And the Democrats smash back the Republican’s “hurricane” lob. Wow, what a shot! I didn’t think they’d get to that one in time, but they did, and now the Republicans are scrambling back, way back behind the baseline …. to be continued….
A Florida judge ordered county elections officials on Wednesday to issue absentee ballots without the name of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, a possible blow to President Bush in the battleground state.
Circuit Judge Kevin Davey overruled a move this week by Florida’s elections supervisor to include Nader on the ballot for the Nov. 2 election as a Reform Party candidate.
[…]
On Monday, Division of Elections Director Dawn Roberts told Florida’s 67 county voting supervisors to put Nader’s name on overseas absentee ballots that must be sent out by Saturday.
Roberts said Hurricane Ivan, set to strike the U.S. Gulf coast, had cast doubt on whether Davey could hold a hearing on a permanent injunction scheduled for Wednesday. As a result, she said, Florida’s Department of State filed an appeal against the temporary injunction.
The appeal automatically stayed the injunction, allowing Roberts to certify Nader as a legitimate candidate and the counties to put his name on the ballots.
Davey on Wednesday overrode that stay and said that if counties had already sent out ballots with Nader’s name on them, they must send corrected versions without it.
Constant reader sidereal made an excellent observation in hilzoy’s post about the last rally in this apparently 5-set match:
Err on the side of letting people vote for whomever they want to vote for. Let’s not let tactics get in the way of principles, shall we?
I agree with that in principle. But at some point, Nader really is just playing the spoiler here and making a mockery of the process. I mean a party that normally wouldn’t touch him with a ten-foot pole is doing everything they can to get him on the ballot and he let’s them?
The Florida Supreme Court is set to make their call on Friday.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1
“But at some point, Nader really is just playing the spoiler here and making a mockery of the process”
No, on the contrary, I’d say that it is those who are trying to prevent Florida’s voters from having him as a choice who are “making a mockery of the process”, and betraying an attitude of entitlement that ought to disgust anyone with a respect for democratic principles. It shouldn’t be up to the Democrats or some third party to get to decide for one whether or not a candidate’s participation is “making a mockery of the process”, regardless of the alliances of convenience that candidate may choose to make.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt
iD8DBQFBSMP1OgWD1ZKzuwkRAlHPAJwPe5MqwzIN6FN6uMyvkg1GA0lh+wCcCdRt
PC7m+ZwS2SmLwhbNeBnvnlA=
=wJCk
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Here’s what I want to know, though–does the Elections Director really have the power to nullify decisions made by Florida courts? If so, is this the way it is in other states?
I assume that like most states, Florida permits write-in votes. No one is denied the opportunity to vote for whom they please. Naderites who claim otherwise don’t get it.
What is at issue here are the rules for being printed on the official ballot. The state does not have to mimic California’s recall, and permit anyone to be on the formal ballot. Nader has no right to be on the printed ballot and has obviously failed to qualify in Florida. That is because he does not have any party or minimal level of support to qualify.
“No one is denied the opportunity to vote for whom they please.”
Come on. . that’s silly. By that argument Elvis, Rocky the Squirrel, and Al Franken are also running for President, since they’re also eligible for write-in votes. It’s not too much to say that to be given your due opportunity as a Presidential candidate your name has to be on the ballot. Do you contest that Ralph Nader is a Presidential candidate?
“That is because he does not have any party or minimal level of support to qualify.”
Oh, well, the Democrats shouldn’t care, then. Right? Surely if he has no significant support, he can’t do any damage. If, on the other hand, the Democrats believe that there’s a few thousand people in Florida who would vote for Nader and it might tip the balance, it’s essential to ask by what right and what principle the Democrats are agitating for those few thousand people to be denied the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Harley had a comment in the last thread that I meant to reply to, but Typepad denied me. Essentially, he suggested it was perverse to recommend the Democrats prop up a far right candidate rather than try to kick out a candidate, on the grounds that both are subversions of democracy. Beyond the fact that that’s a weird principle to build an argument around, it ignores the fact that the anti-Nader Democrats are not subverting Democracy simply by engaging in crazy tactics. . that’s just winning, and we have a long history of people trying to win in America. . it’s a subversion of Democracy because it specifically entails the elimination of citizens’ ability to choose the representitive they most want. That’s fundamentally anti-democratic. Propping up an extremist candidate, on the other hand, creates more potential representatives, gives people more appropriate choices, and is fundamentally democratic. Some would argue it’s sleazy or underhanded (personally, I don’t have a problem with it, from either the Repubs or the Democrats), but whether the intent is mischievous or not, the end result is stronger democracy.
