but had Perot not run, Clinton would've lost... Perot got many more votes. And how often do you hear Republicans go crazy on Perot? Lets be adults. If you hate Bush's policies, blame Bush.
shareI agree with your last statement, but Bush ultimately won both times due to vote fraud. Greg Palast's book "Armed Madhouse" documents an unbelievable amount of evidence to back this up. It's amazing that this information is out there, has been for years in fact, and yet that man has sat in the White House for nearly two full terms.
Hoping for the rush of some experience that could elevate me Up Above the Daily Hum
Nader is not the reason Bush won, Gore is the reason Bush won.
shareNo really, read about the vote fraud- there are plenty of websites dedicated to the topic and I doubt Palast is the only one who's published a book about it (the book is about a lot of things, but that covers about 2 chapters). Gore should have challenged the win- it's disturbing to wonder why he didn't- but he didn't actually lose the election. So many votes were simply trashed, so many voters denied access to the polls. But not just that, the Republicans and election officials used a lot of different maneuvers. And it was orchestrated so that this sort of stuff went on in poorer, mostly Democrat-voting areas. I'm sure that Gore legitimately won. But it's true that he could have won by a much larger margin if he wasn't such a coward.
Someone explain to me why he's such a hero lately? Did he invent environmentalism or something? His family got rich off the oil industry- the company his father worked for destroyed Ecuador's rainforests. Can't we find someone else to pin laurels on for the work that's being done for the environment? I watch this man accept all this praise, and I feel terrible for the unsung heroes out there.
Hoping for the rush of some experience that could elevate me Up Above the Daily Hum
Polls at the time showed Perot was taking votes from both Democrats and Republicans. His message about reducing the Reagan/Bush deficits that we were saddling our kids with resonated with liberals too. Nader's support on the other hand came exclusively from voters leaning Democratic. Nader received much of his financing from rich Republicans...not because they believed in his policies...but because it would split the Democratic vote...which it DID! Anyone that doesn't acknowledge that Nader is directly responsible for the largest budget surplus being turned into the largest deficit is just fooling themselves.
shareI know quite a few people that voted for Nader, and none were registered as Democrats. Several were registered as Republicans. Some, like me, are Independents. So you're wrong, and the Republicans were stupid if they donated to Nader's campaign to split the Dem vote, especially since they stole the election anyway. That kid that got tasered at UF knew what he was talking about. Read Armed Madhouse.
And that's what makes me cool- not caring. Right? -Marge Simpson
Palast rocks. Ralph rocks. I will hear no argument.
"POWER TO THE PEOPLE WHO PUNISH BAD CINEMA!!!"
[deleted]
not to mention al gore won the popular vote and still lost!!!
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm
and here michael moore points the finger at monica moorehead before he turns his back on ralph nader...
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2000-1 1-17
You're wrong in facts and in logic. A vote is a vote. You vote for who you think should be president. That's what a democracy is all about. You don't get a campaign to intimidate people into voting for your candidate (Gore), then complain later that votes for Nader were deserved for Gore.
That is what the bandwagon of Democrats did in 2000 and you fell for it.
The two-party system in America is a farce. Wake up!!
Would you classify that as a launch problem or a design problem?-Real Genius
[deleted]
The winner takes all system is just a flawed principle not to mention the electoral votes per state principle. You can theoretically become president by winning the 11 biggest states by a single vote (difference) and you could afford to lose all other states unanimously with a 100% turnout. The popular vote could be 30 million to 11 votes and the candidate getting 11 voters would win the election.
At the very least a proportionate delegation should be included but there is another problem besides the popular vote argument. The other problem that you could have a race between a Communist, 20 Democrats and 20 Republicans if the electorate is 4% Communist, 48% Republican and 48% Democratic spread over the states and all the candidates were as strong, you'd get a Communist president that is likely only backed by 4% with 96% of the voters kicking themselves in the head. I bet most Nader voters would probably voted Kerry if they really thought that Bush would have been the alternative if they didn't.
just to add something here...there are more registered Democrats in 2000 that voted for Bush than all the combined votes for Ralph Nader. That should tell the OP something.
Would you classify that as a launch problem or a design problem?-Real Genius