LibriumArcana.Games

BBC

John McCain and Barack Obama are not the only candidates running for the White House this year.

They will be joined on the ballot by a number of minor party contenders, the most prominent of whom will be Ralph Nader, running this time as an independent, and Bob Barr, of the Libertarian Party.

Ralph Nader (L) and Bob Barr (R)
Ralph Nader (L) isn't likely to spring a surprise in 2008, but Bob Barr could

It's unlikely that even they themselves expect to be sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office once the election is over.

So, with little chance of taking more than a tiny fraction of the popular vote, why are these political Davids preparing to do battle against the Goliaths of the Democratic and Republican parties?

Ralph Nader produced strong evidence in 2000 that third-party candidates can have a big impact on the outcome of an election.

Running as the Green Party candidate, Mr Nader took just 2.74% of the nationwide vote - but in Florida he won 97,000 votes, while Democratic candidate Al Gore lost the state (and therefore the election) to George Bush by just 537 votes.

Ever since, Democrats have accused Mr Nader and his supporters of "handing victory to George W Bush".

Pet issues

Mr Nader maintains that the voters were free to choose whichever candidate they wanted - and that Mr Gore should have paid more attention to environmental issues if he wanted to win over Green Party voters.

Mr Nader's crucial role in the 2000 election certainly put his pet issues in the spotlight.

An election worker examines a ballot-paper during the Florida recount in 2000 (File picture)
The Florida recount in 2000 focused the media's attention on Mr Nader

Indeed, this is one of the key reasons why candidates with little chance of victory enter the race - they want to get publicity for their chosen cause, force the major parties to adopt some of their policies, and punish them at the polls if they do not.

This time round, Mr Nader is not expected to make such an impact.

But Bob Barr, for the Libertarians, is hoping to follow in Mr Nader's footsteps - and he could do to the Republicans what Mr Nader did to the Democrats in 2000.

Mr Barr is a former Republican congressman, who broke with the party after 9/11, in protest at what he saw as an increasing number of attacks on civil liberties from the Republican White House.

He went on to become a prominent opponent of the Iraq War and began voicing opposition to a number of his former party's more socially-conservative policies.

Air war

With the mood of the country now turning against the war - and the Republican Party brand - it's possible Mr Barr could pick up a number of anti-war voters who are disaffected with the Republican Party, but who still baulk at the idea of voting for a Democrat.

As a consequence, Mr Barr could eat into John McCain's support base, especially in Georgia (Mr Barr's home state) and in north-western states with a strong libertarian streak, such as Montana and Alaska.



If Obama is within a few points of winning [Montana or Alaska] come November, then he'll almost certainly be in position to score a sweeping electoral college route, no matter what effect Barr has

Steve Kornacki, New York Observer

In fact, if Mr Barr manages to pick up enough alienated Republicans, and if Mr Obama succeeds in rallying African-Americans, then Georgia could even flip into the Democratic column, just as Mr Nader's ability to woo Floridian Democrats allowed George Bush to win the Sunshine State in 2000.

So Mr Barr could have an impact in certain states - but it's debatable how decisive his role would be.

For Mr Obama to be doing well enough to be in a position to take Georgia with Mr Barr's help, the electoral maths suggests that he would already be beating John McCain by a wide margin - the election would already be his.

The same applies to Montana or Alaska, according to Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer. "If Obama is within a few points of winning either state come November, then he'll almost certainly be in position to score a sweeping electoral college route, no matter what effect Barr has," he writes.

Nonetheless, Mr Barr and Mr Nader will certainly give the mainstream candidates a few headaches and force them to spend money in places where they would rather not have to.

Most importantly for these passionate campaigners, the media will be forced to pay attention to the issues that they are espousing.

And they will have succeeded in winning what for them will be the most important battle - the fight for airtime.

I can't really blame Mr. Barr here... Can you? As for Nader and his repose to Gore's lost... Wouldn't Gore have been like... I don't know the Greenest fucking President ever to step into the White House? Was fighting him when the other guy was Big Oil's Own Frat Boy the smartest tactical move to make?

