On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:19:12 GMT, "Bob C in Idaho"
wrote:

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican
George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

The Greens received 97,488 votes and the votes cast for all other candidates
and write-ins amounted to 40,579 --grand total of 138,067. So one could
logically conclude from these figures that NO votes cast for Ralph Nader had
any affect on the outcome. However, had registered Democrats trusted their
parties choice, George Bush would likely be reading comic books at his Texas
ranch rather than in the White House.

If figures don't impress you, please, explain how you can conclude that
votes not cast for Nader (or any of the other non-major candidates)
automatically convert in to votes for Gore?

Bob C.
Idahoan for Nader

"rw" wrote in message
link.net...
Bob in Idaho wrote:
Precisely! Votes cast for Ralph Nader have absolutely no affect on the
outcome of the race between the two main candidates, no matter where
those
votes were are cast.

How about, for example, Florida in 2000?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Absolutely illogical. If only 1000 Naderites had voted for Gore
instead of Ralf, then we wouldn't have the assholes we currently have
in control of the Whitehouse. Perhaps other assholes but certainly not
the ones there now. In the system we have now, with no run off
elections between the two top vote getters third parties will always
have the effect of tilting the election one way or another.


g.c.

If only 1000 of the 200,000 Democrats hadn't voted for Bush, your argument
would have some relevance within the context of the preceding post.

Bob C
Idahoan for Nader
"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:19:12 GMT, "Bob C in Idaho"
wrote:

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican
George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

The Greens received 97,488 votes and the votes cast for all other
candidates
and write-ins amounted to 40,579 --grand total of 138,067. So one could
logically conclude from these figures that NO votes cast for Ralph Nader
had
any affect on the outcome. However, had registered Democrats trusted
their
parties choice, George Bush would likely be reading comic books at his
Texas
ranch rather than in the White House.

If figures don't impress you, please, explain how you can conclude that
votes not cast for Nader (or any of the other non-major candidates)
automatically convert in to votes for Gore?

Bob C.
Idahoan for Nader

"rw" wrote in message
link.net...
Bob in Idaho wrote:
Precisely! Votes cast for Ralph Nader have absolutely no affect on
the
outcome of the race between the two main candidates, no matter where
those
votes were are cast.

How about, for example, Florida in 2000?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Absolutely illogical. If only 1000 Naderites had voted for Gore
instead of Ralf, then we wouldn't have the assholes we currently have
in control of the Whitehouse. Perhaps other assholes but certainly not
the ones there now. In the system we have now, with no run off
elections between the two top vote getters third parties will always
have the effect of tilting the election one way or another.


g.c.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:59:27 GMT, "Bob C in Idaho"
wrote:

If only 1000 of the 200,000 Democrats hadn't voted for Bush, your argument
would have some relevance within the context of the preceding post.

Bob C
Idahoan for Nader
You're equivocating.

g.c.

Fix the election System, Don't Blame Nader
From http://www.systemsthinker.com/writin...amenader.shtml

The "spoiler" issue is actually a flaw in our election system, and we
don't have to put up with it. We can fix that problem. We are working
to do just that in Ferndale, Michigan through a system called Instant
Runoff Voting. It is used all over the world, is endorsed by John
McCain, Howard Dean, and USA Today, and would make sure there are
never spoilers again in American elections. For more information
visit, http://www.firv.org and http://www.fairvote.org/irv

Democrats and Republicans need to stop complaining about third parties
"spoiling" elections unless they are willing to support Instant Runoff
Voting to ensure it never happens again. If they won't support this
common sense reform, then there is really no alternative to third
parties but to continue having their voices heard by running anyways.
Imagine if as much energy was put into fixing the fundamental problem
in the election system as is put towards discouraging and vilifying
third party candidates who really represent the victims of the system
enforced by the two major parties themselves.

