Will Thomson WBUR (March 2, 2004, 7-8 p.m. ET)
Okay. Thanks to everyone for coming. It looks like all the our guests are here. You can post your questions below. First I'd like to ask our guests to introduce themselves.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Sure, I'm John Pearce, creator of RalphDontRun.net, a citizen web campaign to ask Ralph Nader not to run for president in '04.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I'm executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org). We're a nonpartisan organization that backs reforms to open up our political process like instant runoff voting
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I'm Kevin Zeese, currently working with the Nader for President campaign. I also work on a variety of progressive issues - election reform (today the issue was paperless electronic voting), peace and justice and also on ending the drug war -- as examples.
Will Thomson WBUR
And I'm Will. I work at WBUR Public Radio in Boston - and I cover politics and campaigns for our online site, www.wbur.org.
First, I want to ask about the role of third party candidates - and Nader specifically. What is their role as you see it. I think that a lot of people are charging that since they are unlikely to win, they take votes from the major party candidates who are closest to them on issues.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader has two goals: one to help make sure Bush is forced out of office. His being in the race increases the chance of that. And second to put progressive issues in the agenda that are not represented by the likely Democratic candidates or the president.
Will Thomson WBUR
How would each of you respond on that?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Our conviction is that in our 2-party system ANY third party run splits the vote on their side of the ideological divide, and therefore supports the election of those most hostile to its issues, as we saw so clearly in 2000.
Here's my OpEd on this topic, and it's a simple, ironic truth of our system.
This was true of Perot, Buchanan, etc., all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt (who elected Wildon over his pal Taft).
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader increases the chance of Bush being knocked out of office. And, he ensures that a populist progressive agenda will be part of the debate in the presidential election. See www.votenader.org to see the issues he stands for -- many no other candidate will take on.
Will Thomson WBUR
Kevin, can you explain that further. I think a lot of people look to the 2000 elections and believe that Nader cost Gore the election, but you're saying he hurts Bush - how?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
He increases the Democrats' chances in two ways. First he will make sure the Democrats don't blow it. What do California, New York, Mass, Maryland and Georgia have in common? They are all Democratic strongholds with Republican governors. Why? Because they run so far to the center they stand for nothing.
Second, Nader can take votes away from Bush's base that the Democrats can't. I'll give two examples. Last time a majority of Reform Party reps supported Bush. They don't like his deficits, the loss of jobs to India, China, Mexico nor his destruction of the Constitution. But the Democrats were complict in that so they cannot get many of those votes. Also, the muslim and Arab communities voted majority for Bush last time, but they are not likely to vote Dem because they shouted down Dean for calling for mere equality between Israel and Palestinians. Nader can draw those votes. And those are just two examples. You could also look at McCain Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, Sierra Club Republicans, libertarian Republicans among others.
Will Thomson WBUR
John, you obviously see this differently - is it just about the vote counts, or is there another intangible element to influencing the race?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
We'd agree that Democrats have to stand for something, but to say Nader won't hurt the Democratic nominee is just unsupported by data. Just an example: We don't agree, as you might expect.
Nader is saying that this year he'll take more votes from Republicans, but that is not supported by the data. Nationally, it's also important to note that Nader voters in 2000 voted for Democratic over GOP congressional candidates by a 58% to 27% margin, a far greater Democratic impact than the exist polls Nader has chosen to highlight, which still show the 38% - 25% split. The 38/25 split is Nader's exit poll number that he cites.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
In 2000, Nader got a lot of Republican votes. Indeed, in New Hampshire he got twice as many Republicans as Democrats. In Florida a CNN exit poll showed that a Naderless race resulted in 49-47 Bush. Nader in made it closer. His views cut across the political spectrum. He will show the Democrats how to beat Bush -- stand clearly against him.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
This New Hampshire vote data argument was effectively debunked by the New York Times last Tuesday, 2/24. They noted that indeed most Nader voters in New Hampshire were Republican - because the entire state is overwhelmingly Republican! They go on the point out the more salient points: despite their GOP affiliation, Nader's New Hampshire voters would have voted 3/2 for Gore.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The Democrats are doing the opposite. They are picking candidates who voted for some of Bush's worst policies -- the war, the Patriot Act. Kerry also voted for NAFTA/WTO and opposed Kyoto.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Kevin, are you saying Nader is running to elect the Democratic nominee?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I would suggest two things:
1) that if Ralph Nader had pulled out a week before the November 2000 election, Gore would have won Florida and perhaps New Hampshire, and thus the presidency;
2) that it's less likely he'll have that impact this time precisely because of efforts like those of John
Will Thomson WBUR
Rob, as someone who works in electoral reform, how do you see third parties playing in this election and past elections?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
On the reform side, I think it's healthy to have more and better choices -- and want to see changes that can accommodate those choices. That's why we're excited to see the significant rise in support for instant runoff voting in recent years
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Re. the history of third parties, the end of slavery, women's right to vote, ending child labor, the 40 hour work week, ending Prohibition, Social security -- these all started as third party issues. Nader will do the same thing this time -- he is the only one talking about ending corporate personhood, single payer health system, a living wage and a host of other issues.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
A more recent example is Perot and the budget deficit in 1992
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Not one of those issues succeeded via third party action. They succeeded by changing societal consensus via civil disobedience, protest, exposing truth.
You vote for incremental progress; you fight and protest for big change.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
They succeeded in part for the reasons you state -- but also by being part of the electoral debate. Third party and independent candidates showed they were useful for getting elected. So third and independent candidates were critical to the success.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
On John's point about "voting for incremental progress" and fighting for change -- we need an electoral system that makes it more possible to connect people's aspirations for change to voting. Then we'd get higher turnout and a more engaged electorate.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader would be the best president of all the candidates running. He has the most experience with the federal government and is grounded in the clearest principles. How far he will go depends how many people hear his message. The media has a lot to do with it. Getting in the debates has a lot to do with it. Whatever happens, Nader will build fissures in Bush's base and push a populist progressive message.
Will Thomson WBUR
How about a question from the audience.
"Beezner" asks:
"I prefer Nader as a candidate to Kerry (presuming he is the nominee), however I want to make sure Bush losses. I am voting in a liberal state, Vermont, which I am quite sure will carry the democratic candidate. Am I safe then to give Nader my vote, knowing that the electoral college votes in the state will be carried by the Democrats?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
My answer would be "yes, but keep an eye on the polls."
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Definitely, in safe states -- and that is almost all of them -- it is safe to vote your beliefs and not your fears.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Even I would not disagree
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
One of the candidates running for the Green Party nomination -- David Cobb -- has exactly that strategy: focus on the safe states.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Right, I heard that as well.
Will Thomson WBUR
Is that much of a strategy? If they don't expect to win, what do they gain from the run if they are unlikely to win?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Building support for issues they care about and building their party for efforts at a local level.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader is needed most in the battleground states. He can take votes away from Bush and get the Democrats to energize their base. He should campaign in all states.
