posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:22 PM
Originally posted by insite
If Bush wins because the democrats don't have enough votes that's not the Naders fault. It's just democracy, the rule of the majority.
Okay, I do take issue with this point. I've been simmering the topic for a while now seeing as how so many people claim to want a real third or
fourth party. They want choices, blah, blah, blah.
Fine. I understand that. BUT forget about so called "majority" rule forever. As if the 2000 selection wasn't bad enough, imagine a truly "viable"
Now imagine some totally corrupt big business party with the most donations (I think we can all imagine such a party) winning every election for the
rest of time with a mere 34% of the vote. It would happen.
PS - My guess is Nadar will hand the election to Bush with a mere 47 to 48% or the vote.
So technically we could say a MAJORITY of Americans are against big business/Wall-Mart-Street corruption and will vote it back in office by dividing