IIRC Gore wasn't a big enviro at the time, that's been his thing mostly in the last four years.

Steve wrote:IIRC Gore wasn't a big enviro at the time, that's been his thing mostly in the last four years.

No. Gores enviro thing being big and public goes back at least as far '92 when he was running for the Democratic nomination.

IIRC Gore wasn't a big enviro at the time, that's been his thing mostly in the last four years.

Steve Gore wrote a fairly radical (for the day anyways) enviro book back in 1991. He's always been pretty green.

Regardless, I don't see Bob Barr as having a Nader effect on this election.

Hell, I never saw Ralph Nader as having had a Nader effect on the 2000 election. But that's just me.

Nader is a flaming egotistical luddite. Al Gore actually allows technology, ergo he is anathema to Nader. Al Gore also did more than just show up every four years for free publicity and stealing the limelight of a political faction.

Nader was a huge huff earlier because when he decided he'd once again save everyone from themselves, the Greens already had a guy.

Nader is indeed a flaming egotistical luddite, but I don't blame him for what happened in 2000. I do think he's a complete fool, but not the man who won the election for Bush. Nor do I think there is much chance that Bob Barr will have a similar effect on people.

General Havoc wrote:Nader is indeed a flaming egotistical luddite, but I don't blame him for what happened in 2000. I do think he's a complete fool, but not the man who won the election for Bush. Nor do I think there is much chance that Bob Barr will have a similar effect on people.

Well duh. The SCOTUS decided that election.(Remember, the actual final tally had Gore up just enough.) But Nader is a vacuous fool whose ego must come before everything else, even his so-called cause. He is rightly hated.

I don't think that Bob Barr will have a large (statistically significant) effect nationwide, not unless he can tap into the Ron Paul movement in some sort of way. However, there are questions of whether he would be able to pick up enough support in his home state of Georgia to bring the state out of the solid (R) category and put it in play for the democrats, especially with a large and active African-American voting bloc in the state.

Pollster.com has Barr at a cumulative 2% average in GA, with some outliers as high as 8%. However, even a small 3-4% margin would make the state much more competitive. There's also a question of what a credible libertarian candidate would be capable of in mountain west states such as Montana (which is considered a toss-up this year).

Nader probably will not be a factor this year. 0.5% seems a charitable estimate nationwide, although there could be a danger again in Florida. I don't see Nader being a threat in rust-belt states; it seems highly unlikely that blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" would forego Obama and vote Nader.

Nader was not responsible for Gore blowing a 25 point lead, nor for the Supreme Court Decision, nor for (in my mind), any of the other shenanigans that went on in 2000, vacuous fool or not. If Barr DOES have enough of an impact to sway the election, then it will not be his 'fault' either should something similar happen and Obama snatch victory from McCain via Barr's margin. If people honestly prefer Barr to McCain... that's McCain's fault for not selling himself to them, not the other way around.

I do have to admit though, while I doubt seriously he'll have the slightest impact in this election, it would be nice to see a rift like that in the Republican ranks for once.

General Havoc wrote:nor for the Supreme Court Decision

Oh please. Final count gave the State to Gore. Florida's electoral would have decided the election. That the Supreme Court decided not to let the democratic process finish, because a bunch of hired Bush supporters threw fits in front of cameras, does not invalidate that the SCOTUS decided Florida, and by virtue of simple facts, the election. Even if the numbers had added up to Bush, the election was still decided not by vote of populace, but by legal decision.

Just deal with it.

SirNitram wrote:Oh please. Final count gave the State to Gore. Florida's electoral would have decided the election. That the Supreme Court decided not to let the democratic process finish, because a bunch of hired Bush supporters threw fits in front of cameras, does not invalidate that the SCOTUS decided Florida, and by virtue of simple facts, the election. Even if the numbers had added up to Bush, the election was still decided not by vote of populace, but by legal decision.