Of course, instant run-off voting would allow people to vote their beliefs and not their fears everywhere.
Will Thomson WBUR
BuffaloGal Asks:
"What is instant runoff voting?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I'm glad you asked :) It's a system where everyone has one vote, but can rank candidates 1, 2, 3. If no one wins a majority of first choices, then the weak candidates are eliminated, and ballots cast for them are counted for the second choices.
It's used for national elections in Australia and Ireland and was just adopted in San Francisco and by Utah Republicans for votes at conventions.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Part of the RalphDontRun process has been getting tons of email from passionate, informed people. And I read as much of it as I can. I must say instant runoff voting seems to make terrific sense.
Many Nader voters are frustrated that they can't express themselves, but with IRV they could register their real opinion without "throwing away" their vote. I think I'm all for it, though I want to learn more.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
In 2000 "liberal" Nader voters would have picked Nader first and Gore second. Anti-goverNader voters may have picked Nader first and Buchanan second.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
see www.fairvote.org/irv for more. Some advocates of it include John McCain and Howard Dean (and Ralph Nader).
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
A very cool idea. If we advanced that and independent redistricting, we'd be getting somewhere...
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Wow-- two things we all agree on already. Soon John will say he's making a donation to VoteNader.org!
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
OK, the checks in the mail
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
you could send checks via our non-profit charitable organization :)
Will Thomson WBUR
Or donate to Public Radio...
Will Thomson WBUR
I want to ask you to clarify, to make sure I understand how ranking the candidates votes for them and how the votes are tallied.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
If your first vote does not win, then the votes go to your second choice.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Think of it like a traditional runoff. In a runoff, there is a whole second election with the top two facing off. With IRV, you have a second round of COUNTING.
Will Thomson WBUR
So, if no one gets 50 percent, you'd be put into a second round?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Yes... the simplest way to do "IRV" is to have the top two advance to the second round and everyone's ballot counts for whichever of those candidates is higher ranked on their ballot
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
If the Democrats were really concerned about Nader, they should have advocated for IRV for the last four years -- it was a great opportunity -- unfortunately it was missed.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Granted.
Will Thomson WBUR
That goes into the question asked by apple314:
"Why are all of the mainstream (ie candidates still in the running) candidates against IRV?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Edwards has been non-committal - -interested, though. Kerry hasn't taken a stand that I know of -- they both should be pressed. Kucinich and Sharpton are both for it
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
So was Dean
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Yes -- spurred on by a great local movement for it in Vermont
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Rob, what's your opinion on independent redistricting commissions? Anyone making progress on that?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I like Iowa-style redistricting
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Right now candidates are picking their voters, rather than voters picking their candidates -- we need much more independent redistricting.
They are tied to the two party system and don't take independents and third parties seriously. They will pay the price for their foolishness.
Will Thomson WBUR
what would it require to put this in place? Constitutional amendment, I imagine
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
No -- just a change in law.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Will -- actually, it could be done by statute immediately by states
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
There are some advocates getting a sympathetic audience in Connecticut for putting in IRV for 2004, actually
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
I think it would greatly behoove the party to try to get out front on this -- a perfect example of showing some spine
Will Thomson WBUR
How's that. Does each state have the right to make such a radical change in voting method?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
probably won't happen, but it could. We have some weird aspects to our voting....
States can do a lot on electoral college reform -- for instance, they could change to proportional allocation of electoral votes or allocating them by congressional district, as Maine and Nebraska do. And in fact, the Supreme Court pointed out in 2000 that states could appoint electors! Whacky.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
This is an example of why we need Nader in the race. He supports IRV and he also opposes these paperless electronic voting machines.
Will Thomson WBUR
Does the system merely let people vote for them without guilt, or does it give more power to third parties?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
It results in more honesty in the elections -- people voting for what they believe in, not what they fear. It will probably increase turnout because people will vote for something -- not just against something.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I agree with Kevin -- it would result in the major parties have to acknowledge the constituency mobilized by the third party
Will Thomson WBUR
For now, back to the current system with a point from Viking Dave:
"Ralph needs first to throw his intellect and remaining energies behind the Democrat and eliminate bush as a source of inspiration for the Southern and western Fanatics - and make no mistake they are fanatics. THEN he can demand reciprocity for his supporters and seek the office if it's not forthcoming."
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Right
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I can hear Kevin's typing from here...
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Why should he support a Democratic who voted for the war, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, against Kyoto. When he can show the Democrats how to beat Bush. Kerry's reaction to Nader was right. He said he will get Nader's voters because he agrees with Nader -- perfect -- talk like he believes in SOMETHING.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Because there IS a difference worth voting for.
Some people object to voting for the lesser of two evils. We disagree profoundly. We face a clear and present danger -- even to the modest gains progressives have made in our lifetimes. We feel very strongly that voting for "the lesser of two evils" is the principled and deeply moral thing to do.
Otherwise, you might vote "your conscience" then watch in the next few years as…
1. The Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action and a woman's right to choose, or re-criminalizes gay sex in the privacy of one's home; as
2. Bush continues tax cuts that create debt so massive NO progressive goal will be conceivable for a generation at least, precluding all disputes among us about what programs we want government to undertake;
3. as he continues pre-emptive counter-productive war, and on false pretenses at that. …to say nothing of pillage the environment for corporate gain, education, social security policy, and on and on and on. Is that the price we are supposed to pay so that Nader voters can have the satisfaction of voting their ideal candidate.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
If Gore had talked like a progressive throughout the 2000 race, rather than just the last two weeks, he would be president today.
Will Thomson WBUR
I hear a lot of agreement from you all on the content of Nader's issues, but pretty serious practical concerns over what it will translate into through the current electoral system.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader will help beat Bush -- without Nader expect the same results we've gotten in governors races in Democratic strongholds like California, Mass, New York, Maryland, Georgia -- they all have Republican governors. How can you trust the Democrats one on one against Bush with that record?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
That's what I don't accept. On one hand you say you want to just help beat Bush, and then you assault the Democrats and assert no difference. How do those work together?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
John -- do you work for the Democratic Party? I can't imagine someone not seeing that Nader could be right and the Democrats wrong.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
No. Entirely independent, just a person.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I'm not saying Nader will necessarily have this impact, but it's worth pointing out that significant third party candidacies that have taken the winning percentage in presidential races below 49% typically hurt the incumbent party -- the last 7 presidents elected with less than 49% defeated a candidate of the party that had been in the White House.
Will Thomson WBUR
Another comment from VikingDave:
"That's all well and good, if thus and such had happened then Gore would be president...but it didn't happen. Something else happened. Something really bad."
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
If you don't take about reforming our electoral laws in the midst of when they're breaking down, you'll never change them
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Right on Rob.
