How did you vote in 2000? Simply curious

[al j]

Not that there should be too many surprises, I'm just interested in a closer look at the demographic here.

edit: Gah, poll question should also read "2000".

[Vince Kargatis]

I voted libertarian, as usual, having generally more interest in affecting future elections than present ones. However, I underestimated what I see as the incompetence of the Bush administration, particularly regarding the choice of Attorney General and their foreign policy, so I will attempt to vote Democratic this time.

I say attempt because since I live in the District, a guaranteed Dem win, my voting will have no effect anyway. So instead I'll try to vote-trade with someone wanting to vote non-major anyway. Dunno how easy that will be, but those are the considerations for me....

[bostontricky]

Here's one in the bucket for Ralph. Voting in Massachusetts is kind of a creative process at times, as it was in the 2000 Presidential election - Gore beat Bush by 60 to 33 percent.

It will probably be the same this time around: unless I want to see if Kerry can beat Bush 2 to 1 in Mass., I can vote for whoever else I want to. (Just as long as a million other voters in this state don't get the same idea...)

Didn't, but would have voted Gore.

[Pete C]

No regrets about voting for Nader in 2000 since Gore had NY locked up. I won't vote for Nader this time.

[Noj]

I voted for Gore.

I should vote Green since they match my views better, but I will vote Democrat just to make sure I vote against Bush in the way most likely to remove him from office.

[al j]

I didn't vote either, due to an avoidable mishap with my absentee ballot. I was truly torn at the time of that election, but probably would have voted for Bush, with a large capacity for regret. I will vote this year and am again torn at this point in time, but the next few months should yield a lot more information about the candidates so I'll ride out the election year with serious attention.

[Al in NYC]

What Pete said goes for me too.

[Chris D]

Voted Gore, helped him narrowly take my state.

[crawjo]

I voted for Bush, and have mixed feelings about it now. I have found Bush to be inspiring at times, and absolutely terrible at other times. At the same time, I find Gore to be quite repulsive as far as his politics go, and the way he keeps reinventing himself I honestly have no idea what sort of president he would have been.

I don't understand why Democrats are angry at Nader. Nader did not "cost Gore the election." Such an attitude ascribes "false consciousness" to Nader voters, as if they did not understand the meaning of their vote, or as if Nader's candidacy prevented them from voting for Gore. I think this is the wrong attitude to take: votes for Nader weren't taken from Gore, they were votes that Gore lost because he ran a bad campaign. In other words, he didn't earn their votes. Similarly, I don't understand why people are so upset over a Nader candidacy this time around. Again, "false consciousness" seems to come into play. People want to assume that those who vote for Nader are being duped, and I don't think that's right. I think the more candidates the better, and I think more candidates should be included in the debates.

At any rate, even if Nader gets just as many votes as he did in 2000, I doubt that his candidacy will prove decisive one way or the other in who becomes president.

[jesus marion joseph]

I cast the "Bush-regret it", though crawjo's take is pretty close to the way I feel. However, there was no "Bush-wishy washy" option, so there you go.

Truthfully, the only way I would undo that vote is if I knew then what I know now, and that's just not possible, unless you time travel. Although I'm pretty certain Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, who knows how he would have responded to the other events of the past four years?

BTW, my mixed feelings regarding Bush are based on what appears to be insufficient planning in regards to post-Saddam Iraq. I'm glad he took the bastard out-should have happened a long time ago, but I'm not happy with the fact that it was obviously not entirely thought through, including a concrete exit strategy. Also, the timing was bad, since it has apparently drained resources from the hunt for bin Laden and the overall action in Afghanistan, which I think everyone would agree was necessary.

[Tanager]

I voted for Gore, and it didn't make a damned bit of difference, since the Dems had (and continue to have) very, very little chance of taking NC.

[clinthopson]

That election was the evil of two lessers.

I'm supporting Kerry and think he can bring some sanity to the oval office.

[Brian Olewnick]

What Vince said.

[Jon Abbey]

reading this thread makes it even more obvious (not that it wasn't already) how stupid it is that we don't elect our President by a simple national vote of the people. whoever gets more votes, wins. the electoral college is antiquated silliness, six of the people who posted above me feel (rightfully so) like their vote was irrelevant. I don't feel like arguing about this, that's my opinion.

