Warning: message contains Nader

[labingi]

This is a very abridged version of an open letter I've written to Nader supporters. (It's not nasty!) But if you don't want to read more about the Nader vs. Kerry debate, read no further.

Letter to Nader Supporters:

If you're thinking of voting for Nader, then, like me, you doubtless dream of living in country where you can vote for the people you believe in without being harassed for it by people who actually agree with you! You want to fix our broken "democracy." Sadly, a vote for Nader is not going help do that. Election after election, alternative candidates lose, and we who support them end up with zero representation.

We can only break this cycle by eliminating vote splitting.

One way of doing this is instant runoff voting (IRV).

Under this system, you can rank candidates by preference. The rankings simulate runoff elections. Say you rank Nader as 1 and Kerry as 2. Nader comes in last, is eliminated, and your vote rolls over to Kerry. With the help of your vote, Kerry gets over 50%. Result: Bush loses.

But you don’t just want Bush to lose; you want an alternative candidate to be able to win! IRV makes that dream possible. When voters learn that their vote can’t “spoil” an election, more of them will vote their conscience, and third parties will have a chance to become politically viable. It won’t happen overnight. But if you support Nader, you’re already in this for the long haul.

If you want Nader, you need IRV first.

If you want to fix our broken democracy and NOT help reelect Bush, please put your vote behind Kerry and your activist gumption behind IRV.

For more info., check out Fairvote.org at <http://www.fairvote.org/irv/>.

[Third EYe]

I want to understand why you think a vote for Nader is a vote lost for Kerry? Nader isn't all that close to Kerry in his politics. I think the diferences make those two as far apart as Bush and Kerry.

I think a vote for Nader is going to hurt Bush.

[Darth Buddha]

This is a very abridged version of an open letter I've written to Nader supporters. (It's not nasty!) But if you don't want to read more about the Nader vs. Kerry debate, read no further.

Letter to Nader Supporters:

If you're thinking of voting for Nader, then, like me, you doubtless dream of living in country where you can vote for the people you believe in without being harassed for it by people who actually agree with you! You want to fix our broken "democracy." Sadly, a vote for Nader is not going help do that. Election after election, alternative candidates lose, and we who support them end up with zero representation.

We can only break this cycle by eliminating vote splitting.

One way of doing this is instant runoff voting (IRV).

Under this system, you can rank candidates by preference. The rankings simulate runoff elections. Say you rank Nader as 1 and Kerry as 2. Nader comes in last, is eliminated, and your vote rolls over to Kerry. With the help of your vote, Kerry gets over 50%. Result: Bush loses.

But you don’t just want Bush to lose; you want an alternative candidate to be able to win! IRV makes that dream possible. When voters learn that their vote can’t “spoil” an election, more of them will vote their conscience, and third parties will have a chance to become politically viable. It won’t happen overnight. But if you support Nader, you’re already in this for the long haul.

If you want Nader, you need IRV first.

If you want to fix our broken democracy and NOT help reelect Bush, please put your vote behind Kerry and your activist gumption behind IRV.

For more info., check out Fairvote.org at <http://www.fairvote.org/irv/>.

IRV is an excellent idea.. that will never be accepted. As a math person, it is so simple as to be intuitive to me. But man on the street, especially man on the street in the red states, is never going to bother working through the math, and will automatically distrust it because it is new.

That is, after all, what conservative means.. the first definition, the earliest defintion from an etymological standpoint (Yes I know, Third EYe, I'm using facts again)

con·ser·va·tive
adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Conservatives will oppose this just because it is a change from what they know and more importantly, feel comfortable with.

I want to understand why you think a vote for Nader is a vote lost for Kerry? Nader isn't all that close to Kerry in his politics. I think the diferences make those two as far apart as Bush and Kerry.

I think a vote for Nader is going to hurt Bush.

O.K., then a vote for Perot hurt Bush I in the election against Clinton? That's demonstrably incorrect. Your argument is contrary to the record in this analogous instance.

Is Kerry to the left of GW? Is it POSSIBLE to be to the right of GW? Isn't Nader left of Kerry? So somebody who wants something to the left of Bush is better off voting for Kerry, who can win (for example, the 7 percentage points ahead of Bush in Florida right now.. MORE than the sampling error, no less?

Your argument may be the current Republican songbook, but it sure as hell doesn't hold water logically or historically.