Will Thomson WBUR
And this comment from "Antelope":
I don't think Nader can take votes from Bush, only from Kerry. That's why I don't want Nader to run - because this time the difference between Bush and Kerry translates into lives and jobs lost or saved, morality sunk or revitalized, apathy grown or reduced.
Last time I voted for Nader and now I feel guilty.
If Mr. Nader wants to change this country he should write and speak instead of running a hopeless campaign for President.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Right on Antelope
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Where is the Muslim and Arab communities going to go -- 3 million voters? They voted majority for Bush last time. They don't want to this time, but are they going to go to the Democrats? When the Democrats shout down Governor Dean for merely saying Israel and Palestine should be treated equally? Nader can take those voters from Bush, but the Democrats cant. And there are other examples.
CNN reported that in a Naderless race in 2000 the result was 49-47 Bush -- in other words -- Nader made it closer.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
No one even knows Nader ethnicity. This is implausible. He's not an ethnic candidate
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Nader actually is an ethnic candidate.... It's just not widely known
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
It is not an ethnic issue. It is an issue of who supports their issues. Why would they vote Democrat? Not only the Israel issue, but the war, Patriot Act... Kerry supported both.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Every exit poll showed Nader's clear impact -- in spite of the great source of knowledge CNN
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I just told you an exit poll from CNN -- sorry if the facts confuse your conclusion.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Cheap shot Kevin.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Accurate shot from my view.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
58% voted for Democrats in 00, 25% for GOP. According to exit polls Nader cites himself (specifically on Jan 5 on SPAN -- the archived version is at www.cspan.org), 38% of his voters would have voted for Gore, 25% for Bush. The net 13% gain for Gore of Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida would have tipped the election to Gore. Case closed.
Will Thomson WBUR
Kevin, do you totally reject John's evaluation of the 2000 race, putting aside the Gore campaign's faults?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I think the 2000 race was Gore's to lose and he did a good job of it. Did not even win his home state I can't think of a president elected without his home state. And, Bush did a good job stealing it from Jeb to Scalia they stole the election.
They started a year before the vote -- knocking out 50,000 Dem voters by falsely claiming they were felons.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Agreed. They should have been prosecuted. For some reason the NAACP dropped their suit in Florida.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Then, 250,000 Democrats voted for Bush. They deserve more blame than Nader. And so does the mayor of Miami -- a Democrat - sat out the race. He could have produced 10,000 votes.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I agree too, Kevin, and I also think it's possible that Nader's candidacy led Gore to be more populist in a way that won more votes for him in the end.... but at the end of the day, don't you think that if he had pulled out on October 25, Gore would have won? Just curious."
Will Thomson WBUR
Here's a question from apple314:
"Putting aside Gore's inability to win an election that was handed to him, would Nader have done anything differently if he had thought or known that he was going to swing the election to Bush.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
He did not swing the election to Bush - there are facts that show a different analysis.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
According to exit polls Nader cites himself (specifically on Jan 5 on SPAN -- the archived version is at www.cspan.org), 38% of his voters would have voted for Gore, 25% for Bush. The net 13% gain for Gore of Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida would have tipped the election to Gore.
Will Thomson WBUR
Okay, Kevin, but "Apple" is asking if he thought he would hurt the Democrat, then what would he do?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
And, in 2004 he will have less of an effect on Dem votes. The Democrats want "anyone" but Bush while Bush's base is fraying -- Nader will help that fray expand.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
and how many did they lose due to Green voter peel-off?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
And, he also helps with the legislature -- if it were not for Nader Democrats would have lost a variety of senate and house elections.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Again, I just don't get it: on one had Nader is running to beat Bush and elect Dems; on the other hand he's savaging the D+ Democrats -- that's going to add to their votes?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I think Kevin's thesis for 2004 is more plausible than some critics (including our board member Rick Hertzberg, who just wrote a scathing anti-Nader commentary in the New Yorker) admit. Few people who really prefer a Democrat to Bush are going to vote for Nader in a tight state in a tight national race, I suspect...... Precisely because of what was learned from 2000.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
I hope Rob is right, but would feel a lot better if Nader openly embraced a strategic state approach
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
And John, I can't promise that! Just that it's plausible...... And consistent with history, where supporters of the "out" party is more disciplined than the "in" party
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
He will make the Democrats better. They will not take their base for granted and run to the corporate DLC center of their party. They will stand for populist progressive issues rather than Bush-lite.
Will Thomson WBUR
Kevin, do you think Nader's former Green Party affiliation would be a problem with any conservatives or Republicans considering giving him their vote?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader has always been an independent. He is still supportive of Greens but he is getting support across the political spectrum. The Reform Party folks especially like his views on trade, deficit, war. Libertarians like his view in the drug war. And even progressive Republicans like a lot of his views. He is an across the board candidate.
apple314
I still feel as if my question hasn't been answered. So let me try from a different angle: If a CNN poll on September first shows that Nader appears to be swinging the race in favor of Bush, how will Nader react?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Kevin -- Apple's question is directed to you... We'll let you answer it
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I can't predict the future and will not pretend to speak for Nader on such a hypothetical.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I don't even know what I am going to have for breakfast tomorrow --
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
or whether you vote was just counted right
Will Thomson WBUR
Isn't that like saying that you don't know whether he would chose to hurt Democrats or not? Shouldn't that be a basic question you can answer about the candidate?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Strategic states would be silly to announce -- and Nader is needed in the battleground states to attack Bush and get the Democrats to energize their base.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Again, illogical. A voter in a strategic state is going to vote Democrat because Nader assaults them?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
It is Nader's job to present his views. It is Bush's and Kerry's to present theirs. Democracy requires that. We trust the voters more than others seem to.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
This is not an issue of democracy
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
It's a pragmatic issue of not harming the issues you're supposed to care aobut
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader's primary focus of attack is Bush. He has already made one tour of Texas -- going to Bush's political genesis. He will continue to focus his attack on Bush -- since he is in office.
Will Thomson WBUR
"BuffaloGal" comments:
"Kevin,I voted for Nader in 2000, and now have not a clue what to do this year. Kerry's success seems to be directing us to a logical conclusion. He could do better than Gore - Tell us why we should vote for Nader again?"
VCR has a similar question:
"I've heard people say that Nader will bring new issues into the election. Issues that otherwise would not come into the election. Could you please tell us what some of these issues are?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Without Nader in the race the Democrats and Republicans blend. They both voted for the war, Patriot Act, against Kyoto, for international trade agreements. Both take money for corporate leaders and answer to their corporate paymasters.
Nader in the race will bring out issues like living wage, single payer health care, peace, ending the occupation, cutting the defense budget, investing in U.S. infrastructure, ending the drug war -- issues that would otherwise be ignored.
Will Thomson WBUR
Back to the utility of third parties with a question from Beezner:
"One of the biggest frustrations for me in America is that there are millions of differing opinions in the country, but essentially only two ways we can vote, either Republican or Democrat. Do you see any way the nation can start to have more third parties to rise to real prominence with a chance of being elected, not merely outsiders trying to raise awareness on their issues?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Well, we talked earlier about the merits of instant runoff voting -- which could be done by statutes in states this year...
