portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

government selection 2004

Nader didn't earn ballot access

If Nader had public support, he would be on the ballot now.
I voted for Nader last time, and I am generally supportive of him--though I did not sign petitions for him to be on the Oregon ballot, because I want Bush out.

Anyway, I think it's clear that the democrats are sleazy and did some crappy things with the Nader petitions--but they are politicians, I mean what do you expect. They didn't break any laws, and they didn't do anything that politicians all over the country don't do. I'm not condoning it, but I think the ranting bears a little perspective.

Third party politicians have always faced steep challenges, and the only way to overcome that is with a message that truly resonates with people. I think Nader approached that last election, but was nowhere close this time--I mean the world has changed fundamentally in the past four years but it sounds like Ralph is reading the exact same talking points.

If there was much support for Nader in Oregon, the Democrat's tricks would not matter. Last election, Nader got 10,000 people to pay $7 each to see him speak, and as recently as last summer, he attracted several thousand to Lewis & Clark.

But, when he needed people to support his candidacy, he couldn't get a thousand real supporters to show--because the people of Oregon don't want him on the ballot. The people aren't dumb, if Nader had support like last election he would have packed his first nominating convention.

77,000 Oregonians voted for Nader last time, and only 750 showed up to his first convention--that's a huge drop in public support. The second time, 1100 people or so came, but only 950 signed the petition, and again Nader didn't qualify. Sure those Democrats were sleazy, but if 2,000 people cared enough to show up for Nader, the Democrats would have been irrelevant. And if they had stayed home, there simply wouldn't have been enough people in the Roseland. The only thing the Democrats accomplished was delaying the result of the convention, if they had stayed home, Nader's campaign would have had to announce immediatly that they did not get enough support.

(And I'm sick of Nader campaing workers saying that they were "required to close the door when enough people were present" as if they turned away a bunch of supporters. All they are required to do is close the door during the nominating, they can wait until as many people are inside as fire code allows--in 2000, Nader's nominating convention closed the doors when over 10,000 people were inside.)

The same is true of the petitions, if they had gotten even half the people who voted for Ralph in 2000 to sign, then the thrown out signatures would have not affected the outcome. The only reason technicalities were able to disqualify Nader is because his campaign was only able to get 18,000 signatures in a state of 3.5 million people.

I certianly wish the Democrats had a bit of integrity and trust in democracy, but I'm frankly not a bit surprised by what they did. The bottom line is that Nader does not have much support in Oregon, if he did he would be on the ballot now.
it's true 03.Sep.2004 23:01

fighting for democracy

I would expect nothing less from the democrats to engage in anti-democratic behavior. That is really not surprising but it is going to be used to attack the democrats. When the Bush team engages in massive voter fraud in this election what are the democrats going to say "only we can violate election laws" or "every vote should be counted." They've destroyed any credibility they had on the subject, and that helps the republicans immensely.

However, you do seem to be somewhat unaware of the fact that at the second nominating convention far more people showed up, and were turned away, because the doors needed to be closed and with 1200 people inside it seems like a wise choice. Furthermore, to gather 18,000 signatures in such a short amount of time was pretty amazing. And no one is claiming that there are indeed 18,000 people who signed. Do those people, and the many more whom they represent deserve being denied the right to vote for the candidate of their choice because of numbers of the petition sheets. That idea is absolutely repugnant to anyone who believes in the principles of democracy. Nader certainly had enough support to be on the ballot and he deserves to be on the ballot.

The sad thing is that the only thing the democrats have really succeed in doing is wake people up to how anti-democratic their party is. Have they convinced people not to vote for Nader? No, they've made more people vow never to vote for any democrats again. They've also wasted a tremendous amount of money and energy in attacking Nader.

In attacking Nader they show how shallow and cowardly they truly are. Far from "reading the exact same talking points" Nader was at the RNC calling for the impeachment of GW. That's a statement I can get behind, despite only days earlier thinking I would vote for Kerry. Now I know there is no hope from the democrats. They are fascists who desire to be just like the republicans only they aren't as good at it.

I do agree that Nader's message has been lost due to his having to continually fight the democrats. I saw this post form earlier which caught my eye. It rings true to me so I am reposting it here; I can imagine a world where the democrats had taken a stand for democracy, it is a shame a don't live in it:

can you imagine... 02.Sep.2004 22:47
it's easy if you try link

If the democrats were making these sorts of criticisms against Bush?

What if the democrats attacked Bush with the veracity with which they attack Nader? And as a result Nader could spend his time criticizing Bush as he did at the RNC rather than fighting the anti-democratic tactics of the democratic party and its members.

Imagine the democrats acting as moderates where Nader would call for Bush's impeachment and Kerry, acting as a moderate, merely called for Bush's resignation for his lying to the country and leading US troops into a costly, unnecessary war and the resignation of his vice-president and cabinet for their war-profiteering.

Why do people think Reagan won in a landslide? Why do people think that the republicans didn't spend 4 or 8 years attacking Perot instead of Clinton? Is the democratic leadership really that stupid, or is this just their plan? Is it really so hard to figure out.