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

Ok Nader considers the challenge of getting the required signatures to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states as a independent as hard as climbing a cliff with a slippery rope. How do you American's rate his chances of doing so in your state?

Based on the fact that last time he had a party machine, however small behind him. How many states do you reckon he get unto the ballot of without that back up?

OK so when a Cartoon strip makes the political news on the BBC you sit up and take notice.

When that cartoon strip is an American syndicated strip not one of Britain's own dearly beoved you become intriged.

When that strip is offering $10,000 for a verified witness to the presence of a Presidential Candiate during a lost weekend-year in 1972 ie 1972. You really take notice.

Do you think anybody will actually be able to claim Doonebury bounty on G.W. Bush's whereabouts during the Vietnam war?

I doubt it. According to the Doonesbury web site, folks in Texas and Alabama offered a $2,000 reward for the same evidence two years ago and no one came forward.

On the Nader issue, how many signatures does it take to get on the ballot? Does it vary by state/population? And can you believe that I (an American citizen) am asking an Irishman this question?

I know the answer which is more embarresing.

It depends on the Size of hte state. Ie you need more signatures in California than in Rhode Island for obvious reasons.

Actually just looked it up it says 5% of the registered Electorate are required.

I don't think he'll manage it. To have decided at such a late date that he'll stand smacks of impulsiveness. I don't think he'll even be allowed to participate in any debates.

Do you think there WILL be any debates? Kerry will know enough not to sigh with exasperation, but Bush's handlers may be wary of letting him loose to speak on his own.

I saw a headline in passing that a former girlfriend is vouching for his whereabouts. So that makes it official, eh?

Aha so he wasn't campaigning as such. Merely taking some R&R.

Lucky devil.

Bush is in the middle of a news conference where he is calling for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The purpose of this is to "protect marriage". I don't know what he is trying to protect it from.

From the Brothers and Brothers and sisters and sisters who want to get marreid I guess.

The 5% is based off of how Nader did in the last election. He would qualify for federal election funds if he had recieved 5% of the vote, he only got 2.7%.

Hold both Nader and anyone who votes for Nader resposible for Dubya's election; further I think it is wrong for him to stand. Let me explain...

Take a look at the when 3rd parties have risen to power historically in the US. The main cases are around the Civil War and before. Because of the electoral rules, 3rd parties have originated as regional entities. By winning elections based on regional issues, they are able to enter office, and demonstrate their ability to run government. This can be state and local, and also as congress members. Once they are viable in a region, then they contest local elections in other regions, and eventually the presidency.

The green party is having none of this. They are attempting to go straight to the presidency. This makes them either ignorant of the electoral rules & history, or they are not serious about trying to win. Either way, they don't deserve to be voted for.

dave

That seems to be a very "Status Quo" prevails view of politics Dave.

All across Europe ('cert here in the UK it seems) Green Parties have sprund up over the last 20-30 years in just the way Nader is trying. People supported them even though they were loosing badly not because they thought that they could win; or that the was a regional reason for doing it. But because they thought it was right. Greens went from being seeing as Crackpots as recently as 15-20 years ago to serious political canditates by contesting elections and getting the message across. That is probably what the Greens are trying stateside too.

I agree with ferretbadger here. The Greens are a force to be reckoned with in most of Europe they even have 6 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.

However Dave if you say you are a Democrat, why are you worried about anybody seeking a Democratic mandate? American is one of the few countries in teh world where only two parties have all the seats in both their representative houses. Others have a selection of minor parties whose opinion needs to be noted by the big parties and sometiume concession are made to minor parties to allo alliances to be forged. That is a fact in most democracies, except the UK cause of their voting system and the US even more so with their winner takes all attitude.

I think what dave is trying to say is that the only time we hear anything about the Green Party over here is when there's a presidential election, and what they ought to be doing is concentrating their forces a bit more at the regional level the way the Christian fundamentalists have done. The Fundies are going at it one school board or town council at a time, amassing their power so that they have caucus power when national politics falls due.

And that's what Greens ought to be doing.

There has never been a viable 3rd party in the US there have always been 2. It's like the Sith have control of politics in the US.

First we had the Federalists and the Whigs.
Then we had the Whigs and the Democratic-Republicans.
Now we have the Democrats and Republicans.

Ironic that the 2 parties we have now were once one and the same.

I understand that the green movement is a force to be reckoned with; I agree with them on a lot of issues. I also understand that they have power in Europe.

What I mainly wanted to point out was the fact that the US greens are not trying to win, b/c they're not playing by the electoral rules in the US.

In europe, for example, a nationwide vote of 5% will get you representation in a national assembly/congress. Not true in the US - you need to win a district outright to get your seat. That's why greens have power in Europe and not the US.

The US greens need to either change the electoral rules, or try to win by them.

Incidentally, Nader is running (like Ross Perot before him) as an Independent in this election. In 2000, he received 6% of the vote here in Montana--higher than the national average. I don't think he'll do so well this time, as there is more of a feeling around the country among a lot of voters on the left that Bush has to go. I think they will be less likely to split their vote on Nader this time. I do support his right to run--as I would any American's--and I also I fully support having a multi-party system in this country.

good point Lil, I hadn't actually thought about that, but it is annoying that the greens only show up on the radar during presidential elections. That is the smoking gun. I actually hear more from the libertarians in local elections than the greens.

Good point GDZ...but there has been a third party presence, however briefly, as we've switched from one set of 2 parties to another. From what I studied, the "new" party which stepped in started as a local/regional movement.

As a friend of mine who's in law school just pointed out to me, if Shrub has to seek a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, that logically (and quite probably legally) means that it's currently constitutional. Since the framers stated that anything specifically not IN the Constitution should be up to the individual states.

Food for thought, eh?

good point MR...and as already being constitutional, that makes it much more defensible.

I can understand religious people wanting to defend marriage - that's fine. If they want the definition of marriage to be only between a man and woman, then they need to remove ANY and ALL cases in which the government has anything to do with marriage. Separation of Church & State, plain and simple.

Then the government can have laws regarding civil unions (tax breaks, inheritance, etc.) and people can be married in their church, temple, etc. and legally joined elsewhere.

dave