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Election reform See http://www.VoteNader.org -- and review the election reform issues. There are a host of things we can do to reinvigorate democracy. Again, only Nader will be discussing these issues.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Another more fundamental change is proportional representation, as practiced in most well-established democracies
Will Thomson WBUR
Rob, could it be put in place only in several states - or would it need necessarily to be implemented in the country as a whole?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Yes, IRV could be done in a single state.
Will Thomson WBUR
How would it actually give third parties more power? Or would it just let people so-inclined to vote for third party candidates without guilty?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Matt Gonzalez is an excellent example. He is a Green who is President of the Board of Supervisors and almost won the mayoral race.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
It would give voters more power, first and foremost.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
San Francisco is putting in place IRV
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Once a third party's true vote is revealed, it __could__ have more power. But at the same time, it's the issues that count and the responsiveness of our governing parties that count to most people ---- and IRV would help those parties be more responsive
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Third parties tend to elect their worst enemies. It is a sad truth of our system, but a truth all the same. Third party candidacies are extremely counterproductive, as 2000 indicated.
Will Thomson WBUR
Are there statistics that show many voters are just settling rather than voting for their true candidate because of a fear of helping the opposite side?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Half the populace not voting speaks pretty loud...
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
In 2000, Nader lost at least 5 million votes according to the Washington Post
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
In the last two weeks Gore started sounding like Nader and took a lot of his votes.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
IRV would have let people express that opinion, then elect Gore. A better scenario in our view.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I agree, John -- glad we're all agreed on that
Will Thomson WBUR
"Apple314" asks about the money:
"It seems to be that more effort needs to be made to promote IRV. How much would it cost to implement across the nation?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Thanks for asking that. It could be built into new voting equipment for virtually no cost, but most states aren't doing it -- one more reason to scold Democrats on this issue
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The key to promoting it is having a presidential candidate to speak out on it. That is the biggest megaphone. It will help voters get their point across -- it will help democracy flourish.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Rob, would IRV help Democrats more than GOP? That might doom it right there...
Will Thomson WBUR
Is this in fact a left-right issue? Wouldn't conservative third parties also benefit?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
It really depends on where third party energy is and might be in the future
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Is there any data projecting its effect?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Republicans were big backers in a statewide ballot measure in 2002 -- and Democrats big opponents -- because of their spoiler fears
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
It will vary from election to election. Trust the voters -- don't be afraid of democracy!
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
It's not fear of democracy -- it's how you serve advancement of issues.
Will Thomson WBUR
Didn't Ross Perot help elect Clinton, by the same logic of the spoiler theory John's putting forward?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Yes
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Perot definitely helped Clinton, but probably didn't elect him. But yes, Republicans in 1993 were a lot more ripe for it than they are now. The latest election is what most think about. But you can use IRV for all kinds of local elections, primaries, etc -- Very popular now on college campuses for student elections.
Check out www.fairvote.org/irv -- there's a good national moderated listserv on it too.
Will Thomson WBUR
Apple314 again:
"How many states are using new voting equipment...I used the good old machines tonight."
Kevin, since that's a specialty of yours, can we segue a little, and would you talk a bit about the paperless voting,
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
About six million people voted on paperless voting machines today, which could undermine our democracy, and continue to make people think they have less confidence in the system.
We had protests across Maryland, hundreds of people demanded paper ballots. The problems with these machines is there is no way to audit the electronic vote. And, they are insecure. One software programmer could effect the outcome of the election and no security would ever catch it.
And, they do not provide for an independent recount. If there was a software glitch then the recount will just reprint the software glitch. Visit www.truevotemd.org for more on this issue.
Again, only candidate speaking on this is Nader -- see http://www.votenader.org
Will Thomson WBUR
Is But is it really insecure? After all, we put the faith of millions of dollars in the computerized ATM systems. Is this much different?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The software engineer creates the software. And election officials can also have an impact. And, reports show that outsiders can also affect the vote. Besides, ATM's have a paper record.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
One big problem with our voting is that we use private vendors to create our equipment -- and let states and counties choose the equipment. Lots of bad options and bad decisions going on
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Diebold, the corporation producing most of these machines, is very pro-Bush. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are contributed, and the CEO has said he want to deliver Ohio to Bush (could be the Florida of 2004). And his machines will count the vote on secret software than cannot be audited. As Ralph says "It does not pass the smell test." John
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Scary indeed, Diebold...
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
We call for a national right to vote in the Constitution (which we don't have, clearly stated and powerfully enforced) and then have a really good national machine developed that would have all the public interest features Kevin, I and others want -- paper trail, capacities for the blind, ease for voters, etc etc
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The technology is available to have a voter verified paper record for audits and recounts. There is no reason not to do it.
Will Thomson WBUR
I think that would be surprising to people, that that isn't explicit in the Constitution.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Indeed it is, but that's why states can choose to disenfranchise ex-felons, not get better equipment, etc.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
A clear right to vote would protect us from Supreme Court justices who have proven themselves to be partisans in black robes.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has proposed a right to vote in the Constitution and makes a very eloquent case for it -- some would argue that it reflects more basic principles than some other constitutional proposals being made these days
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The two major party's really do not want a big turnout. They fear the disaffected half of the population -- they fear because they do not know how they will vote - better to work with the voting groups they know.
Will Thomson WBUR
Well, I think we've covered a lot of ground -- third parties to elections, IRV, voting machines... Before you all have to leave, I would like to ask each of you to make a final pitch for your positions.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
A vote for Nader -- especially in a close state -- and if your alternative is to vote for the Democrats -- is a vote for Bush. It is that simple. Vote Democrat, even if you have to hold your nose while doing so.
Save the Supreme Court from Scalia, our treasury from tax cut pillage, all of us from this war policy, not to mention our environment, education, etc. Anyone who wants to encourage Nader leaning people to vote Democratic -- I invite you to visit RalphDontRun.net. We'll do our best to make the case for Democratic votes this fall.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Register and vote. Get informed and get active. Get organized and energized. We can make this a country of, by and for the people if we want to take back our government. And donate to http://www.votenader.org -- your money and your time is needed to get true populist progressive messages into the presidential debate this year.
John -- By the way your 'don't run nader' effort is not working -- you should take on a more positive issue.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
My pitch was basically made in a commentary in the Nation in 2000 .... http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/fall_irv_pubs.htm#richie
And read more at www.fairvote.org
Let's pursue this win-win solution to the debate about third parties - embrace more choice, and still assure that winners have majority support when electing our executive leaders.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I Enjoyed it - -thanks to all, and keep on voting
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Thanks.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Thanks all, let's beat Bush!
Will Thomson WBUR
Thanks to you all for participating. Good night.
