How Nader could run without spoiling Kerry, if he were serious!

[Classical_Liberal]

2-for-1 Voting
By BRUCE ACKERMAN

EW HAVEN

With Ralph Nader bobbing along at 2 percent to 7 percent in the polls, now is the time to consider whether our system is flexible enough to avoid another election in which a candidate loses the popular vote but wins the presidency. The answer is yes — if Mr. Nader chooses to cooperate.

In November, Americans won't be casting their ballots directly for George Bush, John Kerry or Ralph Nader. From a constitutional point of view, they will be voting for competing slates of electors nominated in each state by the contenders. Legally speaking, the decisions made by these 538 members of the Electoral College determine the next president.

In the case of Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, electors will be named by each state's political parties. But Ralph Nader is running as an independent. When he petitions to get on the ballot in each state, he must name his own slate of electors. While he is free to nominate a distinctive slate of names, he can also propose the very same names that appear on the Kerry slate.

If he does, he will provide voters with a new degree of freedom. On Election Day, they will see a line on the ballot designating Ralph Nader's electors. But if voters choose the Nader line, they won't be wasting their ballot on a candidate with little chance of winning. Since Mr. Nader's slate would be the same as Mr. Kerry's, his voters would be providing additional support for the electors selected by the Democrats. If the Nader-Kerry total is a majority in any state, the victorious electors would be free to vote for Mr. Kerry.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/opinion/05ACKE.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1083740777-+0BX8jC1raJKN7Kx2aK/mg

[lapfog_1]

1. Someone with electoral / constitutional law jump in

I don't think this is viable. In many states I believe the slate
of electors are bound to the candidate named on the ballot. They
would be violating state law if they vote for a different candidate.
Now for the case of the same electors for more than one candidate,
I won't swear that this is prohibited, but I suspect that it is.

In any case, other than having a Nader vote total show up somewhere
(which is just as easily accomplished by preference polls), what
is in it for Ralph. If, somehow, Ralph got a majority of the
vote, would he then stand by while "his" electors cast ballots to
elect John Kerry? What is the purpose of running for office if he
feels that he cannot win?

This is a silly idea.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. I don't know about the law, but building a new party

long term would be Ralph's motive if he were serious. I don't know about third parties particularly. My feeling is the republican party should go, and the dlc dominated dems could take their place and the greens could be dems. I am not satisfied with the present two parties, and think the differences are too small between the candidates, but I recognized the spoiler effect, and I am mad at Nader for not dropping in 2000 or advocating vote swapping and strategic voting.

[papau]

12. Nader just wants to elect Bush in 2004

Indeed if Nader is serious, today's New York Times editorial by Bruce Ackerman is spot on as to how Nader could help Kerry - and still stay in race.

As you noted all Nader need do is at election time designate the same set of electors for himself as those Kerry chooses.

"Since Mr. Nader's slate would be the same as Mr. Kerry's, his voters would be providing additional support for the electors selected by the Democrats. If the Nader-Kerry total is a majority in any state, the victorious electors would be free to vote for Mr. Kerry."

But then Nader in his "I only want to hurt Gore" 2000 race did not do this - did he?.

In my opinion I do not believe a protest vote using the same electors as Kerry, or trying to grow a the 3rd party via non-swing states that actually might give him more than 5%, is not the Nader game plan - Nader just wants to elect Bush in 2004.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. Nader is not the only guy that can run independent/3rd party though

.

[DieboldMustDie]

3. What is the purpose of running for office if he feels that he cannot win?

Hard to say for sure, but do you really think Nader thinks he can win?

[RoyGBiv]

4. It varies by state.

Electors in 26 states are bound by some form of law to vote for the candidate to which they are tied by the popular vote. I suppose they actually could vote for someone different, but they would be fined for it.

The Supreme Court has also held that parties may require their electors to pledge their vote to the candidate to which they are tied, and if they refuse to do so, a substitute elector may be inserted.

So, yes, it is a silly idea.

[shraby]

5. Smells like

a Republican idea to fool the Democrats into voting for Nader.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. Possible

but it wouldn't work if so many of us weren't being poorly represented. Vote swaping, strategic voting and dropping when you think you will play spoiler are still options. Nader would have been a great candidate if he weren't oblivious to the spoiler effect.

[lapfog_1]

7. This is what I understood

And it's not just fines... it's grounds for appeal to (drum roll)
SCOTUS. And we all know where that would go. (Nader electors would
have to vote for Nader, Bush wins).

