then it's more a case of the latter losing those votes than the former taking them away.

Except thats only the case If they would otherwise:

1. Voted for a Republican
   
2. Not vote at all

Maybe the parliamentary system is better... but it's not the one we have.  The U.S. system is based on selling oneself in the primaries to one of the two established parties.

Surely the poli-sci majors have played that game?  Suppose Lincoln were just Prime Minister because the Republicans got lots of votes that cycle?  Would he have been able to do anything regarding the South's secession?  Would the Republicans/Northern abolitionists have been able to push the South to secession in the first place?

As for Hillary's crocodile tears about Al Gore in 2000, it is remembered that she did little to help Gore in that campaign.  So she should not be allowed to get away with indignantly blaming Gore's loss on Ralph Nader -- whatever we may think about the blame that Nader deserves.

Possibly the blame goes back ultimately to Bill Clinton and his luscious BJ (as Amazing refers to it).  Anyway, it is Gore's fault, more than anyone's, that Gore did not ask Bill Clinton -- and Hillary too -- to help him in his campaign.

It would have been very easy for him, too.  After all, he led that big Democratic gathering on the White House lawn, after the impeachment, and declared that Bill Clinton was one of the greatest presidents the US ever had.  So, why not stick to your guns, Al, and ask Bill and Hillary to campaign for you?  Then, on that morning in January, 2001, you wave them goodbye, saying, "Hasta la vista, pardners!  Don't forget to write!," and that would have been that.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

        What do you mean that the abolitionists "pushed" Southerners to secede?  A troubling statement to me...

        Gore lost the election because he stopped contesting it when it was clear he won.  If the situation had been reversed, the Republicans would have taken to the streets by the millions to demand a full recount.  Gore was betrayed by bad advice from his lawyers and his own choices.

        I remember returning to San Francisco from Florida around the middle of November.  There were numbers of Republican lunatics in the streets shouting "Give up Al" (That was the politest thing they were saying).  To my surprise he did.  And the Democrats were silent.

        Ralph Nader may be an idiot, but the reason Gore is not president is because he didn't fight for it.

        Ironically, many of the people screaming loudest that it's all Naders fault are probably those centrists who counseled Gore to surrender.  Covering up for their own complicity no doubt.

patrick in Beijing

Needless to say (as though I should have to prove to you that, No, I do not approve of slavery, whether of people of African origin or of anyone else; and I could easily go on in that direction regarding the cruel exploitation of non-human sentient animals, if you have the time), the abolitionists and the unionists were certainly in the right.

With regard to diplomacy, however, the jerks in the South, whose descendants still insist on displaying that stupid offensive flag of theirs, felt pushed.  And well they should have: they were beyond negotiation, and there was no question of compromise.

Really, your squeamishness is quite incomprehensible.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

       The problem I have with the word pushed, is that as written, it seemed to suggest that the Southerners had no other alternative (which is their line!).  In fact, they could have stayed in the Union, and tried to negotiate a peaceful end to slavery (or just freed their slaves and slept better for it!).

       While I clearly don't see it as your intent, it sounds rather a bit like a line that a defense lawyer might use in a criminal trial  "But your honor my client was pushed to murder by the fear generated in him by the victim.".

      At least that was my take...

      If I seem sensitive to this issue, I grew up in the South, and spent far too many years surrounded by denialists and revisionists!

patrick in Beijing

I am offended, that after all we have been through, you still do not trust me.

Moving on, regarding being pushed: Take the position of our dear beloved (ha ha) Cardinal Archbishop Edward Egan (long life to him, only far far away from New York City).  This year, uniquely for decades forwards and aft, Saint Patrick's Day, March 17, falls on a day of Holy Week, specifically the Monday.  Which means, this year, it is suppressed.  Utterly.  Because Holy Week is the Really Really Biggest Week in the bl*dy f*kin' year, you know what I mean.