Just deal with it.

Did you even read my post?

Seriously? Did you read it at all, or were you just looking for an excuse to whine and bitch about the 2000 election?

Here, I'll help you:

General Havoc wrote:Nader was not responsible for Gore blowing a 25 point lead, nor for the Supreme Court Decision

What does that say to you?

NADER was not responsible for either of the things I mentioned above. NADER. I do not remotely care what kind of bile you have stored up from the 2000 election vis-a-vis the Supreme Court, as SCOTUS is not the subject in question. Nader did not cost Gore his 25 point lead from September of 2000. Nader did not cause the SCOTUS to rule as they did. Nader did not (IMO) cost Gore the election. Barr will not (IMO) cost McCain the election. Do I need to spell my point out more clearly?

Please try to read what I am saying rather than instantly starting up round 837 of the 2000 election argument. I also happen to believe that Gore was robbed of the election in Florida, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand.

"Just deal with it" yourself rather than erecting yet more straw men to beat.

Actually when it comes to Florida in 2000, I blame Pat Buchanan. Seriously, that guy sucks ass.



Every time he's on MSNBC I want to punch him in the kidneys. "blah blah Obama is an outsider blah blah reagan democrats blah blah I hate darkies."

Sorry, Havoc, thought you were responding to my post, not some one where I had blamed Nader.

In the spirit of hi-jacking my own thread.

I've always wondered about the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court call. If they felt there were doubts shouldn't they have been beholden to the process outlined by our founding fathers in the Constitution, where the decision is referred to the House of Representatives?

All bitching aside did the Supreme Court have a legal leg to stand on?

Justice Scalia, when consulted on this, displayed the maturity and respect for differing opinions that so define our modern conservative mainstream.

"I say nonsense," Scalia said, when asked about critics who say the 5-4 ruling was based on politics and not justice. "Get over it. It's so old by now."

This clears everything up.

They've been badgering him about that ruling for eight goddamn years. I'd have said the exact same thing in his place.

And to answer your question, Frigid, the court felt that they had a legal leg to stand on, as per the following arguments:

Prior to the final ruling, the court had first ruled that the recount method Florida was using was unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The reasoning for this ruling was that Florida had determined a standard that "clear indication of the intent of the voter" was to be the benchmark for determining which way the vote went. While the court agreed that that was fine as an overall guidance, they found that in practice, the system of selectively recounting only certain counties, and implimenting different practices for determining what was the "intent of the voter" (dangling chads and all that), on a county by county basis depending on which party controlled the organs of government in that county was a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause which states that "No state shall deny to any person within its juresdiction equal protection under the laws". This ruling was made by a vote of 7-2, with even justices such as Breyer and Souter (two members of the liberal wing of the court) agreeing that the recount, as it was proceeding now, was unconstitutional.

The second, and more contentious part of the ruling was that, having determined that the recount up until this point was unconstitutional, the Court then found by a vote of 5-4 that there could be no further recount performed prior to the electors meeting six days later. The rationale for this ruling was Article II, Section 1 of the US constitution. That section reads: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to...."

The other major point was something called the "Safe Harbor" provision. Title 3, Section 5 of the United States federal code states that: "If any state shall have provided for the final determination of the appointment of any or all electors of such state at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination will be conclusive"

Essentially, this clause allows states to appoint electors to the electoral college without interference from congress, the executive, or any other federal agency as long as they do so more than six days before the meeting of the electoral college. The purpose of this law as I understand it (and I'm not a constitutional law scholar, so I might be wrong here) was such that Congress (or anyone else) could not get away with wantonly holding up statewide presidential elections with higher level court challenges so as to deny a place to electors of the opposing party. The college was set to meet on the 18th of December. The hearings were held on the 11th, one day before the six-day deadline.