Look, I don't know what's in Ralph's mind, or that of his supporters.
I was a member of the Green party in CA for over 10 years. I
contributed to their local candidates and so on. When Ralph ran
in 2000 (and I don't give a crap about what lefty spinners say) I
thought it was bad idea, I voted for Gore and encouraged others
to do so. I didn't buy into the "they are both the same" argument
presented then... nor the "if Bush gets elected, then America will
reject the centrist leanings of the Democratic party under
Clinton/Gore and at least one major party will more truly represent
the progressive / leftist / Green party" argument. Both arguments
were specious and deceptive. Plus, even then, I thought Bush was
possibly far more than his fathers son... and it's never good to have
a truly ignorant and possibly stupid person in power. After the
2000 election, I resigned from the Green party and joined the Dems.

Ralph should not run this year, and I hope that no one votes for him
anywhere. Even if you agree with him 100 percent and Kerry only 50
percent. Ralph has NO shot. And, if we love our planet and love
life, Bush needs to go.

[RoyGBiv]

8. Well said...

My problem with Nader, and with those who generally are up in arms saying that Dems and Repubs are the same and that it's time to support a third party, is that they're going about it all wrong. A more specific problem I have with Nader is that he's well enough educated in how politics works to know this, but he still persists to tilt at his windmills.

The Populists of the late 19th century and the Republicans of the 1850's, the two post successful "third parties" in our history, got their start at the local and Congressional levels. That's where a party makes an impact initially, and from there the party builds a base. Going for the Presidency as an inroad to making change is just plain dumb. It will always fail and will do nothing in the long run but alienate those who might otherwise be willing to support it.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. You can play spoiler at the congressional level too

. The two parties aren't identical, but they are too identical for my tastes and I want better choices. If I can find away to escape their dictatorship I will. Nader was a dork for the way he handled 2000 but it could have been handled differently. For instance he could have advocated only voting for him in non swing states, or dropped when he thought he would be a spoiler. He didn't look for a constructive way to run, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. I don't believe Kerry will change Bush's foreign policy without pressure from the Europeans, which I don't know will be forthcoming. This means more of our boys die. I'm sick about the choice our party made.

[sangh0]

18. True, but they don't start wars

the way Presidents do.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Remember the Syria accountability act

90% of the dems voted for it. That was a bill created by the same people who have given us the IRaq war.

[RoyGBiv]

21. Spoiler

Playing spoiler had little to do with my point.

I'm talking about how viable alternatives can be established, gain momentum and legitimacy, and move into the national scene, either from within a party or by establishing a new one. My problem with Nader and others who are not finding what they want within the Democratic Party is not that they serve as spoilers per se, rather that while serving as spoilers they achieve nothing positive in return.

Successful political movements almost always begin at the bottom. Unfortunately, our political opponents seem to understand this, or at least act on that understanding, better than we do.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. The republicans didn't start at the bottom

They ran for President. The spoiler effect is the fundamental problem, and I don't want a repuke congress either.

[RoyGBiv]

23. Uh, no...

The Republican's first run at President was a disaster, as many among the newly forming Republicans conceded. It was a token candidacy with no real purpose other than to acquire some level of national publicity in the age before mass media. The real effort took place at the local levels of government. They did have an advantage of essentially being able to work from and take over old Whig party mechanisms, since so many Republicans were former Whigs.

If we take the long view, which I believe is necessary, the Republicans got their real start among the Free-Soilers and Know-Nothings (American Party), two parties that worked almost entirely at the local level. Again, the Republicans, as they coalesced into a single party, benefited from this.

They gained inroads via local and congressional elections from 1852 through 1860. 1858 was a particularly good year for them. (This, btw, is one of the things that made the secessionists feel their time had come. They could see the tide turning toward an "abolitionist" party gaining national support via the mid-term elections.) Lincoln was elected on a peak of rising Republican sentiment. Of course, the candidacy was helped tremendously by the split in the Democrats.

[Classical_Liberal]

25. That may be the case but the spoiler effect can still happen in congress

and the republicans were filling a vacuum. The wigs had died.

[RoyGBiv]

27. Point?

Do you have a point that addresses anything I've said, or are you fixated on arguing things that have nothing to do with what I've said?

[dsc]

9. intriguing idea

I actually think this could work. There wouldn't be an Nader electors, unless Nader actually beat Kerry in a state in which they combined to beat Bush. This would be a way to combine the votes of Nader and Kerry, making use of the otherwise evil electoral college. This shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

[RichardRay]

11. It's actually perfectly legal

Note that the electors would be BOTH Kerry and Nader electors. They would be bound to vote for one or the other and no one else. Assuming Kerry carries the state in total all electoral votes could go to him just as intended.