Okay. Thanks to everyone for coming. It looks like all the our guests are here. You can post your questions below. First I'd like to ask our guests to introduce themselves.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Sure, I'm John Pearce, creator of RalphDontRun.net, a citizen web campaign to ask Ralph Nader not to run for president in '04.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I'm executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy (www.fairvote.org). We're a nonpartisan organization that backs reforms to open up our political process like instant runoff voting
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I'm Kevin Zeese, currently working with the Nader for President campaign. I also work on a variety of progressive issues - election reform (today the issue was paperless electronic voting), peace and justice and also on ending the drug war -- as examples.
Will Thomson WBUR
And I'm Will. I work at WBUR Public Radio in Boston - and I cover politics and campaigns for our online site, www.wbur.org.
First, I want to ask about the role of third party candidates - and Nader specifically. What is their role as you see it. I think that a lot of people are charging that since they are unlikely to win, they take votes from the major party candidates who are closest to them on issues.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader has two goals: one to help make sure Bush is forced out of office. His being in the race increases the chance of that. And second to put progressive issues in the agenda that are not represented by the likely Democratic candidates or the president.
Will Thomson WBUR
How would each of you respond on that?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Our conviction is that in our 2-party system ANY third party run splits the vote on their side of the ideological divide, and therefore supports the election of those most hostile to its issues, as we saw so clearly in 2000.
Here's my OpEd on this topic, and it's a simple, ironic truth of our system.
This was true of Perot, Buchanan, etc., all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt (who elected Wildon over his pal Taft).
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader increases the chance of Bush being knocked out of office. And, he ensures that a populist progressive agenda will be part of the debate in the presidential election. See www.votenader.org to see the issues he stands for -- many no other candidate will take on.
Will Thomson WBUR
Kevin, can you explain that further. I think a lot of people look to the 2000 elections and believe that Nader cost Gore the election, but you're saying he hurts Bush - how?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
He increases the Democrats' chances in two ways. First he will make sure the Democrats don't blow it. What do California, New York, Mass, Maryland and Georgia have in common? They are all Democratic strongholds with Republican governors. Why? Because they run so far to the center they stand for nothing.
Second, Nader can take votes away from Bush's base that the Democrats can't. I'll give two examples. Last time a majority of Reform Party reps supported Bush. They don't like his deficits, the loss of jobs to India, China, Mexico nor his destruction of the Constitution. But the Democrats were complict in that so they cannot get many of those votes. Also, the muslim and Arab communities voted majority for Bush last time, but they are not likely to vote Dem because they shouted down Dean for calling for mere equality between Israel and Palestinians. Nader can draw those votes. And those are just two examples. You could also look at McCain Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, Sierra Club Republicans, libertarian Republicans among others.
Will Thomson WBUR
John, you obviously see this differently - is it just about the vote counts, or is there another intangible element to influencing the race?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
We'd agree that Democrats have to stand for something, but to say Nader won't hurt the Democratic nominee is just unsupported by data. Just an example: We don't agree, as you might expect.
Nader is saying that this year he'll take more votes from Republicans, but that is not supported by the data. Nationally, it's also important to note that Nader voters in 2000 voted for Democratic over GOP congressional candidates by a 58% to 27% margin, a far greater Democratic impact than the exist polls Nader has chosen to highlight, which still show the 38% - 25% split. The 38/25 split is Nader's exit poll number that he cites.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
In 2000, Nader got a lot of Republican votes. Indeed, in New Hampshire he got twice as many Republicans as Democrats. In Florida a CNN exit poll showed that a Naderless race resulted in 49-47 Bush. Nader in made it closer. His views cut across the political spectrum. He will show the Democrats how to beat Bush -- stand clearly against him.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
This New Hampshire vote data argument was effectively debunked by the New York Times last Tuesday, 2/24. They noted that indeed most Nader voters in New Hampshire were Republican - because the entire state is overwhelmingly Republican! They go on the point out the more salient points: despite their GOP affiliation, Nader's New Hampshire voters would have voted 3/2 for Gore.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The Democrats are doing the opposite. They are picking candidates who voted for some of Bush's worst policies -- the war, the Patriot Act. Kerry also voted for NAFTA/WTO and opposed Kyoto.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Kevin, are you saying Nader is running to elect the Democratic nominee?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I would suggest two things:
1) that if Ralph Nader had pulled out a week before the November 2000 election, Gore would have won Florida and perhaps New Hampshire, and thus the presidency;
2) that it's less likely he'll have that impact this time precisely because of efforts like those of John
Will Thomson WBUR
Rob, as someone who works in electoral reform, how do you see third parties playing in this election and past elections?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
On the reform side, I think it's healthy to have more and better choices -- and want to see changes that can accommodate those choices. That's why we're excited to see the significant rise in support for instant runoff voting in recent years
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Re. the history of third parties, the end of slavery, women's right to vote, ending child labor, the 40 hour work week, ending Prohibition, Social security -- these all started as third party issues. Nader will do the same thing this time -- he is the only one talking about ending corporate personhood, single payer health system, a living wage and a host of other issues.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
A more recent example is Perot and the budget deficit in 1992
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Not one of those issues succeeded via third party action. They succeeded by changing societal consensus via civil disobedience, protest, exposing truth.
You vote for incremental progress; you fight and protest for big change.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
They succeeded in part for the reasons you state -- but also by being part of the electoral debate. Third party and independent candidates showed they were useful for getting elected. So third and independent candidates were critical to the success.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
On John's point about "voting for incremental progress" and fighting for change -- we need an electoral system that makes it more possible to connect people's aspirations for change to voting. Then we'd get higher turnout and a more engaged electorate.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader would be the best president of all the candidates running. He has the most experience with the federal government and is grounded in the clearest principles. How far he will go depends how many people hear his message. The media has a lot to do with it. Getting in the debates has a lot to do with it. Whatever happens, Nader will build fissures in Bush's base and push a populist progressive message.
Will Thomson WBUR
How about a question from the audience.
"Beezner" asks:
"I prefer Nader as a candidate to Kerry (presuming he is the nominee), however I want to make sure Bush losses. I am voting in a liberal state, Vermont, which I am quite sure will carry the democratic candidate. Am I safe then to give Nader my vote, knowing that the electoral college votes in the state will be carried by the Democrats?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
My answer would be "yes, but keep an eye on the polls."
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Definitely, in safe states -- and that is almost all of them -- it is safe to vote your beliefs and not your fears.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Even I would not disagree
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
One of the candidates running for the Green Party nomination -- David Cobb -- has exactly that strategy: focus on the safe states.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Right, I heard that as well.
Will Thomson WBUR
Is that much of a strategy? If they don't expect to win, what do they gain from the run if they are unlikely to win?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Building support for issues they care about and building their party for efforts at a local level.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader is needed most in the battleground states. He can take votes away from Bush and get the Democrats to energize their base. He should campaign in all states.
Of course, instant run-off voting would allow people to vote their beliefs and not their fears everywhere.
