The Daily Beast has this interesting commentary by Ralph Nader, on Michael Bloomberg. Nader does not endorse him but feels that if Bloomberg became an independent presidential candidate, his candidacy would have considerable strength. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Indeed, if only we could count on a powerful Independent like Bloomberg to fix our electoral system that clearly discriminates against third choices, we would see progress and expanded citizen participation.
A good start would be the National Election Reform Platform:
* Uniform Ballot Access/Loosen Third Party Ballot Restrictions
* Proportional Representation
* Universal Voter Registration
* Election Day Holiday
* Equal Media Access/Debate Inclusion
* Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
* Secure Voting Machines
* Public Campaign Financing
* Direct Popular Vote Election of the President
* DC Congressional Representation
Ralph Nader is a very wonderful person and I am proud of my active support for his presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2004 (and my vote for him in the general election for president in 2000). With that being said, though, I have to differ with him that Mayor Michael Bloomberg would be a strong presidential candidate in 2012; I am glad that Mr. Nader has not endorsed the notion.
I would love if Nader and Bloomberg both ran in 2012 it could get maybe a couple of percentages and several electoral votes.
Breaking open the foul, rigged duopoly like a pinyata. 2012. How great that thought is! Bloomberg might well be the one to do it, for all the reasons Nader mentions. Bloomberg is scheduled to appear on NBC’s Meet the Press tomorrow morning.
Does Bloomberg think that he is another Lincoln ??? — i.e. have another horrific Civil WAR — due to the EVIL minority rule gerrymander math in the Electoral College.
When the party hack robot legislators in the States STRIKE BACK against ALL nonconformists in ballot access ???
See the Star Wars series.
P.R. and App.V.
The Following are terrible ideas. These things will erode liberty in America. Some just don’t work and reduce voter participation, or are impossible in America.
* Uniform Ballot Access
* Proportional Representation
* Universal Voter Registration
* Election Day Holiday
* Equal Media Access/Debate Inclusion
* Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
* Public Campaign Financing
* Direct Popular Vote Election of the President
* DC Congressional Representation
Two good ideas:
secure voting machines
ease ballot access rules
Uniform definition of Elector in ALL of the U.S.A.
Registration 28 days before Election Day — Sorry – SOME minimal connection with a political regime.
Equal nominating petitions
P.R. – legislative
App.V. – executive/judicial
NO party hack caucuses, conventions and primaries.
ALL mail ballots – See Oregon — which continues to survive.
I make a clear distinction between “DC Congressional Representation”, and equal representation for residents of DC.
Whether DC as a separate jurisdiction ought or ought not to have equal representation in Congress with the states is a separate question from whether denizens of DC, as American citizens, ought to have equal representation with all other citizens.
And here’s where that distinction makes a difference. Expatriates and military service personnel are allowed to continue to vote as state residents even though they may not have resided in a particular state for years or decades, and whether or not they have any ties there, or ever intend to return.
The same rules could be adapted to DC residents, allowing them individually to declare affinity or affiliation with a single state, and to vote there absentee. This would allow them to participate in the national consensus equally with other Americans, each having the opportunity to elect one congressperson and two senators to represent them.
The Constitution does say “the PEOPLE OF the several states”, not the RESIDENTS OF the several states (my emphasis). And the people of DC are inherently the people of the several states, even though they may not currently reside in a state (just as surely as expatriates and military service personnel are people of the several states, even though they may not currently reside in a state). The people of DC are the people of the American states, not the people of the Argentinean pampas, nor of the African savannah, nor of the Arctic tundra, nor of the Asian steppes, nor of the Australian outback.
And the power of Congress “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District” should be limited by requiring at least a two-thirds majority of both houses for such a over-riding national power to be exercised (thus demonstrating an overwhelming national consensus that compelling national interests exist that require supplanting the otherwise inalienable, inherent local interests of DC residents to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as they see fit).
Yes, Nader gives out such good advice on elections.
Well, since it obviously is not too early to start talking seriously about the election for president in 2012, I will add another thought on this subject. I think that Jesse Ventura would be a much better (and much stronger) independent candidate for president than would Mayor Michael Bloomberg.