[MallRat]

13. Um, really?

Somehow I find this hard to believe. There must be laws which say that the electors are committed to the candidate, not the other way around. Right?

-MR

[Mattforclark]

15. Only state laws, which may be unconstitutional, and only in a small number

of states.

A DC elector abstained from voting in 2000, for example, in protest of DC's taxation without representation.

[RoyGBiv]

24. 26 states

As mention in a previous message, there are 26 states that have laws binding electors to the popular vote.

[MAlibdem]

16. actually...

I think electors can do pretty much whatever they want. There is no real penalty for voting differently than their state (sometimes a fine). However, most are liberal or conservative ideolouges that wouldn't switch sides no matter what, so it works out anyway.

[MAlibdem]

14. OR

Nader could concentrate on states where either Kerry has little chance of winning TX etc. or states where Kerry will likely win like MA, NY, CA.

Of course, since this is egomaniac, spoiler Nader, he will concentrate on FL, OH, MI, and PA.

[Classical_Liberal]

17. kick

:kick:

[mydawgmax]

26. Its still winner take all at the state level

Unless there was some way for Kerry and Nader to combine their vote totals to elect a slate of electors, and I don't think thats possible, then it wouldn't work. A state with Kerry 48, Bush 49, and Nader 3 would go to Bush. Even if Nader and Kerry have the same slate of electors, the Bush electors would be the ones casting votes.

[dsc]

30. No it doesn't work that way

You vote for the electors, not the candidate. Thus in your senario the Kerry/Nader electors would have the majority.

[mydawgmax]

32. Then why don't some states cast split electoral votes?

Yes, you vote for electors, but you either get all electors or no electors. Regardless if Kerry and Nader had the same electors, the person who gets the most votes gets the electors.

I did a quick search on the topic and found this:


As of 2000, the District of Columbia and all states except Maine and Nebraska had adopted the winner-take-all system. Under the winner-take-all system, the electors assigned to the candidate who won most of the vote in their state are all represented in the electoral college. Maine and Nebraska, however, employ the district system. Under this system, two electors are awarded to the winner of the statewide popular vote, and the remaining electors are awarded to the popular vote winner in each of the state’s congressional districts.

Only a handful of states print the names of candidates for elector on the ballot. In the vast majority of states, when the voter votes for a party’s candidates for president and vice president, the voter is simply assumed to have voted for the party’s candidates for elector.

[dsc]

33. You are mixing up two different things

The above assumes that the electors for the candidates are different people. But if both Kerry and Nader have the same electors they will have the same elector on the ballot. To use my state as an example, my district will have an elector for Kerry, one for Bush and one for every other candidate on the ballot. I actually vote for the elector even though the name of the candidate is on the ballot. If Nader and Kerry have the same elector then I and a Nader voter are voting for the same person. Thus that person, whomever he or she is will get both my vote and the Nader supporter's.

[mydawgmax]

34. But the votes aren't combined.

Yes, in theory you are voting for a slate of candidates. But the vote is for Kerry's slate, Nader's slate, or bush's slate. Not Kerry and Naders slate or bush's slate. That Kerrys' and Naders' electors are the same people dosen't mean the vote totals of those candidates are combined for purposes of determining the winner of the popular vote. If Nader won the popular vote, and shared electors with Kery, then yes that may be one way to keep Nader from spoiling, but I think we are talking about situations where bush win's the popular vote becuase of a Kerry/nader split. In that case, bush's slate of electors goes to the electoral college.

[dsc]

35. They would be combined here

You don't vote for Kerry, you vote for Kerry's elector and the elector with them most votes wins. These votes would be combined.

[BeFree]

28. Ya know what Nader wants??

He wants his hands on a sum equal to what Kerry will get from the public campaign funds. IIRC, it's up to $75 million this time around.

[JHBowden]

29. Oh. I thought it would be running in 2012.

:shrug:

[cosmik debris]

31. "If he were serious!"

It all boils down to Nader's motives. I can not ascribe motive to a person I do not know, but I can question the motives he says drive his campaign. And I can ask how he measures success. And I can ask if I want his version of success.

I don't understand his stated motives. I don't understand what he expects to achieve (i.e. what is success to him). And I can't comprehend how that success will assist in the defeat of the BFEE. (assuming that he wants to defeat the BFEE)

Anyone out there in DU land who can explain these things.