Skip to comments.The Nader Effect In Play After Virginia's Decision [Obama Godsend?]
Posted on 09/04/2012 9:37:06 PM PDT by Steelfish
The Nader Effect In Play After Virginia's Decision By Scott Bomboy
A decision in Virginia to allow Virgil Goode on the presidential ballot could shake up the national election. And Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has now come into the spoiler picture.
For the past few weeks, Goode, the Constitutional party presidential candidate, and Johnson have been afterthoughts in the national presidential campaign involving President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
But Goode won the right on Tuesday to appear on the Virginia ballot, in a move that could hurt Romneys chances of taking the key swing state in November.
And now Ron Paul has come with some kind words about Johnson, the former New Mexico governor who will appear on many state ballots as a presidential candidate.
Johnson would be a potential factor in states like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, and he could hurt either Obama or Romney, depending on how the political winds are blowing by November.
Republicans have vowed to prove that Goode, who has held various political offices in Virginia, doesnt have enough legal petition signatures to run.
Johnson faces similar challenges. Last week, his campaign said the GOP has challenged his ballot presence in Michigan, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Iowa and Ohio.
In August, Goode lost his quest to get on Pennsylvanias ballot. One national poll had Johnson with 5.3 percent of the national vote in July, while a poll this summer in Virginia had Goode with 9 percent of that states presidential vote.
In reality, even 1 percent of the vote in a battleground state could determine the national election, like Ralph Nader did in 2000.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Goode is a selfish pig.
This is probably how Obama wins re-election. God help us all.
It's also disgusting to think that a candidate can win the presidential election when over 50% of the people might not have been willing to vote for him at all. If we put enough candidates on the ballot, someone could win the election with just 10% theoretically. Maybe a Satanist? Our voting process is inadequate and has the possibility to severely undermine the democratic process, unless a mechanism is put into place to make sure that no one can win without at least 50% of the people voting for them.
The ABR crowd must be orgasmic.
Baraq’s chances at victory just improved dramatically.
If so, we will know who is responsible.
So... the same state that screwed up the Primary, not allowing all the Republican candidates on the ballot, now is letting Johnny Come Lately Goode on the ballot...
Basing the presidency on the popular vote is like awarding the World Series championship to the team that scores the most runs, rather than the team that wins the most games.
Don’t be so selective - so is Johnson (and obama)...
Goode is only there to be a spoiler and anybody that votes for him is a crank and a fool.
I'm not talking about the popular/electoral distinction here at all. This is about when the top vote getter doesn't get 50% of the votes due to 3 or more candidates splitting the vote, a la Clinton in 1992. In that event you absolutely need to have some form of runoff vote, or your election has no connection to democracy at all, it's just a random event or possibly a rigged game if the third party candidate was a plant. A runoff vote should apply to any state where that kind of split happened.
Move along folks, nothing to see here. Immaterial at best.
Perot didn't win a single EV.
And Clinton won a clear majority of the electoral votes.
Why would there be any need for a "runoff"?
third party elects Democrats.
For the same reason anyone has a runoff election where they are mandated by law. A runoff election occurs when no candidate garners 50% of the votes, just as happened with Ted Cruz’s race in Texas. It’s an absolutely necessary step to ensure that a person’s vote means anything at all. Otherwise you can have a Satanist win an election with 11% of the vote if there were 9 other candidates that didn’t exceed 10%. Unless you have a runoff in some form, there is no way to know who the majority people want to elect.
Take the presidential 1992 race in Pennsylvania. Without a runoff, there is no way to no if more than 45% of the voters would have taken EITHER Bush OR Perot over Clinton. A runoff between the top two vote-getters could’ve resulted in a 55-45 split for Bush over Clinton, which would be the true democratic result that reflects the will of the people for who they wanted to be president. Why in the world should someone be elected president if 55% of the people would’ve ranked a single other candidate higher? You don’t know if they do or not without having a runoff.
William Clinton 45.15%
George Bush 36.13%
H. Ross Perot 18.20%
And with a properly formed ballot, an instant runoff can be done that doesn’t require people actually going to the polls again. But even that is a worthwhile expense to pay to ensure the integrity of the democratic process.
This idiot traitor is the worst news yet. Ditto for any third party candidate that has virtually no chance at all of doing anything bu losing and probably causing anyone with remotely similar ideas to lose as well.
This is disgraceful. Statesmanship and patriotism are dead. They are all politicians, just as much a synonym for snake as lawyer is.
Why? Does he have a point other than selfishness?
This is probably how Obama wins re-election. God help us all.
Thanks for nothing, Eternal Vigilance. You're removed from the ping list, and next time I'm in Spirit Lake, maybe I can explain what happened.
This is the only way Obama can win, and these egotistical loons can’t be stopped. What does Goode or Johnson hope to gain by getting Obama reelected. Neither one will be one step closer to the White House come 2016, or 2020.
Additionally, we are not a democracy; we are a republic. Think about it. That is why we do what we do. It appears the educational system did not serve you well.
I think a better use of your time would be spent contemplating the best way to reform our schools.