Will Thomson WBUR
BuffaloGal Asks:
"What is instant runoff voting?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I'm glad you asked :) It's a system where everyone has one vote, but can rank candidates 1, 2, 3. If no one wins a majority of first choices, then the weak candidates are eliminated, and ballots cast for them are counted for the second choices.
It's used for national elections in Australia and Ireland and was just adopted in San Francisco and by Utah Republicans for votes at conventions.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Part of the RalphDontRun process has been getting tons of email from passionate, informed people. And I read as much of it as I can. I must say instant runoff voting seems to make terrific sense.
Many Nader voters are frustrated that they can't express themselves, but with IRV they could register their real opinion without "throwing away" their vote. I think I'm all for it, though I want to learn more.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
In 2000 "liberal" Nader voters would have picked Nader first and Gore second. Anti-goverNader voters may have picked Nader first and Buchanan second.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
see www.fairvote.org/irv for more. Some advocates of it include John McCain and Howard Dean (and Ralph Nader).
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
A very cool idea. If we advanced that and independent redistricting, we'd be getting somewhere...
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Wow-- two things we all agree on already. Soon John will say he's making a donation to VoteNader.org!
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
OK, the checks in the mail
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
you could send checks via our non-profit charitable organization :)
Will Thomson WBUR
Or donate to Public Radio...
Will Thomson WBUR
I want to ask you to clarify, to make sure I understand how ranking the candidates votes for them and how the votes are tallied.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
If your first vote does not win, then the votes go to your second choice.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Think of it like a traditional runoff. In a runoff, there is a whole second election with the top two facing off. With IRV, you have a second round of COUNTING.
Will Thomson WBUR
So, if no one gets 50 percent, you'd be put into a second round?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Yes... the simplest way to do "IRV" is to have the top two advance to the second round and everyone's ballot counts for whichever of those candidates is higher ranked on their ballot
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
If the Democrats were really concerned about Nader, they should have advocated for IRV for the last four years -- it was a great opportunity -- unfortunately it was missed.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Granted.
Will Thomson WBUR
That goes into the question asked by apple314:
"Why are all of the mainstream (ie candidates still in the running) candidates against IRV?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Edwards has been non-committal - -interested, though. Kerry hasn't taken a stand that I know of -- they both should be pressed. Kucinich and Sharpton are both for it
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
So was Dean
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Yes -- spurred on by a great local movement for it in Vermont
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Rob, what's your opinion on independent redistricting commissions? Anyone making progress on that?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I like Iowa-style redistricting
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Right now candidates are picking their voters, rather than voters picking their candidates -- we need much more independent redistricting.
They are tied to the two party system and don't take independents and third parties seriously. They will pay the price for their foolishness.
Will Thomson WBUR
what would it require to put this in place? Constitutional amendment, I imagine
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
No -- just a change in law.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Will -- actually, it could be done by statute immediately by states
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
There are some advocates getting a sympathetic audience in Connecticut for putting in IRV for 2004, actually
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
I think it would greatly behoove the party to try to get out front on this -- a perfect example of showing some spine
Will Thomson WBUR
How's that. Does each state have the right to make such a radical change in voting method?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
probably won't happen, but it could. We have some weird aspects to our voting....
States can do a lot on electoral college reform -- for instance, they could change to proportional allocation of electoral votes or allocating them by congressional district, as Maine and Nebraska do. And in fact, the Supreme Court pointed out in 2000 that states could appoint electors! Whacky.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
This is an example of why we need Nader in the race. He supports IRV and he also opposes these paperless electronic voting machines.
Will Thomson WBUR
Does the system merely let people vote for them without guilt, or does it give more power to third parties?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
It results in more honesty in the elections -- people voting for what they believe in, not what they fear. It will probably increase turnout because people will vote for something -- not just against something.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I agree with Kevin -- it would result in the major parties have to acknowledge the constituency mobilized by the third party
Will Thomson WBUR
For now, back to the current system with a point from Viking Dave:
"Ralph needs first to throw his intellect and remaining energies behind the Democrat and eliminate bush as a source of inspiration for the Southern and western Fanatics - and make no mistake they are fanatics. THEN he can demand reciprocity for his supporters and seek the office if it's not forthcoming."
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Right
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I can hear Kevin's typing from here...
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Why should he support a Democratic who voted for the war, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, against Kyoto. When he can show the Democrats how to beat Bush. Kerry's reaction to Nader was right. He said he will get Nader's voters because he agrees with Nader -- perfect -- talk like he believes in SOMETHING.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Because there IS a difference worth voting for.
Some people object to voting for the lesser of two evils. We disagree profoundly. We face a clear and present danger -- even to the modest gains progressives have made in our lifetimes. We feel very strongly that voting for "the lesser of two evils" is the principled and deeply moral thing to do.
Otherwise, you might vote "your conscience" then watch in the next few years as…
1. The Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action and a woman's right to choose, or re-criminalizes gay sex in the privacy of one's home; as
2. Bush continues tax cuts that create debt so massive NO progressive goal will be conceivable for a generation at least, precluding all disputes among us about what programs we want government to undertake;
3. as he continues pre-emptive counter-productive war, and on false pretenses at that. …to say nothing of pillage the environment for corporate gain, education, social security policy, and on and on and on. Is that the price we are supposed to pay so that Nader voters can have the satisfaction of voting their ideal candidate.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
If Gore had talked like a progressive throughout the 2000 race, rather than just the last two weeks, he would be president today.
Will Thomson WBUR
I hear a lot of agreement from you all on the content of Nader's issues, but pretty serious practical concerns over what it will translate into through the current electoral system.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader will help beat Bush -- without Nader expect the same results we've gotten in governors races in Democratic strongholds like California, Mass, New York, Maryland, Georgia -- they all have Republican governors. How can you trust the Democrats one on one against Bush with that record?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
That's what I don't accept. On one hand you say you want to just help beat Bush, and then you assault the Democrats and assert no difference. How do those work together?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
John -- do you work for the Democratic Party? I can't imagine someone not seeing that Nader could be right and the Democrats wrong.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
No. Entirely independent, just a person.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I'm not saying Nader will necessarily have this impact, but it's worth pointing out that significant third party candidacies that have taken the winning percentage in presidential races below 49% typically hurt the incumbent party -- the last 7 presidents elected with less than 49% defeated a candidate of the party that had been in the White House.
Will Thomson WBUR
Another comment from VikingDave:
"That's all well and good, if thus and such had happened then Gore would be president...but it didn't happen. Something else happened. Something really bad."
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
If you don't take about reforming our electoral laws in the midst of when they're breaking down, you'll never change them
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Right on Rob.
Will Thomson WBUR
And this comment from "Antelope":
I don't think Nader can take votes from Bush, only from Kerry. That's why I don't want Nader to run - because this time the difference between Bush and Kerry translates into lives and jobs lost or saved, morality sunk or revitalized, apathy grown or reduced.
