You misinterpreted my message, though I'll admit I could
have phrased it better. I neither said nor meant to imply
that Nader is "the most important third-party candidate
in recent history." I said that Nader is the worst instance
of the spoiler problem in recent history. Actually, I was
mistaken a
>Nader is *not* the most important third-party candidate in recent
>history.
That's true. I'm not sure if Ralph was saying that he was... he did say
that this was the worst example of the spoiler effect, which might mean
something different. For one, with Perot, it's not especially clear
Nader is *not* the most important third-party candidate in recent history.
In 1992 and 1996, Perot got 19 and 8 million votes respectively.
(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html). In the past century, third
party candidates exceeded Nader's 2000 2.8 million votes in 1996, 1992,
1980, 1
Eric and others,
I posted the Kerry-Nader initiative message because it has everything
to do with election methods. Furthermore, the message included a brief
discussion about the need to reform presidential elections. That
section (copied below) includes brief summaries of the four most
widely ad
Let's keep these kinds of discussions off the list. I am not
interested. No, it does not matter how important you think your final
thought is...I am not interested.
If you would like a suggestion on an appropriate location for such
discussions, I would be happy to provide them off-list.
Paul K
Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
> Yep. You got it. Kerry's hold on his votes is very tenuous. If he even looks
> like he's asking Nader for "help", he's toast.
That's crazy. I don't doubt that there is *someone* out there that thinks
that illogically, but given that this would instantly giv
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Re: Kerry-Nader negotiation initiative
Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
> If Kerry were even to ACKNOWLEDGE Nader, Bush would win in a landslide
> because most of the reluctant Kerry voters still blame Nader for
"electing"
> Bush.
Lemme tr
Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
> If Kerry were even to ACKNOWLEDGE Nader, Bush would win in a landslide
> because most of the reluctant Kerry voters still blame Nader for "electing"
> Bush.
Lemme try to follow your logic.
Kerry voters are angry at Nader for causing Bush to be elected.
Howe
MAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rob Brown
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Re: Kerry-Nader negotiation initiative
This is a very good idea, and I will help if I can.
Some time ago, I had the idea to start a site with the goal
This is a very good idea, and I will help if I can.
Some time ago, I had the idea to start a site with the goal of convincing
Nader fans that voting for him was a bad idea, but unlike other such sites,
mine would have a technical emphasis and explain why our plurality system is
so broken (and t
10 matches
Mail list logo