The feast of Saint Patrick is anyway not a big deal, it is only big for "pastoral reasons" where there are lots of Irish.  But as it happens, there are lots and lots and lots of Irish-Americans, who love the occasion to drink lots of green beer and deposit lots of green vomit in the streets of Manhattan (they being bridge-and-tunnel folk, from the outer boroughs and New Jersey).  Plus, there is a parade up 5th Avenue, which focuses the drinking and vomiting, and which is greeted by the Cardinal Archbishop, traditionally, awaiting at the doors of Saint Patrick's Cathedral.

So does Cardinal Egan have the cojones to tell the whole Hibernian shebang to cancel the parade?  It seems not.

Does he consider it his pastoral responsibility to discourage them from celebrating joyously during Holy Week?  Apparently, no.

So the parade will go on, and Egan, God love him, will still step outside the Cathedral to greet the principal marchers.

And I hope this gets back to Rome, where Benedict XVI has been denouncing us liberal progressivists for being "moral relativists," that the mighty Archbishop of New York is being wishy-washy and loosey-goosey.

Also, it must be pointed out that the historic exclusion of Irish-American lesbian/gay/bi/trans groups from the parade was done on the grounds that Roman Catholicism does not encourage homosexuality.  But this year, we find that the old regime, that the Church is in charge, is utterly cast down; which means that the homophobic position has no foundation.  Which means that the exclusionary parade organizers are revealed as simple homophobes, undeniably.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Sadly, the perpetual supporters of needing a third party don't seem to understand the difference between our political system and the parliamentary system.

Yeah, that's right, we're all ignorant fools for wanting something other than neoliberal governance under the two-faction, one-party system.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

"His being on the Green Party [ballot] prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had,

Of course, Al Gore "became green" (or, really, became a greenwash sales rep -- Gore's high-stakes capitalism will do nothing to solve the abrupt climate change problem) only after his half-hearted, neoliberal Presidential campaign.  And then there's the problem of Gore actually winning Florida, despite the vast and illegal scrubbing of the Florida voter rolls of "suspected felons" as exposed by Greg Palast, which the Democrats did nothing to stop and nothing to prosecute after the fact.

Yeah, it's all Nader's fault.

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

When its time to take the gloves off during the general election it will be over quick.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

   1. Voted for a Republican
   2. Not vote at all

Which is a pretty big If, for all but a small fraction."

I don't think that holds true. Those votes would still not have gone to Gore.

Hillary knows she's losing, and although she won't admit it explicitly, it's clear in everything she says. This is another example.

And I think Nader never really runs for president. He runs for a higher profile. But if that profile appeals to people, they do get to vote for it--our  political system does allow for that.

Let me take this opportunity to say that the institution of the presidency is very, very flawed, and should probably be abolished, which a parliamentery from would accomplish.  We've now "survived" Nixon, Reagan, and hopefully, W, why tempt fate?  The presidency, in the late 1700's, looked good compared to a kingship, but it has many obvious similarities, in fact, way too many.  It is much too autonomous, checks-and-balances notwithstanding, and through the passage of time (and the emergence of something similar to an empire), it has become quite dangerous.

Personally, I would prefer one house to be elected by district, and one house to have the same number of representatives as the first, but elected by party.  That way, you get both systems  -- and small parties flourish -- but you get constituency services too.  They would then jointly elect a prime minister, or whatever you want to call it.  End of poli sci lecture.

The latter example should be particularly scary to Grist readers, because in 2008 the stakes are arguably much higher when it comes to global warming.  Obama (assuming he is the nominee) is going to get attacked in a variety of key states by big-money, highly organized groups.  Do the Democrats and its allies have the ground game to counteract that?

Those of us on the left of the political spectrum tend to throw under the bus our leadership so easily.  Look at how dismissive IDS is about Gore when the more important issue is that there is a powerful right-wing machine out there that we have yet to figure out how to beat.

I have no problem with Nader running, e.g., he helps push the debate to the left.  However, I don't think his presence in the race will do much to fight the wingers . . . in no small part because his slice of the electorate will be so small as to be irrelevant.  It's up to the Democrats and their enviro allies to get the job done.

