Skip

Greens for Gore
October 21, 2000 7:24 PM   Subscribe

Greens for Gore have a voting strategy. If you like Nader, you might want to see what they have in mind.
posted by aprilgem (10 comments total)

 
It's a pretty good strategy and could rake in some results. One of the problems is that the two top candidates don't hold a humongous portion of the votes, but that a higher percentage of likely 3rd party voters just aren't the kind of people who regularly vote. That's why Nader isn't higher in the polls, you aren't counted if you aren't a likely voter. I agree with a lot of the points they make, except for the choice point. We don't need strong anti-life supporters in the presidency. It's a good thing that if Gore is elected, we have a system of ruling and overruling of votes in this country.
posted by tomorama at 7:40 PM on October 21, 2000


Yes, yes.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:44 AM on October 22, 2000


Now that I looked at that page I’m angry.

Quoting from the “We’re not Green when it counts” page:

Ralph himself said he wants Greens and progressive Democrats to vote strategically, voting Green in states where one major party or the other has a solid majority.

A misleading misquote! How can they look themselves in the mirror?

The actual quote from the link they provide:

Nader: In Texas, Bush is going to win in a landslide. In New York, it looks like Gore is going to win big. So that's where the Democrats, progressive Democrats can send a message and vote Green. And we expect to get votes because of that phenomenon where really the race has been decided between the two major parties of various states. We're going to be the beneficiary of those votes, if people look at their votes strategically, not just voting their conscience instead of their fears, but voting for a significant Green party after the election to be the watchdog and to hold the two parties' feet to the fire."

Read it close. Where did he say vote for Gore? He didn’t.

And I really want that Ani Difranco letter sourced. I think it’s bullshit. I’ll eat my words if I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:32 AM on October 22, 2000


so even if i don't like al gore, i'm supposed to vote for him because i'm from new mexico? screw. that. my absentee ballot is going in on monday, and i believe nader's got my vote.
posted by sugarfish at 1:58 AM on October 22, 2000


For me, this about voting my conscience, not strategy.
If Bush winds up in the White House, its 'cause some Americans believe he deserves to be there. We get the government we deserve. Yet, I think we can do better.

posted by black8 at 4:02 AM on October 22, 2000


I agree with Madame Sugarfish. One of the reasons I'm voting for Nader is because I like him. I want him to have my vote. Not Al Gore, not George Dubya, not Pat Buchanan.

I thought we were supposed to vote for who we want to vote for... not for a person depending upon our geographic location.
posted by hijinx at 6:30 AM on October 22, 2000


Cap'n, I must agree, that Ani Difranco letter does look a little suspicious. Especially the poor grammar and spelling mistakes.
posted by Doug at 10:18 AM on October 22, 2000


Although we're all moved on from this topic, I thought it important to note by way of postscript that Salon has an article on Greens NOT for Gore.
posted by leo at 9:34 PM on October 22, 2000


Opps, screwed up the link. Try Greens NOT for Gore [take two]
posted by leo at 9:56 PM on October 22, 2000


I’m nearly positive no one will ever read this but:


In endeavors to improve our situation, we should never despair. — Thomas Jefferson to John Quincy Adams

posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:46 AM on October 24, 2000


« Older Donate a dollar to fight breast cancer.   |   We didnt' start the weblogs... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post