h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Old and vain, Ralph Nader needs the political spotlights to comfort him, while he knows that his efforts will never succeed and at least one time, but I would say two times, we would not have a Republican president if he would not have stepped in.

I do not want to say that my reaction now, would be for any "independant". Most of the times I would have voted for them.

But Nader is far to left to ever win and in the current circumstances it will be a very close race between Rep. and Dem.

I always vote at a social democratic party in The Netherlands.

I would never vote for a Republican, but I must say that I feel tempted to vote at Mc Cain, because he once was a serious and inspiring "independant". Ten years earlier it was someone else as Independent who was also a charismatic person with fresh ideas and political attitude.

That two party system is suffocating.

Without Ralph Nader we had had (or still have) Al Gore.
One is not only responsable for the principles, but also for the results of one's actions.

"Without Ralph Nader we had had (or still have) Al Gore."

This is bad thinking. If the elections in Florida had been conducted properly Bush wouldn't have been elected. If Gore hadn't run such a weak campaign Bush wouldn't have been elected.

There are good reasons not to vote for Nader at the coming elections, and for being annoyed with him for standing, but blaming him for Bush is a bad reason.

Why is this a bad reason? Because the logical conclusion of that type of thinking is that nobody should ever stand for election who isn't a Dem or a Rep - and this is a recipe for anti-democratic, elitist politics, even worse than the current system.

"Without Ralph Nader we had had (or still have) Al Gore."

Grr. A candidate stands that people vote for. In fact, enough people voted for him that it affected the outcome of an election! Scumbag!

I vote we suspend democracy in its entirety because of this sweeping stament, and let Alfredo pick who should lead different countries.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,

You cannot isolate your actions from the world around you.

Ralph Nader even accepted lots of money from the Republicans.
, because they know that those who vote for Nader, would have voted for the democrats.

Yes, the world would have been a far better place when he was not just searching publicity.

He can be blamed for what Bush is doing, because he could know that before elections.

His vain is extremely more important for him than the "principals" he says to have.

There should be some counteraction, although he might turn that in "I am a victim".

The war in Iraq, global warming without promises from the USA and much more can be blamed on Nader in the second place.

Again and again he creates victories for those that have opposite principals as he said to have.
He doesn't have these anylonger.
He want to be at the tele and does not feel responsable for the result of his own actions.

Well, O.K., let him speek in his "campaign", but one might expect that a month before election he should pull back.

Nader is to blaim more than Bush.
He could have prevented Bush being president, but he choose to be part of the talk shows and didn't give a damn of the consequences.


Amsterdam., Alfredo

In New Zealand if we hadn't voted for small parties at the risk of the conservative right winning then we'd never have broken the two party monopoly. Instead, the small parties got enough power to ensure that the whole electoral system was overhauled and it is a *much* fairer system now.

Nader fulfils an important function in US politics.

He certainly can't be blamed for Bush Inc stealing those elections.

I do think Nader receives a disproportionate amount of the blame - but I don't think he is entirely blameless. Given how unbelievably bad Bush has been, it's makes Nader's small contribution to the situation seem larger.

Nay worries.

A democrat will win next time. I'd put my house on it.



Kea we have this small rather nasty party here called the British National Party, basically fascist. Under PR they'd probably have a few reps by now, and be growing as a party as the fascists have in France.

It might suit NZ to be all nicey nicey liberal and fair. But I for one wouldn't that system here, under any circumstances.

We have ACT, which isn't a racist party but which represents a very extreme aspect of society (far right libertarians). They have lots of money and they had several MPs in parliament for a while, but have faded in recent years. They've never been part of a government, although I think they have supported National governments on confidence and supply. But that has been balanced by the other small parties influence on the main party in govt.

The reason ACT faded is because people realised how extreme their views are since they've been in parliament. So I think there is a self-limiting thing that works with MMP, at least in NZ.

Prior to MMP, some of those ACT MPs were MPs in the Labour and National governments in the previous decades . I think MMP is safer than FPP because it draws out the fascists into the public. There will be BNP supporters already in your government but they won't be being honest about it because they know they wouldn't get voted for (or even be allowed to stand).


I'm not sure about NZ being nicey nicey liberal and fair. We did have a far right government (first Labour then National) for 15 years before people came to their senses.

The other thing to remember is that the BNP are prominent because they have money, and because they are getting savvy about PR and issues that people already feel emotional about. That needs to be balanced by the left, which you don't really have any more. Without a proper left there is an inevitable shift to the right. The best thing about MMP is that it forces policy to be debated in public in ways that give more power to the public. You don't get that under FPP.

I've mentioned this elsewhere in a different context.

New Zealand is plonked out right in the middle of nowhere in the southern pacific. The UK is part of the EU and prone to all sorts of immigration pressures and influences from the myriad of cultures of Europe.

What works for New Zealand won't work in the UK. I guarantee you it will just be one heap of trouble if we go for PR.

I think SWL probably agrees with you Kea. 'We don't have democracy at all. We have a joke system that's been fiddled and butchered beyond all recognition. It's not who you vote for in this country, but where you vote.' SWL His post 71 from the thread about 'who should we deny the vote to' http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=5126329&skip=60&show=20 You have a nice bedfellow there for voting reform, Kea.

>>
New Zealand is plonked out right in the middle of nowhere in the southern pacific. The UK is part of the EU and prone to all sorts of immigration pressures and influences from the myriad of cultures of Europe.
<<

OMG, are you kidding? You think there are no issues here in terms of different cultures?

I agree that the situations are different. I'm not suggesting that the UK adopt the electoral system that NZ has. I am suggesting that the UK undergoes a process of electoral reform that works in the context of your situation.

Can you tell me how to get the left back in the UK if you don't reform the electoral system?


Likewise with the US, and it's why I think Nader is a good influence.

I'm pretty sure SWL is against PR.

Anyway, over in Blighty, the Independent Commission on the Voting System recommended quite a nice PR system called AV+, which you can read about here:

http://www.makevotescount.org.uk/avplus.shtml

or the complete report by the commission:

http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/contents.htm

I think SWL basically wants the Queen back in charge.

<>

He's against politicians full stop. Possibly not the most constructive idea...

Can anyone explain why the US has 535 Congressmen & Senators to run a country of 301 million people, while Britain has 875 MPs, MSPs, MEPs etc to run a population of only 61 million?

Oh, I forgot about the 738 Lords in the House of Lords which can be added to that lot.

You also forgot about the 50 state senates. I think states have bicameral houses as well, so you aren't really comparing like with like. How unusual.

What would be a more accurate figure to compare with the 1600+ politicians (not counting councillors) then?

I dunno. More to the point, neither do you.

SWL - b/c the US is wicked retarded?