The court found, on a vote of 5-4, that given that the Florida state legislature had approved the initial voting results as binding (results which showed that Bush had a very narrow majority), and given that there remained one day to hold a recount in prior to the safe harbor deadline, and given that they had already ruled that the ad-hoc partial recount system was unconstitutional, there was no recount method that would be both constitutional and could be completed prior to the December 12th safe harbor deadline. Any recount that was conducted in one day by definition would not be fair (as there was no way to conduct a full state-wide recount with constitutional oversight in one day), and any recount that was conducted after December 12th would constitute illegal interference in Florida's electoral system, deny Florida the electoral franchise, and thus be unconstitutional as well. Accordingly, the courts ruled that the recount was to be stopped, and the initial results were to be certified as official. Therefore the state went to Bush, and Bush won the election.

Now, it is important to bear in mind two points. The first is the myth that the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Rehnquist at the time) wrote in his concurrence that this ruling was extremely unusual, in that it was a case where the Supreme Court was asked to determine if the State courts had properly interpreted the will of the State Legislature, which is not generally something the Supreme Court is called upon to do. He also said (I'm paraphrasing this one as I can't find the right quote). "Unfortunately, this ruling will by necessity propagate the myth that the Judicial branch of the United States Government has taken authority in deciding electoral results away from the duly appointed parties, when the reality is quite the contrary." The Court did not rule that Bush had won the election, or even that Bush had won Florida. It ruled that the methods being used to challenge Bush's win in Florida, specifically the recount procedure, was unconstitutional, and that therefore the original assessment (Bush having won Florida) was the only legal one. That last element could perhaps have been challenged by the Gore team, but Gore and his lawyers chose to drop the case at that point.

Secondly, as I said before, this ruling was 5-4. The four justices who dissented against the ruling were extremely vehement in their dissent. Justice Stevens called the case "a federal assault on the Florida election procedures" and claimed that "the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." was the loser in this election. He was not however (and he's confirmed this since then) stating that he thought the other justices were voting for their party and not their legal opinion. Instead he was questioning the right of the Supreme Court to overturn the Florida State Court's decision to conduct the recount in largely any manner they chose, claiming that the Supreme Court had cynically assumed that the State Court was attempting to fraudulently perform the recount without proof, and that the court was interpreting the Safe Harbor clause incorrectly. I am not qualified to hold an opinion on Justice Stevens' point, but many others have done so. Some believe he was being a sore loser, using mere rhetoric to cloak a lack of legal ideas. Some believe he was entirely correct, and that the court overstepped its boundaries. I cannot present here all the arguments for and against that case, as I do not have the qualifications necessary.

In summation though, what the court ruled was that the Florida recounts were unconstitutional, and consequently the initial count would have to stand. This decision has been criticized ever since, unsurprisingly with Republicans showcasing its merits, and Democrats comparing it to the Dredd Scott decision. Everyone has been quick to accuse the various Justices of being biased, corrupt, or evil in various ways, but as I see it, while I am entirely unqualified to debate the exact legal minutiae of this case, the majority definitely did have a legal leg to stand upon (as, in fairness, did the dissenters). The House of Representatives was never called into question, nor was the issue of "Who won the 2000 election" ever brought up in a legal sense for the Court had (and ruled that it had) no grounds to decide that matter.

General Havoc wrote:They've been badgering him about that ruling for eight goddamn years. I'd have said the exact same thing in his place.

Yes, torching the basic principle of democratic elections will cause people to question you, and if you don't give real answers, you won't really get left alone. It's not a hard concept.

SirNitram wrote:Yes, torching the basic principle of democratic elections will cause people to question you, and if you don't give real answers, you won't really get left alone. It's not a hard concept.

He and his fellow justices have been giving the same real answers I just expounded upon at length, but since it's much easier to say "Scalia is a fascist" than it is to either read long explanations or think about them, people continue to hassle him over and over about that decision.

The answers are one post above you. Read them and then tell me about how he "torched the basic principle of democratic elections". Conveniently forgetting about anything that doesn't support your pre-conceived notions of what happened does not do your case any justice.

