Judge Orders Nader Name Off Fla. Ballot

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-09-15 09:56pm

Nader

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-15 09:58pm

Link not found.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-15 09:59pm

Gandalf wrote:Link not found.

Ditto. But going by the title...

Can he even do that?!?

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-09-15 10:04pm

Let me try again:

Nader

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-15 10:10pm

And the Kerry campaign finally gets thrown a bone.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-15 10:13pm

Joe wrote:And the Kerry campaign finally gets thrown a bone.

The lawsuit is part of a national effort by Democrats to keep Nader off ballots in states where he could siphon votes from Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry

Funny, I never recall the GOP doing this with Perot

RedX · Post by **RedX** » 2004-09-15 10:19pm

This is not a valid electioneering tactic...

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-09-15 10:22pm

It seems that the Democrats are more concerned with getting Nader off of the ballot than Bush out of office, and the Republicans are giving more money to Nader's capmaign than to Bush's.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-15 10:28pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Joe wrote:And the Kerry campaign finally gets thrown a bone.
The lawsuit is part of a national effort by Democrats to keep Nader off ballots in states where he could siphon votes from Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry

Funny, I never recall the GOP doing this with Perot

Yet I seem to recall the GOP actively campaigning to get Nader on the ballot on swing states.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-15 10:30pm

Durandal wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Joe wrote:And the Kerry campaign finally gets thrown a bone.
The lawsuit is part of a national effort by Democrats to keep Nader off ballots in states where he could siphon votes from Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry

Funny, I never recall the GOP doing this with Perot
Yet I seem to recall the GOP actively campaigning to get Nader on the ballot on swing states.

Which is the entire reason behind this lawsuit, bogus signatures given by people who have no intention of voting for Nader and only sign to ciphon votes from Kerry.

Given these circumstances, the lawsuit is perfectly justifiable.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-15 10:36pm

I don't recall any law stating that you have to vote for a particular candidate if you sign a petition that'll put him on the ballot.

It may be unethical to do so, but it's certainly not illegal.

Besides the Democrats case is built around the theory that the Reform Party isn't a legitimate national party. Bogus petitions don't have anything to do with it.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-15 10:40pm

Bah, forgot to include the quote from the article:

Democrats have sued to keep Nader off the ballot, arguing the Reform Party is no longer a legitimate national party and that Florida election laws requiring minor candidates to qualify by petition or through a nominating convention weren't followed.

My understanding is that the Naderites claimed they were a national party and didn't need to file petitions or hold a nominating convention.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-15 10:45pm

Glocksman wrote:I don't recall any law stating that you have to vote for a particular candidate if you sign a petition that'll put him on the ballot.

It may be unethical to do so, but it's certainly not illegal.

Besides the Democrats case is built around the theory that the Reform Party isn't a legitimate national party. Bogus petitions don't have anything to do with it.

Okay then, but it doesn't really make it unethical for the Dems to respond in kind it getting Nader off the ballot. After all, if the GOP is going to use legal but highly unethical tactics to put Nader on the ballot, then I don't have any problem with the Dems doing the same.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-09-15 10:46pm

The Kernel wrote:Which is the entire reason behind this lawsuit, bogus signatures given by people who have no intention of voting for Nader and only sign to ciphon votes from Kerry.

Doesn't matter. Nothing in the petitions mandates that signatories must be willing to vote for the guy. It just says that they want to have him on the ballot. That was a big deal in the CA gubernatorial recall. Lots of people signed the petition not wanting Davis out of office, but wanting to see him held up to public scrutiny. There's nothing wrong with that.

Given these circumstances, the lawsuit is perfectly justifiable.

Maybe, but not because people signed the petition without intending to vote for Ralph.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-15 10:49pm

The Kernel wrote:
Glocksman wrote:I don't recall any law stating that you have to vote for a particular candidate if you sign a petition that'll put him on the ballot.

It may be unethical to do so, but it's certainly not illegal.

Besides the Democrats case is built around the theory that the Reform Party isn't a legitimate national party. Bogus petitions don't have anything to do with it.
Okay then, but it doesn't really make it unethical for the Dems to respond in kind it getting Nader off the ballot. After all, if the GOP is going to use legal but highly unethical tactics to put Nader on the ballot, then I don't have any problem with the Dems doing the same.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, I could make the case that the Republicans are merely aiding democracy here by enlarging the pool of candidates on the ballot to give the people more choices.

