Nader Says Won't Rule Out Releasing His Electors to Kerry???

Nader was being interviewed by Judy on Inside Politics. She directed him to a Washington Post (I believe it was the Post) story today by some political science professor who suggested that Nader run in the "close states" and then after, release his "electors" to Kerry. I'm a bit fuzzy on this because I thought that most states are a "winner take all" electors to the Electoral College (or do they first meet and the obvious majority of the winner outvotes the rest prior to casting their electoral vote??). Anyway, Ralph said he had not read the article. Said, "hmmm, I never thought of that" or some such thing and said he wouldn't rule it out. (I guess the prof must be suggesting that this is a way Nader can register a protest vote but not let Bush win----of course, if Nader tried this I'm sure the repukes would have a zillion Philadelphia lawyers arguing before the Supremes that 'Ralph can't do that-it just ain't fair' and the esteemed justices would invent another goddamn law designed especially for the occassion).

he won't will any electors

After a certain percentage of votes, he wins electors, just as candidates win delegates during primaries. This could result in Kerry and Bush being close to even in electors with Bush ahead by one, but Kerry winning the state if Nader says turn my tow over, which could be possible in some states where Nader is polling at 6-8 percent.

In every state but 2 electors are winner take all. Thus if you win Ohio by 1 vote you get all of Ohio's electors. In the other two states (Maine and Nebraska) each Congressional district is winner take all with the other 2 electors going to the candidate who gets a plurality of the states popular vote.

Sounds like cnn is trying to encourage him to concentrate on swing states to try and swing the election to their evil puppet. I haven't been able to watch that show in about six years, it is blatant propaganda.

*WHAT* electors? He's truly delusional.

...the same electors as Kerry lists.

Nader needs to drop out now!

What actually was suggested was that Nader name as his electors the same people that Kerry names as his electors. Thus any votes Nader gets would directly transfer to Kerry since we actually vote for the electors not the candidate. This if Bush gets 48, Kerry gets 46, and Nader gets 4 then Kerry wins since his electors would actually get 50.

show the Post piece or read from it so I wasn't sure what "release electors" meant. I see now how people could be voting for two different people but end up with the same set of electors. Now, I'm wondering if there is any law against that???? I would assume the prof who wrote it must know that it could technically be done. Unfortunately, Nader could very easily upset this thing by just a percentage in a state but this could be a way for everyone to get their jollies and still get Bush out.

Some states do have faithless elector laws. That is some states do have a requirement that electors vote for the candidate who they promise to vote for. So far, no germane violation of the law has been litigated to SCOTUS. But, the SCOTUS has stated in anotheer decision that such laws are likely unconstitutiona. Thus this could end up having to be litigated in those states with such laws. States with such laws could try to prevent Nader from choosing those electors making him sue to have that right.

And because Ralph was so generous it actually ended up swinging things in Kerry's favor and he wins narrowly in Nov. Gee whiz, BushCo. wouldn't have a fucking field day picking the minutia of electors and how they are designated apart. James Baker would be screaming like a stuck pig from the get go and it would be before the Repuke dominated Supreme Court lickety split.

Nader, though I love what he stands for, needs wise up, cash in his political chips with Kerry and get the fuck out of the race. At some point I truly have faith in Ralph to do just that.

The founders designed it to work the way being described.

It's just that simple.

Bush/Media is running the show...it's Kerry's to lose

Anything point the Dems buy an ad to 'attack the President', the Media counters and then the WH trots out the usual suspects to give interviews...

Nader was always irrelevent...and Kerry is irrelevent

feeling that perhaps Ralph is positioning himself for a "talk" with Kerry, possibly?? Aren't they suppose to have one this summer?? Maybe it will take a bit of cash to grease Nader's electoral wheel.

In the 2000 election i thought it would be an option to unite the parties and offer Nader a cabinet position. Then after his remarks about gore just days before the election it was obvious he was there to disrupt the Dem party and hand the election to Bush.

In light of recent information my suspicions were affirmed and Nader is only out for money and ego

In the 1970s, Idaho Senator Frank Church's investigatory committee established that the CIA also engaged in so-called "benign" operations including rigging elections. The agency used the term "demonstration elections" - elections that are superficially democratic but the results manipulated by the CIA.

The Company did everything from stuffing ballot boxes, creating political parties, merging smaller political parties into large coalitions as in Uno in Nicaragua, paying death squads to intimidate voters and the occasional use of computer fraud. In the mid-80s, the Reagan and Bush administration used a computer to help their "man in Panama" and CIA asset Manuel Noriega gain electoral support; they backed dictator Ferdinand Marcos when he brought in the pre-programmed election tapes in the middle of an election to turn his sure defeat into a fixed victory. The people of the Philippines didn't accept the computer results as credible, but Reagan and Bush argued it was necessary to preserve our "traditional" relationship with the brutal dictator. Remember, his political opponent, Senator Aquino was shot to death after disembarking from an airplane to run against Marcos.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00046.htm

Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it.....

Both Bush and Kerry would need to have less that 270 electoral votes when its said and done, and Nader would have to get a lot of votes in one of the few states that alots them proportionally.

So in other words this basically means nothing.

Ha, just kidding.

Fuck that guy.

That made me laugh -- thanks :)

ya right.............

just another scam a different way

I never trust a politician, but I trust Nader much, much, much more than I trust either Bush or Kerry. He is very open about not wanting Kerry to win. I'm sure he would prefer Kerry to Bush, but he is Kerry's oponent. He wants Ralph Nader to win, not George Bush.

I don't see how anybody can question Nader's credibility while Bush is an outright liar, and Kerry just says whatever is politically profitable, and will get him votes. Nader is the only one who has remained consistent on what he is saying, and doesn't have a voting record to directly contrast it. In my mind, Kerry is the candidate for a person who loves all Bush's policies, but hates Bush. Choosing between the two of them is no real choice. The democratic party needs to wake up, and take back their politicians from corporate greed.

On gay marriage he ran in 2000 as the champion of gay rights including gay marriage. But in 1998 (after he had run in 96) he didn't lift a finger to help defeat a ban in California and called gay rights gonadal politics.

Many Ticks
:toast:

the RNC will stop donating to him!

...Nebraska and Maine, I believe, and they allocate electoral votes based on congressional district. In all the other 48 states, its winner take all.

And in any case, district or state, Nader would still have to get a plurality of votes in order to win any electors. I seriously doubt Nader will win even one elector.

Later,

Could you give up Repuke matching funds, eh???????????

I'll release mine to Kerry too. How's about the rest of you?

but if I can find a way to get someone better I will persue that angle.

The only thing he can do is allow Bush to have electors by preventing Kerry from getting those electors.