margin of symbolic flakes).

There are numerous examples of how our system is loaded to empower those who know how to take advantage of others. And of course those who know how protect their modus operandi and define the qualifications for the foxes who guard the various henhouses.

padmasambava wrote:

I'd like to see Ralph voluntarily get out and throw his votes to the "lesser of two evils." If it had to be done by force, nice work if someone figured out how.

Very democratic of you, 'I don't like your message, so I won't allow you to speak (By force if need be)

padmasambava wrote:

To muck with the electoral college again is not a favorable scenario to those of us who would like to see Mr. Bush pack it and go.

The Electoral College is how our system works... if you don't like it, petition Congress to change it.

padmasambava wrote:

If we are to have third party candidates, it will be necessary to change our electoral system. There are undemocratic forces built in as "checks" - such as the fact that the unpopulated states still get two senators per state.

Unpopulated states get two senators to prevent 4 or 5 states from deciding everything for the whole country. You in California may have no interest in constructing levees to prevent the Mississippi from overflowing into your backyard, but the 'underpopulated' states have a keen interest in that topic. Without equal representation in the Senate, California, New York, Texas and Florida could pretty much tell the rest of the country to 'go to hell' and make it stick. Not too fair if you come from one of the 'little states'.

padmasambava wrote:

And the electoral college is a nifty little conspiracy to simulate unanimity isn't it (with a tiny margin of symbolic flakes).

As above, it exists to give each state a chance to be heard. Being heard in Congress or the nation is easy if, like yourself, you come from California, but some other states might just like a say in the democratic process if you don't mind. OK?

padmasambava wrote:

There are numerous examples of how our system is loaded to empower those who know how to take advantage of others. And of course those who know how protect their modus operandi and define the qualifications for the foxes who guard the various henhouses.

Have NO idea of what point you are trying to make here?


padmasambava, you seem to espouse democracy and 'democratic process' when it suits you, but you do not want the chance of 'your guy' losing because of a third party interloper.

Just curious, how did you feel about Ross Perot's candidacy? The numbers showed that Bill Clinton would have lost to President Bush had Perot not run... did you think that was unfair to President Bush? Do you think that Mr. Perot should have been removed from the ballot by force?

I cannot understand his motives other than to satisfy his inflated ego.

In the name of fighting terror Americans have been willing to go farther than they have in the past.

In the name of getting rid of George Bush a lot of Americans feel just as strongly as we do about terrorism.

It doesn't have anything to do with power or some kind of ego thing, but about the Bush Administration and their policies and their decisions that we feel are bad for our country. It is also about the people themselves and their total dishonesty and trickery and to top it all their success at it.

Nader stands between having our country back or having four more years of George Bush and who in the world knows what else could happen.

In other words desperate times calls for desperate measures.

But maybe we should rethink that. After all, we don't we become that which we fight and I am including myself most of all.

revel wrote:

In the name of fighting terror Americans have been willing to go farther than they have in the past.

Probably because those who would see us destroyed have gone further than every before in attacking us.

revel wrote:

In the name of getting rid of George Bush a lot of Americans feel just as strongly as we do about terrorism.

And a lot of Americans feel that George Bush is the best answer to the terrorist gauntlet being thrown down on us

revel wrote:

It doesn't have anything to do with power or some kind of ego thing, but about the Bush Administration and their policies and their decisions that we feel are bad for our country. It is also about the people themselves and their total dishonesty and trickery and to top it all their success at it.

Yet there are just as many Americans (If you believe the polls) who believe that John Kerry is NOT the right answer for our country.

revel wrote:

Nader stands between having our country back or having four more years of George Bush and who in the world knows what else could happen.

You mean that Nader stands in the way of four more years of Democrat appeasment of the terrorists and four more years of ignoring attacks against our interests. He stands in the way of four more years of selling our souls to the U.N. kissing the a**es of Old Europe. No thanks.

revel wrote:

In other words desperate times calls for desperate measures.

In other words, 'by any means nescessary'? So airing a story with dubious, possibly false, documents to hurt the President is ok? So a known liar publishing a book accusing the President and his wife of doing drugs in Camp David and accusing the First Lady of selling drugs is ok as long you get your way? Do the ends really justify the means to you people?

revel wrote:

But maybe we should rethink that. After all, we don't we become that which we fight and I am including myself most of all.

Dear God I hope so...

Be well over the weekend, see you on Monday. (I will be battening down for Hurricane #3 here in Fla.)

Come to NY. We get some snow once in awhile.

Interesting. Here, almost anyone who can get 10 or 20 people to sign their nomination papers can run for office. Of course, they can't claim a tax credit if they get less than a specified percentage of the votes cast, so that's a bit of a disincentive.

It would be nice to see U.S. voters have more of a range of voting options.