Of course we both know that's bullshit, but keeping a candidate off of a ballot looks worse to someone who doesn't know what the score is than helping to put one on the ballot.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-15 10:54pm

I could make the case that the Democrats are aiding our two-party system by restricting the ballot to two parties.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-09-15 10:58pm

Durandal wrote:I could make the case that the Democrats are aiding our two-party system by restricting the ballot to two parties.

And I could make the case that the two-party system is a crappy idea. We could play what-if all day long.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-09-15 10:58pm

Durandal wrote:I could make the case that the Democrats are aiding our two-party system by restricting the ballot to two parties.

So, a party that prides itself on liberalism is going to strut their stuff by preventing people from having a potentially reasonable candidate on the ballot?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-09-15 11:10pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Durandal wrote:I could make the case that the Democrats are aiding our two-party system by restricting the ballot to two parties.
So, a party that prides itself on liberalism is going to strut their stuff by preventing people from having a potentially reasonable candidate on the ballot?

When the opposing party has been duping people into signing petitions to get Nader's name on the ballot? Sure. It's in response to the GOP's actions.

Honestly, what do you expect them to do?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-15 11:18pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Durandal wrote:I could make the case that the Democrats are aiding our two-party system by restricting the ballot to two parties.
So, a party that prides itself on liberalism is going to strut their stuff by preventing people from having a potentially reasonable candidate on the ballot?

They'd be comitting political suicide by not doing that. What do you expect them to do? Remember what happened when Max Cleland stuck to his morals?

Politics is about compromise and unfortunately, in this case the Dems can't afford not to fight Nader.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-09-15 11:18pm

Durandal wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Durandal wrote:I could make the case that the Democrats are aiding our two-party system by restricting the ballot to two parties.
So, a party that prides itself on liberalism is going to strut their stuff by preventing people from having a potentially reasonable candidate on the ballot?
When the opposing party has been duping people into signing petitions to get Nader's name on the ballot? Sure. It's in response to the GOP's actions.

Honestly, what do you expect them to do?

God, the wankery. It hurts. The Dems can do no wrong, the Reps can do no right. How about we let people vote for whoever the hell they want? I'm sure SOME people really do want to vote for Nader, are you willing to deny them their rights as American citizens?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-15 11:19pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote: God, the wankery. It hurts. The Dems can do no wrong, the Reps can do no right. How about we let people vote for whoever the hell they want? I'm sure SOME people really do want to vote for Nader, are you willing to deny them their rights as American citizens?

If they want to vote for him, they of course have the right to write his name into the ballot. No one is stopping them from voting for him.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-09-15 11:20pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:God, the wankery. It hurts. The Dems can do no wrong, the Reps can do no right. How about we let people vote for whoever the hell they want? I'm sure SOME people really do want to vote for Nader, are you willing to deny them their rights as American citizens?

If the method by which his name was placed on the ballot was illegal... Yep. But hey, don't let that stop the 'OMFG COMMIES' nonsense that comes up because they're seeking to stop a practice which violates procedure.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-15 11:21pm

When the opposing party has been duping people into signing petitions to get Nader's name on the ballot? Sure. It's in response to the GOP's actions.

Just how do you 'dupe' someone into signing a Nader petition?
Republicans may be signing them, but they weren't duped into doing so.

Either way, I don't expect the Democrats to stand by and let Nader bleed off some of their support, though IMHO they're making same mistake that Gore made 4 years ago.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gore lost not because of Nader in Florida. He lost because he couldn't even carry his home state or Bill Clinton's home state. Not to mention the former Democratic stronghold of W.Virginia.

Gore lost these states because he couldn't keep his mouth shut about gun control and paraded around with Sarah Brady. Why is Kerry dancing down the same path? Sure it's an issue that polls show broad support for, but that support is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's not an issue that'll win elections for you outside of the areas that are Kerry locks regardless of what he says on guns.

But as Gore found out, pro-gun people tend to be passionate and unforgiving to those they see as being against them.

If I were running Kerry's campaign, I wouldn't let him get within a mile of Sarah Brady because his recent comments on the AWB and pictures taken with her are going to undo any good that his earlier hunting photo ops did for him among the hunting/gun crowd. And in certain swing states, this will mean the difference between defeat and victory.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-09-15 11:28pm

SirNitram wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:God, the wankery. It hurts. The Dems can do no wrong, the Reps can do no right. How about we let people vote for whoever the hell they want? I'm sure SOME people really do want to vote for Nader, are you willing to deny them their rights as American citizens?
If the method by which his name was placed on the ballot was illegal... Yep. But hey, don't let that stop the 'OMFG COMMIES' nonsense that comes up because they're seeking to stop a practice which violates procedure.

But it wasn't illegal. Underhanded, yes, illegal, no.