Nader Stealing Votes from Kerry? I think NOT!!!

HG · Post by HG » 27 Oct 2004 16:51

When people say that Nader steals votes from Kerry i just laugh. While i laugh, i think about how this country's "democratic system is so fucked up.

We think we are a democracy, yet people are mad because there is another presidential candidate running. They say he is stealing votes from Kerry. A democracy is not a 2 party system! Anyone can run for president. I dont care what anyone says, thats the way it is. If you disagree than you also have a good point, because our country is anything but a democracy.

Our senators are supposed to represent us. Us meaning the state they represent. Instead of represent US they represent the richest person with an opinion!!!!

This is a thread where you can bash democracies or anything about America, i just hate how it is so messed up, and it is everything it says its not.

Thinking about what Jeremy said "socialism focuses on the society, capitalism focuses on gathering capital, or money"

I realize that the American government is a mix of every single kind of government, but we are mostly capitalist. I think we should be socialist like Canada, it works better, the citizens are happy. No matter who is president i guarantee 75% of the population will hate them. It does not matter who they vote for, you cant like someone before they make major decisions.

Alright so the main idea is:
1. Post what you think about the Nader stealing votes theory.
2. Bash Americas "democracy and capitalism."

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 27 Oct 2004 20:46

Nader isnt "stealing" votes from Kerry, but someone who votes for Nader probobly would have voted for Kerry instead of Bush, even though Nader claims that most of the people who vote for him wouldnt have voted at all if they werent voting for him.
A vote for Nader in my opinion is just a protest vote at best. Nader has NO chance of winning even a single state. If you live in a swing state why not vote for Bush or Kerry, they are the only 2 that have a shot at winning.
the 2 party system isnt that bad. 3 parties would be better but having a 2 party system is way better than having a 30 party system.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 27 Oct 2004 23:29

New Zealand used to have a shitty 2 party system over here too because we used a similar 'first past the post' electoral system, then we had a national referendum on the issue and the public voted in a MMP (mixed member proportional) system and it rooocks, way more representation from every corner of society and you don't get so many 'wasted votes'.

The more you know.... Just thought it'd be worth noting that positive change is possible.

Isn't it Cobb running for the greens instead of Nader this election? Haven't really read anything about the green party platform over there.

HG · Post by HG » 28 Oct 2004 04:16

Green party kicked nader out. He is just running independently.

I would like to know where nader gets his money...

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 28 Oct 2004 18:48

Nader is a spoiler that benefits Bush, like Perot was a spoiler that benefited Clinton.

He shouldn't just be a spoiler.

We should have more parties, but the entrenched apparatuses(?) is to big.

My personal dig:

Thanks John McCain, for your fucking worthless campaign finance reform. Now we have tons more money in politics, and the sources are even more seedy.

Watch, I bet he never brags about it. And I bet NOT ONE person ever goes to jail for violations of it (except Gerorge Bush).

-n