I voted for Gore, and the only thing I regretted was that he lost. Bush is the worst president this country has ever had, it amazes me whenever I hear someone saying they plan to vote for him again.

[Uli]

I believe that in a popular vote potentialy more people can feel that their vote is irrelevant. Basically everybody who voted for the loser.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I don't understand why Democrats are angry at Nader. Nader did not "cost Gore the election." Such an attitude ascribes "false consciousness" to Nader voters, as if they did not understand the meaning of their vote, or as if Nader's candidacy prevented them from voting for Gore. I think this is the wrong attitude to take: votes for Nader weren't taken from Gore, they were votes that Gore lost because he ran a bad campaign. In other words, he didn't earn their votes. Similarly, I don't understand why people are so upset over a Nader candidacy this time around. Again, "false consciousness" seems to come into play. People want to assume that those who vote for Nader are being duped, and I don't think that's right. I think the more candidates the better, and I think more candidates should be included in the debates.

At any rate, even if Nader gets just as many votes as he did in 2000, I doubt that his candidacy will prove decisive one way or the other in who becomes president.

C'mon, man, you're not this naive. The math's been done. Nader took the winning percentage away from Gore. It's not a question of whether Gore ran a good campaign or not. Nor is it a matter of Naderites being duped. The simple fact is that voting for President is serious business; serious candidates only need apply. People who voted for Nader to "send a message" sent the whole planet a message: we're willing to elect the dumbest fucking leader in the free world. The polls are so close now that the same thing could easily happen this year. Every vote for Nader helps Bush. Every single one, there's no question about it. If you don't want four more years of Bush, the only move, like it or not, is to vote for Kerry.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by Uli

I believe that in a popular vote potentialy more people can feel that their vote is irrelevant. Basically everybody who voted for the loser.

I don't get that, at least then people would at least understand that they were simply outvoted. all of this pandering to "swing states" while ignoring the 50 percent or so of the country where the outcome is a foregone conclusion is a pretty stupid way to elect a leader.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Every vote for Nader helps Bush. Every single one, there's no question about it.

This is simply not true. GG surely you understand the workings of the Electoral College, right? My vote for Nader no more hurt Gore's chances to become President than if I had voted for Bush.

[Vince Kargatis]

Al, I think GG is assuming that Nader voters would've voted for Gore if not for Nader. Not a safe assumption...

Jon, the EC exists because the Founders most deliberately chose to give the states weight as distinct entities, functionally weighting regional concerns. It's not 'antiquated silliness' that you should criticize, but rather spell out why you disagree with that notion.

[Al in NYC]

I agree that this seems to be his assumption Vince. But even if you make that assumption (falsely in my case...) votes for Nader in states where Gore (or Bush) was certain to win a majority had no effect at all on the outcome of the election.

[cookie]

voted for Nader and don't regret it. I will probably not vote for him this time. My reasoning at the time was that Nader was my choice of concience. My state was very likely to go Democratic despite my vote, so I exercised my right to voice an opinion by voting for Nader. The Democratic party lost my vote by trying to distance itself from the Clinton presidency.

I knew that Bush being elected would frustrate progress on some issues that I hold dear, but I didn't think it would get THIS bad. I thought we could probably live with it and in 4 years run some sort of non-Clintonian hotshot and get on with it. Then again, 9/11 hadn't happened yet. This administration---not to mention the whole fuckin' world---has become just surreal to me.

Anyway, I'm not interested in Nader right now. I think Nader had some interesting and valid ideas concerning domestic social, environmental, and class issues, I think that right now the world has bigger problems to deal with. I think that re-electing Bush puts us in a very precarious place on the world stage.

So right now my plan is to vote for Kerry. I'm not particularly happy about it (but at least his wife is fun). But who knows what's going to happen. ANYTHING could happen at this point. There are so many conspiracy theories: my favorite is that the administration already has Osama in captivity and plan to conveniently "find" him a month or two before the election. Ha. That's a good one. But really, ANYthing can happen and I might feel completely different when November rolls around. I'm keeping an open ear and mind, but right now, I think voting Democratic is best for the country. JMO. YMMV.Ed.: I think I may have clicked "Nader/regret" rather than "Nader/don't regret." I do not regret my vote for Nader under the circumstances in which I found myself and my state at the time.