Last time I voted for Nader and now I feel guilty.
If Mr. Nader wants to change this country he should write and speak instead of running a hopeless campaign for President.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Right on Antelope
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Where is the Muslim and Arab communities going to go -- 3 million voters? They voted majority for Bush last time. They don't want to this time, but are they going to go to the Democrats? When the Democrats shout down Governor Dean for merely saying Israel and Palestine should be treated equally? Nader can take those voters from Bush, but the Democrats cant. And there are other examples.
CNN reported that in a Naderless race in 2000 the result was 49-47 Bush -- in other words -- Nader made it closer.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
No one even knows Nader ethnicity. This is implausible. He's not an ethnic candidate
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Nader actually is an ethnic candidate.... It's just not widely known
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
It is not an ethnic issue. It is an issue of who supports their issues. Why would they vote Democrat? Not only the Israel issue, but the war, Patriot Act... Kerry supported both.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Every exit poll showed Nader's clear impact -- in spite of the great source of knowledge CNN
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I just told you an exit poll from CNN -- sorry if the facts confuse your conclusion.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Cheap shot Kevin.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Accurate shot from my view.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
58% voted for Democrats in 00, 25% for GOP. According to exit polls Nader cites himself (specifically on Jan 5 on SPAN -- the archived version is at www.cspan.org), 38% of his voters would have voted for Gore, 25% for Bush. The net 13% gain for Gore of Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida would have tipped the election to Gore. Case closed.
Will Thomson WBUR
Kevin, do you totally reject John's evaluation of the 2000 race, putting aside the Gore campaign's faults?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I think the 2000 race was Gore's to lose and he did a good job of it. Did not even win his home state I can't think of a president elected without his home state. And, Bush did a good job stealing it from Jeb to Scalia they stole the election.
They started a year before the vote -- knocking out 50,000 Dem voters by falsely claiming they were felons.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Agreed. They should have been prosecuted. For some reason the NAACP dropped their suit in Florida.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Then, 250,000 Democrats voted for Bush. They deserve more blame than Nader. And so does the mayor of Miami -- a Democrat - sat out the race. He could have produced 10,000 votes.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I agree too, Kevin, and I also think it's possible that Nader's candidacy led Gore to be more populist in a way that won more votes for him in the end.... but at the end of the day, don't you think that if he had pulled out on October 25, Gore would have won? Just curious."
Will Thomson WBUR
Here's a question from apple314:
"Putting aside Gore's inability to win an election that was handed to him, would Nader have done anything differently if he had thought or known that he was going to swing the election to Bush.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
He did not swing the election to Bush - there are facts that show a different analysis.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
According to exit polls Nader cites himself (specifically on Jan 5 on SPAN -- the archived version is at www.cspan.org), 38% of his voters would have voted for Gore, 25% for Bush. The net 13% gain for Gore of Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida would have tipped the election to Gore.
Will Thomson WBUR
Okay, Kevin, but "Apple" is asking if he thought he would hurt the Democrat, then what would he do?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
And, in 2004 he will have less of an effect on Dem votes. The Democrats want "anyone" but Bush while Bush's base is fraying -- Nader will help that fray expand.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
and how many did they lose due to Green voter peel-off?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
And, he also helps with the legislature -- if it were not for Nader Democrats would have lost a variety of senate and house elections.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Again, I just don't get it: on one had Nader is running to beat Bush and elect Dems; on the other hand he's savaging the D+ Democrats -- that's going to add to their votes?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I think Kevin's thesis for 2004 is more plausible than some critics (including our board member Rick Hertzberg, who just wrote a scathing anti-Nader commentary in the New Yorker) admit. Few people who really prefer a Democrat to Bush are going to vote for Nader in a tight state in a tight national race, I suspect...... Precisely because of what was learned from 2000.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
I hope Rob is right, but would feel a lot better if Nader openly embraced a strategic state approach
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
And John, I can't promise that! Just that it's plausible...... And consistent with history, where supporters of the "out" party is more disciplined than the "in" party
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
He will make the Democrats better. They will not take their base for granted and run to the corporate DLC center of their party. They will stand for populist progressive issues rather than Bush-lite.
Will Thomson WBUR
Kevin, do you think Nader's former Green Party affiliation would be a problem with any conservatives or Republicans considering giving him their vote?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader has always been an independent. He is still supportive of Greens but he is getting support across the political spectrum. The Reform Party folks especially like his views on trade, deficit, war. Libertarians like his view in the drug war. And even progressive Republicans like a lot of his views. He is an across the board candidate.
apple314
I still feel as if my question hasn't been answered. So let me try from a different angle: If a CNN poll on September first shows that Nader appears to be swinging the race in favor of Bush, how will Nader react?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Kevin -- Apple's question is directed to you... We'll let you answer it
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I can't predict the future and will not pretend to speak for Nader on such a hypothetical.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
I don't even know what I am going to have for breakfast tomorrow --
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
or whether you vote was just counted right
Will Thomson WBUR
Isn't that like saying that you don't know whether he would chose to hurt Democrats or not? Shouldn't that be a basic question you can answer about the candidate?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Strategic states would be silly to announce -- and Nader is needed in the battleground states to attack Bush and get the Democrats to energize their base.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Again, illogical. A voter in a strategic state is going to vote Democrat because Nader assaults them?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
It is Nader's job to present his views. It is Bush's and Kerry's to present theirs. Democracy requires that. We trust the voters more than others seem to.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
This is not an issue of democracy
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
It's a pragmatic issue of not harming the issues you're supposed to care aobut
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Nader's primary focus of attack is Bush. He has already made one tour of Texas -- going to Bush's political genesis. He will continue to focus his attack on Bush -- since he is in office.
Will Thomson WBUR
"BuffaloGal" comments:
"Kevin,I voted for Nader in 2000, and now have not a clue what to do this year. Kerry's success seems to be directing us to a logical conclusion. He could do better than Gore - Tell us why we should vote for Nader again?"
VCR has a similar question:
"I've heard people say that Nader will bring new issues into the election. Issues that otherwise would not come into the election. Could you please tell us what some of these issues are?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Without Nader in the race the Democrats and Republicans blend. They both voted for the war, Patriot Act, against Kyoto, for international trade agreements. Both take money for corporate leaders and answer to their corporate paymasters.
Nader in the race will bring out issues like living wage, single payer health care, peace, ending the occupation, cutting the defense budget, investing in U.S. infrastructure, ending the drug war -- issues that would otherwise be ignored.
Will Thomson WBUR
Back to the utility of third parties with a question from Beezner:
"One of the biggest frustrations for me in America is that there are millions of differing opinions in the country, but essentially only two ways we can vote, either Republican or Democrat. Do you see any way the nation can start to have more third parties to rise to real prominence with a chance of being elected, not merely outsiders trying to raise awareness on their issues?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Well, we talked earlier about the merits of instant runoff voting -- which could be done by statutes in states this year...