And people wonder why voters are cynical.
Mike Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel [fargan registration required] convinced me of two things, this morning:
1) The Reform Party really is a joke.
2) Nader, by Florida Law, can legitimately be put on the ballot. This was not his main point, but it’s an extrapolation from:
Thomas brings up a lot of interesting things about the journey the Reform Party has taken since 1992, but none of it is really relevant to whether Nader can actually be on the ballot.
What’s relevant is that the Democrats are fighting like crazy in the courts for possession of the Idiot Vote. This is not going to help you, people.
Miriam Marquez also has some salient things to say. I can rarely read Miriam without getting at least a little tense, but her point is that the only reason Nader is an issue at all is because Kerry’s not a very strong candidate. And she’s got a sort of a point: in an electoral battle between Pure Evil and any Anonymous Coward, the AC ought to win hands down.
Oh, and I’ve said in quite a few places around the Internet that if you thought Kathleen Harris was bad, you really need to take a good look at Glenda Hood. So far, her involvement has been fairly incidental. But in the interest of being able to say I told you so at some later date, keep an eye on her.
This Glenda is not the good witch.
Propping up an extremist candidate, on the other hand, creates more potential representatives, gives people more appropriate choices, and is fundamentally democratic.
In a winner-take-all election, this is debatable. Assuming that most people who are voting for Nader would want Kerry as their second choice, then if their votes for Nader tip the election to Bush, the “will of the people” will have been subverted, no?
Anyway, if you feel that anyone who wants to should be allowed on the ballot, so that the people will have more choices and thus more democracy, then you should take that argument up with the Florida legislature. Given that they have qualification rules, if it’s true that Nader hasn’t met them (and on that question I’m agnostic), then he shouldn’t be on the ballot. To allow him on would be unfair to other potential candidates who were unable to qualify and didn’t happen to have a major party helping them skirt the rules.
Slarti
Bit of a stretch I’d say.
“2) Nader, by Florida Law, can legitimately be put on the ballot. This was not his main point, but it’s an extrapolation from:
But legally Nader could prevail in the Florida Supreme Court because the state’s vague laws may allow shams.”
“Could” and “may” don’t translate to “can”.
I don’t claim that they do, carsick. And of course I’m also not claiming that either I or Thomas are anything resembling fonts of legal knowledge. What I am saying, though, is that the laws are sufficiently vague that interpretation of them as being MORE restrictive than they actually are is unjustifiable. There’s simply nothing there to attach that sort of interpretation to.
“then you should take that argument up with the Florida legislature”
But I am. What’s that you say? They don’t read ObsWi? Their loss.
While I do believe that the law is terrible, I’m not a Florida resident and have no control over it. My current beef is with those who enthusiastically endorse it, or at least unthinkingly take a side according to the electoral effect of its application in this case.
Slarti–
Fighting like crazy for the idiot vote is a bad thing? I thought it was called “campaigning.” 🙂
sidereal,
Understood and agreed. My beef is more with our winner-take-all system, which prevents people from voting for their first choice lest their second choice lose to their last choice.
If you’re interested, there’s a great debate going around in various circles about the relative merits of Condorcet systems versus IRV. It’s pretty well established that both (and just about anything else) are better than Plurality voting.
Good overview here.
Hey, thanks for the link — I didn’t realize how many other options there were, nor did it ever occur to me that IRV (which is what I guess I had in mind, not knowing its official designation) could still involve voter gaming. It’s helpful to know that there’s no one perfect system.
SCOFL has reached a decision.