TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Ralph Nader chooses Miguel Camejo for his running mate

Ralph Nader chooses Miguel Camejo for his running mate

Today, Nader chose Miguel Camejo, a business man and investor as his vice presidential candidate. Any other nader supporters about on the forum?

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=80


Here is a short biography on Camejo:
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MCA33508

He went to MIT and Cal-Berkley, and was the Green Party's candidate for Governor in the crazy debacle for California Governor position that Arnold Schwarzeneger won. Camejo came in 4th in the Recall voting.

If I held US citizenship I'd totally vote for Nader

I think nader is great and i voted for him last time but i wont be this time. i would rather it is far more important to me that anyone other than bush win this election and voting for nader makes that less likely to happen.

Everyone vote for Nader

Im a Nader supporter through and through. I would not vote for either Kerry or Bush in this upcoming election. I wish people would vote for the best candidate rather than along party lines or simply to get one out of office. These do not seem like good reasons to vote for me?

FInaly a hispanic person for vice president.I dont know Nader might win if he get the hispanic vote which in the US hispanics are the largest minority group.

Too bad most hispanics dont care about voting....

VIVA La RAza

quote:

Originally posted by tribu Im a Nader supporter through and through. I would not vote for either Kerry or Bush in this upcoming election. I wish people would vote for the best candidate rather than along party lines or simply to get one out of office. These do not seem like good reasons to vote for me?

i totally agree with you, if we lived in an ideal world. but we dont. and if too many people vote for nader, bush WILL be president again. so do you want to make a point and deal with bush for 4 more years or will you suck up your idealism just vote fore kerry?

quote:

Originally posted by butterfly i totally agree with you, if we lived in an ideal world. but we dont. and if too many people vote for nader, bush WILL be president again. so do you want to make a point and deal with bush for 4 more years or will you suck up your idealism just vote fore kerry?

Nope. This is the way the voting system should work. The only way we can make an ideal world is to do it, and voting is one of the few ways we have to make things change, and i would rather vote for how things should be. If Nader were not running, I would not vote for Kerry , and unless I wrote someone in, I would probably skip out on casting a vote for President. The way people vote now is kinda disgusting, narrowing it down to two people for some unknown reasons; half the time, they dont even know where the candidates stand on the issues, or if theyre just flip-flopping about appeasing everyone. Wives vote like their husbands, children vote like their parents, whole families vote alike. Voting along party lines just because "im a republican so i have to vote republican" pisses me off too. It doesnt take much to have a little civic-mindedness, why are americans so apathetic?

quote:

Originally posted by Nou Arg... its not a matter of who you think is the best, its a matter of who is the best that WILL win. -Nader wont win. -Bush is 100x worse than Kerry, and you would rather have Bush than Kerry? -Im sorry to sound so blunt, but thats how it is.

I dont see an advantage in choosing Bush or Kerry. Either one will squander our tax money, keep us happy by subsidizing gasoline and other novelties, and keep giving themselves pay raises. America is like watching a company that is losing money, so they fire employees while the CEO gets a 6% increase. I know Nader probably wont win, but I empathize with his stances on the issues that hes stated ( http://www.votenader.org ), so i feel like i should vote for him. *shrug

popular vote doesnt matter

quote:

Originally posted by tribu Nope. This is the way the voting system should work. The only way we can make an ideal world is to do it, and voting is one of the few ways we have to make things change, and i would rather vote for how things should be. If Nader were not running, I would not vote for Kerry , and unless I wrote someone in, I would probably skip out on casting a vote for President. The way people vote now is kinda disgusting, narrowing it down to two people for some unknown reasons; half the time, they dont even know where the candidates stand on the issues, or if theyre just flip-flopping about appeasing everyone. Wives vote like their husbands, children vote like their parents, whole families vote alike. Voting along party lines just because "im a republican so i have to vote republican" pisses me off too. It doesnt take much to have a little civic-mindedness, why are americans so apathetic? I dont see an advantage in choosing Bush or Kerry. Either one will squander our tax money, keep us happy by subsidizing gasoline and other novelties, and keep giving themselves pay raises. America is like watching a company that is losing money, so they fire employees while the CEO gets a 6% increase. I know Nader probably wont win, but I empathize with his stances on the issues that hes stated ( http://www.votenader.org ), so i feel like i should vote for him. *shrug

i think that your ideals are admirable (just like naders) but still unrealistic. but i already said that...

quote:

Originally posted by mndeg electoral vote doesnt matter

Nader is trying to change this:

"Major electoral reforms are needed to ensure that every vote counts, all voters are represented through electoral reforms like instant run-off voting, none-of-the-above options, and Proportional Representation* , non-major party candidates have a chance to run for office and participate in debates, and that elections are publicly financed."


*(Proportional Representation is changing from our current winner-take-all system to if your candidate gets 47% of the vote, you get 47% of the vote.)

quote:

Originally posted by tribu Nader is trying to change this: "Major electoral reforms are needed to ensure that every vote counts, all voters are represented through electoral reforms like instant run-off voting, none-of-the-above options, and Proportional Representation* , non-major party candidates have a chance to run for office and participate in debates, and that elections are publicly financed." *(Proportional Representation is changing from our current winner-take-all system to if your candidate gets 47% of the vote, you get 47% of the vote.)

i think that is an interesting issue. i beleive the electoral college was instituted partly because there was no way for individual voters to be educated on who was running so their votes were supposed to infulence their electoral representative on how to vote. (correct me if i am wrong on any of this) i thought that the representatives in teh electoral college are allowed to split up their vote but it has become common practice for all votes to go with the majority. (not too sure on that - i'd be curious if anyone knows more)

anyway, i think i generally agree that it should go by the majority vote, with the way votes get cast now. If the vote were to get split up proportionally then i dont think it would matter so much...

quote:

Originally posted by butterfly i think that is an interesting issue. i beleive the electoral college was instituted partly because there was no way for individual voters to be educated on who was running so their votes were supposed to infulence their electoral representative on how to vote. (correct me if i am wrong on any of this) i thought that the representatives in teh electoral college are allowed to split up their vote but it has become common practice for all votes to go with the majority. (not too sure on that - i'd be curious if anyone knows more) anyway, i think i generally agree that it should go by the majority vote, with the way votes get cast now. If the vote were to get split up proportionally then i dont think it would matter so much...

This is more or less true. I actually am not sure what the law says on it, but i believe currently the system goes:
-popular vote taken
-results given to electorate
-electorate are supposed to vote for whom the state chose, but they have the option not to (no one ever does this)
-president chosen accordingly

Its definnitely an interesting system, but it has alot of flaws. Granted any new system would also be bound to have flaws, but it just seems more fair to do it this new way, especially with the infinitely better technology we now possess (relative to the 1780s)

quote:

Originally posted by TweeK FInaly a hispanic person for vice president.I dont know Nader might win if he get the hispanic vote which in the US hispanics are the largest minority group. Too bad most hispanics dont care about voting.... VIVA La RAza

Yeah, because we all know how smart it is to vote for someone based on their ethnicity as opposed to, you know, what they stand for or how qualified they are.

quote:

Originally posted by tribu -electorate are supposed to vote for whom the state chose, but they have the option not to (no one ever does this)

More than half the states now require them to by law, defeating the entire purpose of the electoral college.

In the future, you may want to consider posting this type of topic in the politics forum:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...p?s=&forumid=66

It's not a big deal either way, though.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.