[Jon Abbey]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

Jon, the EC exists because the Founders most deliberately chose to give the states weight as distinct entities, functionally weighting regional concerns. It's not 'antiquated silliness' that you should criticize, but rather spell out why you disagree with that notion.

yes, well, they got a lot of things right, but that was 200-plus years ago, and this part of the system isn't working anymore. "regional concerns" shouldn't be an issue when electing a president, national concerns should be. we've got plenty of local politicians for regional concerns.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by cookie

Ed.: I think I may have clicked "Nader/regret" rather than "Nader/don't regret." I do not regret my vote for Nader under the circumstances in which I found myself and my state at the time.

Sorry, cookie. It's too late. As far as we're all concerned, you voted for Nader and regret it. Don't think we're going to f**king forget it, either.

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

yes, well, they got a lot of things right, but that was 200-plus years ago, and this part of the system isn't working anymore.

Well now, THATS an in-depth analysis if I ever heard one.

Sounds as though if Gore had won, the EC would have been working just fine.

I myself am not a huge fan of the EC, but having had it explained to me by people who had a greater understanding of it, I can see it's necessity.

But all said and done, I'd prefer a popular voting system as well.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Joe Christmas

I will vote this year and am again torn at this point in time, but the next few months should yield a lot more information about the candidates so I'll ride out the election year with serious attention.

I'm genuinely interested in learning what you are "torn" about, Joe.

So far, 13.79% of respondents did not vote in the 2000 presidential election.
What's up with that?

Jon echoed my sentiments with respect to the antiquated Electoral College. Ludicrous.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

I don't get that, at least then people would at least understand that they were simply outvoted. all of this pandering to "swing states" while ignoring the 50 percent or so of the country where the outcome is a foregone conclusion is a pretty stupid way to elect a leader.

As an absolute what I sed is wrong. In a direct majority vote only less than 50% (of total voters) can be outvoted, in the present electoral system more than 50% can be outvoted. I don't know anything about the history of the Electorate. Usually it is the exact purpose of such systems to soften pure majority rule. I was commenting on those who felt that their vote was irrelevant because however they would have voted, it would not have changed the outcome one way or the other factually (in view of the actual or any reasonably projected outcome), that may very well be true, In theorie, I think, to take the example of the Naderites in New York, Nader had the same chance to win than Bush or Gore.

Ps I have not seen some of the replys before I answered. vince alredy sed some.

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Same as Pete and Al, Left Coast version -- I voted for Nader in a state that Gore had locked up.

The Electoral College is a dinosaur. It was another way to strengthen the political identity of the country as a republic, with powerful legislatures, as opposed to a democracy. It's convened so much later than the election in order to allow enough time for the delegates to ride on horseback to the state and national vote talleys.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

So far, 13.79% of respondents did not vote in the 2000 presidential election.
What's up with that?

Ron, some are simply not allowed to vote. Which is especially a shame at times when a president does whatever he wants whether it's in his or somebody elses backyard.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

C'mon, man, you're not this naive. The math's been done. Nader took the winning percentage away from Gore. It's not a question of whether Gore ran a good campaign or not. Nor is it a matter of Naderites being duped. The simple fact is that voting for President is serious business; serious candidates only need apply. People who voted for Nader to "send a message" sent the whole planet a message: we're willing to elect the dumbest fucking leader in the free world. The polls are so close now that the same thing could easily happen this year. Every vote for Nader helps Bush. Every single one, there's no question about it. If you don't want four more years of Bush, the only move, like it or not, is to vote for Kerry.

It's not naive, it's logical. I know that in the exit polls Nader voters said they otherwise would have voted for Gore, but I imagine a lot of them probably wouldn't have voted at all. And anyway, we're a democracy. The voter has the right to vote for whomever they want, and I think it is incredibly arrogant for someone to decide who is and who is not a "serious candidate." If someone votes for a person, apparently they think they are a serious candidate.

Why do you think voters should be denied the opportunity to vote for Nader? Do you believe Nader voters are so stupid that they don't understand the ramifications of their vote? On a lot of issues related to the economy particularly, Nader represents a point of view that is not included in either the Republican or Democratic parties. Why shouldn't a voter be able to register their disgust with the two-party system? And why should Nader supporters abandon their candidate for a guy who supported NAFTA, voted for the Patriot Act, and voted for the Iraq war? How does Kerry represent their interests?