Alas, I guess it's easier beating up on Nader.  And Gore.  Hey, how about adding Obama to the list?  The left has always had a fondness for Russian roulette.

        You misunderstand!!  It is not that I don't trust you (the person), but that rather I am all too aware of the power of language.  While you seem to see yourself and others here in terms of ongoing discussions and understandings, there is another dynamic you might consider.

        This is the dynamic of the internet, where someone may see one statement anyone of us make, and derive an understanding of us based solely on that one statement, without other context.

        You and I (and many other regular posters) don't do that, we have had too many discussions.  But that is not the dynamic at work here.  The dynamic of a thread is that it stands alone (except for links) despite the internal links we make in our minds.

         My concern was that the language (not you, yourself, the person) was misleading.  I am sorry if I have offended you.  Mea Culpa.  My explanation was written in haste after a very long first day of classes. (See, my language can also be misunderstood!! (and alas, often is!!)).

         I know that when I post, even if I try to be careful, there will be times when I forget the power and weakness of the net.  The power is that it allows us to create a semblance of a community using pixels on computer monitors.  The weakness is that we can easily loose site of the many contexts in which our words and ideas appear.

         Despite being partly Irish, I have never been a fan of Saint Patrick's Day.  I have no saints (smile).  And I do not object to a drink or two now and then, and have even been known to quaff Guinness while singing horribly off key the great Irish drinking songs.  I am not a fan of forced merriment and drinking to oblivion, and certainly don't wish to be associated with such notions.

         Will they allow the LGBT community to participate this year?  I thought there was an alternative more inclusive parade?  (Though I understand that this is not the same, at least for traditionalists.  But since I am not one, I tend to favor killing the old, and then creating a new.)

         The only time I participated was in Boston during desegregation.  A boy scout troop was marching, and my neighbor's son, a lovely dark skinned lad was marching with his troop.  I went along as sort of security (we were marching through South Boston, the home of some of the most rabid racists around).  There were no problems, all went well, but I would personally never do it again!!

patrick in Beijing

So see, that would not be so serious a problem, if the Queen of England, say, were still the chief of state, relieving the President of that awesome add-on to his job as head of government.

Or, imagine:

<<
OK sweetheart, that was real nice, real nice, but I see where that drip is going down that nice blue dress of yours, so you just take that dress off and give it to me, that's right, and we will handle it right smart.  That's it, good girl!, just give me that dress, and you'll get it back in a jiffy.  Meanwhile, you wait here a sec, and I'll pop up to Hillary's closet and get you something else to wear when you go out.  OK?  Yeah, great, OK!  What a gal!  Oh, and help yourself to the anchovie pizza when I'm upstairs.  Atta girl!
[Exit President of the United States of America.]
>>

So, would that in fact have changed history, had Bill been able to give Monica a dress of Hillary's, while retaining the notoriously soiled blue dress?

[Anchovies, by the way, are our cousins.  Let us not presume to exploit them.  But, God!, are they good on pizza! -- as I remember, from ages ago.]

And what the hell would have happened, had Hillary noticed her missing dress, and asked about it?

O gods, opera upon opera!

Actually, I do not think much would be all that different, were we in the East to accept a parliamentary form of government, with the Queen of England as our titular sovereign.  And it might improve all kinds of other matters.

By the same token, suppose we allowed that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, and for the hell of it, Colorado, Utah and Nevada too, were to revert to the purely titular sovereignty of King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain: Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo and their followers would be apoplectic with delight.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Al Gore had apparantly no influence on Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton in turn voted for the war in Iraq proving Nader right on a fundamental issue.

Personally, I've had lifelong medical issues and spotty and inadequate health care due to Hillary's commitment to keeping insurance companies in the health care loop. As long as they were making their fat profits there was going to be no savings, and therefore no reason, for implementing universal health care.

A vote for Hillary might as well be a vote for Mcain for all the policy change you will get.

Put the Carbon Back

   Some said it was Jane Fonda, others the Queen of England (though I thought Charles was too young at the time).

   I always thought that Yankee Presidents should know better than to ride around Southern cities with the top down.

patrick in Beijing