I found this article regarding Ralph Nader at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6058887/
I just don’t understand why Nader wants to be on the ballot. Because his position is close to that of the democratic party, he is just going to “siphon votes from Kerry” (Ralph Nader’s on-and-off Monday, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6058887/)
I agree that we should have more choices in presidential candidates, but Nader doesn’t have a chance. It is undeniable that the Democratic and Republican parties will dominate the election, receiving the majority of the votes. Nader is nothing more than a “spoiler”.
Danny Liu
September 21, 2004
liux0529
Ralph Nader’s on-and-off Monday
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:17 p.m. ET Sept. 20, 2004
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Judges in New Mexico and Arkansas on Monday denied Ralph Nader access to the Nov. 2. ballot in those states, but the independent presidential hopeful won a spot on the ballot in Maryland.
In New Mexico, State District Judge Theresa Baca found that Nader does not qualify as an independent under state law because he is running in other states as the nominee for minor parties.
Baca’s decision came hours after another judge — who had issued a similar ruling last Friday — recused herself from the case after complaints about her $1,000 donation to Democrat John Kerry’s campaign.
The state Democratic Party had challenged Nader’s candidacy, as Democrats have done in other states. New Mexico election law defines an independent as someone not affiliated with a political party.
Nader’s campaign said it would appeal to New Mexico’s Supreme Court.
An appeal also was planned in Arkansas, where Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox ruled that more than 1,200 people who signed Nader’s petitions failed to declare him as their candidate, and ordered his name removed from the ballot. Fox said no specific party was listed as canvassers went about collecting signatures.
“We think this is a mistaken decision and we’ll appeal it to ensure that voters of Arkansas have more choices and not less,” said Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese.
State Democrats challenged the petitions, saying more than 360 signatures could not be matched in a state database.
In Maryland, Nader qualified for the ballot Monday after the state’s highest court ordered elections officials to accept 542 previously rejected petition signatures.
Democrats nationwide have challenged Nader’s ballot petitions, fearing his candidacy will siphon votes from Kerry, especially in battleground states like New Mexico. Many Democrats blame Nader’s presidential candidacy in 2000 for Democrat Al Gore’s loss.
Nader is on the ballot in 37 states and in litigation in seven of those. The campaign also is suing for ballot access in seven other states.
I think your view is a little of on why Nader is running for president. I assure you, he as well as everyone else in the country knows he has absolutly no chance in this election. However, what Nader stands for is pretty noble. This is supposed to be a democracy with free elections, yet there is (and for the most part always has been), a domination by two political parties. Im pretty sure he's just tying to at least put a foot in the door for a third party, even the ross perot did a much better job than he's doing.
Not to mention, he can provide an alternative to voting for one of the lesser of two evils.
Joseph Goss
Posted by: Joseph Goss at September 22, 2004 12:28 AMDid you know that the only third party cadidate to become president was Abraham Lincon? Back in the Day, the two major parties were the whig party and the Democrat-Republican party. Yes, the democrats and Republicans were a part of the same party. Well any ways, the Democrat Republican Party split in half over a very contriversial issue of the time called slavery. Old Abe started his own 3rd party and were called the Republicans and ran for the presidency. Then the rest is history.
This poses an interseting question- If Abe was republican and was against slavery and ended it, why is the majority of the blacks in the Unided States Democrats?
Posted by: Beth Sandager at September 28, 2004 10:23 AMthe majority of blacks are democrats because the republicans and democrates have pretty much switched platforms
Posted by: Tom Weaver at October 1, 2004 11:17 PMWe need more than just two options for voting. Everything in this world is not black and white. There are always more than two ways of looking at things. Just because Nader doesn't have a chance, shouldn't mean that he is not put on the ballot. It's about time that a new party is taking a stand.
Posted by: Hallie at October 3, 2004 02:32 PM