Five conservative justices voted to stop the recount of a flawed vote while there was strong evidence of serious flaws in the voting procedure and a deliberate campaign to remove minority voters from the rolls in a state where the governor was the brother of one of the candidates and the highest state election official was openly biased. Instead of asserting the highest principle was a fair and honest election, they followed the precedent of procedural rulings that allowed an election to be stolen.

At best they appear to have forgotten that they're supposed to defend the constitution of a republic and that the election be fair should be the most important point. At worst they selectively ruled in favor of putting their candidate in office. Yeah, they're going to get heat and they're still going to get it. The Dredd Scott case properly followed legal precedent as well and it is rightly regarded as one of the Supreme Court's biggest fuck ups and one of the triggers of the Civil War.

Cynical Cat wrote:Five conservative justices voted to stop the recount of a flawed vote while there was strong evidence of serious flaws in the voting procedure and a deliberate campaign to remove minority voters from the rolls in a state where the governor was the brother of one of the candidates and the highest state election official was openly biased. Instead of asserting the highest principle was a fair and honest election, they followed the precedent of procedural rulings that allowed an election to be stolen.

At best they appear to have forgotten that they're supposed to defend the constitution of a republic and that the election be fair should be the most important point. At worst they selectively ruled in favor of putting their candidate in office. Yeah, they're going to get heat and they're still going to get it. The Dredd Scott case properly followed legal precedent as well and it is rightly regarded as one of the Supreme Court's biggest fuck ups and one of the triggers of the Civil War.

That is, in essence, the argument of the four dissenting justices. I do not presume to question their opinion. I tend to believe that Gore should have won the 2000 election, but the case was not based on thin air and crony politics. There was legal precedent and procedure in favor of what the majority did. There was also legal precedent and procedure in favor of what the dissent argued. I tend to be on the side of the dissent, but it drives me absolutely mad when the argument is reduced to "SCOTUS STOLE THE ELECTION!"

General Havoc wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Yes, torching the basic principle of democratic elections will cause people to question you, and if you don't give real answers, you won't really get left alone. It's not a hard concept.

He and his fellow justices have been giving the same real answers I just expounded upon at length, but since it's much easier to say "Scalia is a fascist" than it is to either read long explanations or think about them, people continue to hassle him over and over about that decision.

The answers are one post above you. Read them and then tell me about how he "torched the basic principle of democratic elections". Conveniently forgetting about anything that doesn't support your pre-conceived notions of what happened does not do your case any justice.

Are you going to stop appealing to motive anytime soon? Fallacies don't become you. I simply note there's no desire to be held accountable, which isn't odd from the conservative side of the bench.

Now, if you'd like me to support him being a Fascist, since I know what Fascist means(Corporate-State fused together), I could point to his abolishing the Millionaire's Rule to benefit CEOs in elections, or applying the bill of rights to an entire corporation, and similar rulings. But please, don't belittle my intelligence with 'RAR YOU JUST HATE YOU LOST' and other fallacies, especially when the ruling in question has nothing to do with fascism.

or applying the bill of rights to an entire corporation

Aren't corporations usually treated as individuals under law?

They did. A fair and honest elections are a foundational assumption of the constitution. The Supreme Court is empowered to strike down laws as unconstitutional, one of the primary reasons for its existence. All five conservative justices voted against that, in favor of the candidate who they were close to politically. They cannot hide their betrayal of their duties by siting laws they are specifically empowered to set aside or strike down in defence of the constitution and the republic.

frigidmagi wrote:

or applying the bill of rights to an entire corporation

Aren't corporations usually treated as individuals under law?

Until that ruling, they were often not. They received none of the Constitutional protections of an individual for the simple fact they aren't individuals. Civil Court was rather different, but. It is a handy bit of nonsense to hold up rulings that did treat them as indiviudals(And often got overturned on appeal) as 'evidence' this ruling changed nothing.