Also See: http://www.firv.org/pressreleases/naderirvpr22204.html

Detroit Free Press article in support of IRV due to Nader:
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/d...5_20040225.htm

Oakland Press article in support of IRV due to Nader:
http://www.fairvote.org/editorials/oakland.htm

For more of Ferndale for Instant Runoff Voting In The News see
http://www.firv.org/inthenews.html


George Cleveland wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:59:27 GMT, "Bob C in Idaho"
wrote:

If only 1000 of the 200,000 Democrats hadn't voted for Bush, your argument
would have some relevance within the context of the preceding post.

Bob C
Idahoan for Nader
You're equivocating.

g.c.

Instant runoff sounds handy for those mornings on the Canyon when your boat
is stranded on the beach, or when the slot in Grim Reaper on the Lochsa is
too narrow for my boat to thread through . . . I'd vote for that.

How is it that I am "equivocating," when registered voters of the Democratic
Party couldn't bring themselves to vote for their own parties choice for
POTUSA If you wish to blame some individuals/entities for G.W. Bush's
current residence, look no further than the Democratic Party and its
disillusioned members, but don't blame other parties nor their supporters
for the short-comings of the Democratic Party.

You anti-Nader folks might want to take a civics refresher course or two.
Last check, our political system was still a multi-party system. Thus,
people are free to vote for the candidate of their choosing, even if that
candidate isn't the one that you would like to see win the office of POTUSA
or dog catcher for that matter.

Sour grapes are not very tasty nor are they a convincing political argument.

Bob C.
Idahoan for Nader


"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:59:27 GMT, "Bob C in Idaho"
wrote:

If only 1000 of the 200,000 Democrats hadn't voted for Bush, your
argument
would have some relevance within the context of the preceding post.

Bob C
Idahoan for Nader
You're equivocating.

g.c.

This poster believes that casting a vote for a major party candidate is
futile. Meanwhile, he spends his time posting political drivel to a
paddling newsgroup. Those Nader people really have their priorities
straight, don't they?

nielsdt

"Bob in Idaho" wrote in message
...
Precisely! Votes cast for Ralph Nader have absolutely no affect on the
outcome of the race between the two main candidates, no matter where those
votes were are cast.

Bob C.
Idahoan for Nader
"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
Bob in Idaho wrote:
Spoken like a truly arrogant Fascist.

Bob C.
Idahoan for Ralph Nader

Supporting Ralph Nader in Idaho is a perfect example of futility and
ineffectuality. Fortunately for those of us who are sane, your
particular vote for Ralph, assuming he even makes it onto the ballot,
won't make a damn bit of difference.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article ,
Howard wrote:
Fix the election System, Don't Blame Nader
From http://www.systemsthinker.com/writin...amenader.shtml

The "spoiler" issue is actually a flaw in our election system, and we
don't have to put up with it. We can fix that problem. We are working
to do just that in Ferndale, Michigan through a system called Instant
Runoff Voting. It is used all over the world, is endorsed by John
McCain, Howard Dean, and USA Today, and would make sure there are
never spoilers again in American elections. For more information
visit, http://www.firv.org and http://www.fairvote.org/irv

Well, when you get right down to it, why not just require that everybody
vote for A or B. Simply disallow 3rd party votes, and you won't need
"runoffs".

Note that much of the (civilized) world has made election participation
mandatory, so it is a small step from there to making it mandatory that you
vote for one or other of the majors.

And, what does this have to do with OKBridge?

Bob in Idaho wrote:
How is it that I am "equivocating," when registered voters of the Democratic
Party couldn't bring themselves to vote for their own parties choice for
POTUSA

You are equivocating because there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that if Nader
hadn't run in 2000, then Gore would be President today. Case closed.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Bob in Idaho wrote:
How is it that I am "equivocating," when registered voters of the
Democratic
Party couldn't bring themselves to vote for their own parties choice for
POTUSA

You are equivocating because there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that if Nader
hadn't run in 2000, then Gore would be President today. Case closed.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

yep. directed verdict for the plaintiff, rw.

wayno (hell, this judge stuff is *easy*)