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Election reform See http://www.VoteNader.org -- and review the election reform issues. There are a host of things we can do to reinvigorate democracy. Again, only Nader will be discussing these issues.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Another more fundamental change is proportional representation, as practiced in most well-established democracies
Will Thomson WBUR
Rob, could it be put in place only in several states - or would it need necessarily to be implemented in the country as a whole?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Yes, IRV could be done in a single state.
Will Thomson WBUR
How would it actually give third parties more power? Or would it just let people so-inclined to vote for third party candidates without guilty?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Matt Gonzalez is an excellent example. He is a Green who is President of the Board of Supervisors and almost won the mayoral race.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
It would give voters more power, first and foremost.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
San Francisco is putting in place IRV
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Once a third party's true vote is revealed, it __could__ have more power. But at the same time, it's the issues that count and the responsiveness of our governing parties that count to most people ---- and IRV would help those parties be more responsive
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Third parties tend to elect their worst enemies. It is a sad truth of our system, but a truth all the same. Third party candidacies are extremely counterproductive, as 2000 indicated.
Will Thomson WBUR
Are there statistics that show many voters are just settling rather than voting for their true candidate because of a fear of helping the opposite side?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Half the populace not voting speaks pretty loud...
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
In 2000, Nader lost at least 5 million votes according to the Washington Post
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
In the last two weeks Gore started sounding like Nader and took a lot of his votes.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
IRV would have let people express that opinion, then elect Gore. A better scenario in our view.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I agree, John -- glad we're all agreed on that
Will Thomson WBUR
"Apple314" asks about the money:
"It seems to be that more effort needs to be made to promote IRV. How much would it cost to implement across the nation?"
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Thanks for asking that. It could be built into new voting equipment for virtually no cost, but most states aren't doing it -- one more reason to scold Democrats on this issue
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The key to promoting it is having a presidential candidate to speak out on it. That is the biggest megaphone. It will help voters get their point across -- it will help democracy flourish.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Rob, would IRV help Democrats more than GOP? That might doom it right there...
Will Thomson WBUR
Is this in fact a left-right issue? Wouldn't conservative third parties also benefit?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
It really depends on where third party energy is and might be in the future
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Is there any data projecting its effect?
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Republicans were big backers in a statewide ballot measure in 2002 -- and Democrats big opponents -- because of their spoiler fears
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
It will vary from election to election. Trust the voters -- don't be afraid of democracy!
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
It's not fear of democracy -- it's how you serve advancement of issues.
Will Thomson WBUR
Didn't Ross Perot help elect Clinton, by the same logic of the spoiler theory John's putting forward?
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Yes
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Perot definitely helped Clinton, but probably didn't elect him. But yes, Republicans in 1993 were a lot more ripe for it than they are now. The latest election is what most think about. But you can use IRV for all kinds of local elections, primaries, etc -- Very popular now on college campuses for student elections.
Check out www.fairvote.org/irv -- there's a good national moderated listserv on it too.
Will Thomson WBUR
Apple314 again:
"How many states are using new voting equipment...I used the good old machines tonight."
Kevin, since that's a specialty of yours, can we segue a little, and would you talk a bit about the paperless voting,
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
About six million people voted on paperless voting machines today, which could undermine our democracy, and continue to make people think they have less confidence in the system.
We had protests across Maryland, hundreds of people demanded paper ballots. The problems with these machines is there is no way to audit the electronic vote. And, they are insecure. One software programmer could effect the outcome of the election and no security would ever catch it.
And, they do not provide for an independent recount. If there was a software glitch then the recount will just reprint the software glitch. Visit www.truevotemd.org for more on this issue.
Again, only candidate speaking on this is Nader -- see http://www.votenader.org
Will Thomson WBUR
Is But is it really insecure? After all, we put the faith of millions of dollars in the computerized ATM systems. Is this much different?
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The software engineer creates the software. And election officials can also have an impact. And, reports show that outsiders can also affect the vote. Besides, ATM's have a paper record.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
One big problem with our voting is that we use private vendors to create our equipment -- and let states and counties choose the equipment. Lots of bad options and bad decisions going on
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Diebold, the corporation producing most of these machines, is very pro-Bush. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are contributed, and the CEO has said he want to deliver Ohio to Bush (could be the Florida of 2004). And his machines will count the vote on secret software than cannot be audited. As Ralph says "It does not pass the smell test." John
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Scary indeed, Diebold...
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
We call for a national right to vote in the Constitution (which we don't have, clearly stated and powerfully enforced) and then have a really good national machine developed that would have all the public interest features Kevin, I and others want -- paper trail, capacities for the blind, ease for voters, etc etc
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The technology is available to have a voter verified paper record for audits and recounts. There is no reason not to do it.
Will Thomson WBUR
I think that would be surprising to people, that that isn't explicit in the Constitution.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Indeed it is, but that's why states can choose to disenfranchise ex-felons, not get better equipment, etc.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
A clear right to vote would protect us from Supreme Court justices who have proven themselves to be partisans in black robes.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has proposed a right to vote in the Constitution and makes a very eloquent case for it -- some would argue that it reflects more basic principles than some other constitutional proposals being made these days
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
The two major party's really do not want a big turnout. They fear the disaffected half of the population -- they fear because they do not know how they will vote - better to work with the voting groups they know.
Will Thomson WBUR
Well, I think we've covered a lot of ground -- third parties to elections, IRV, voting machines... Before you all have to leave, I would like to ask each of you to make a final pitch for your positions.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
A vote for Nader -- especially in a close state -- and if your alternative is to vote for the Democrats -- is a vote for Bush. It is that simple. Vote Democrat, even if you have to hold your nose while doing so.
Save the Supreme Court from Scalia, our treasury from tax cut pillage, all of us from this war policy, not to mention our environment, education, etc. Anyone who wants to encourage Nader leaning people to vote Democratic -- I invite you to visit RalphDontRun.net. We'll do our best to make the case for Democratic votes this fall.
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Register and vote. Get informed and get active. Get organized and energized. We can make this a country of, by and for the people if we want to take back our government. And donate to http://www.votenader.org -- your money and your time is needed to get true populist progressive messages into the presidential debate this year.
John -- By the way your 'don't run nader' effort is not working -- you should take on a more positive issue.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
My pitch was basically made in a commentary in the Nation in 2000 .... http://www.fairvote.org/op_eds/fall_irv_pubs.htm#richie
And read more at www.fairvote.org
Let's pursue this win-win solution to the debate about third parties - embrace more choice, and still assure that winners have majority support when electing our executive leaders.
Rob Richie (The Center for Voting and Democracy)
I Enjoyed it - -thanks to all, and keep on voting
Kevin Zeese (Nader Campaign)
Thanks.
John Pearce (RalphDontRun.net)
Thanks all, let's beat Bush!
Will Thomson WBUR
Thanks to you all for participating. Good night.