Jump to content

Talk:Ralph Nader 2000 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under issues: Nader's 3 top issues were, 1) cutting the military budget in half; 2) universal health care; 3) public funding of election campaigns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.106.175 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASGP nomination description?

[edit]

I think that this article really needs at least a couple of sentences outlining the nomination process that occured in 2000 (where, who, when). As I recall, it was the ASGP, and I think the nominating convention was in Denver. This is an essential section completely missing from the current article. Volunteers?Jack B108 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Voting Controversy

[edit]

Article focuses too heavily on third part votes controversy IMO. It hardly reflects the scope of Ralph Nader and the 2000 election at all. Perhaps a separate article for such a subject is in order. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's what most people remember. Mystylplx (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will conditionally accept your statement upon proof of claim. Kindly supply evidence, and include global view. 99.34.58.117 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged spoiler role in article Intro

[edit]

The whole spoiler role (alleged) of Nader in the 2000 US presidential election is a topic in the Intro of the main article about Nader in Wiki. Just thought it should go in the Intro here as well since this article is about Nader in the 2000 election. If it can go in the Intro in his main article it should go in the Intro here as well IMHO (see discussion page in the main Nader article for background). Salutem multam dicit. 207.158.4.64 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. It is (arguably) the most notable aspect of the campaign--certainly the most famous--and so deserves to be mentioned in the lede. Mystylplx (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox study in section on spoiler controversy

[edit]

Personally I think the study doesn't need to be mentioned at all--it is not about any spoiler controversy but merely about examining the Nader campaign in context with other third party campaigns. The Burden study looked at a completely different question--namely did Ralph Nader run (intentionally) as a spoiler and examined the question of whether Naders campaign strategy was consistent with that theory. The two studies are not at all similar. The text I removed was

An analysis and study by Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox titled "The Roots of Third Party Voting" draw similar conclusions to B.C. Burden, comparing Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign to that of third parties throughout U.S. history.

It's the "draws similar conclusions" part that is inaccurate. We could leave it,

An analysis and study by Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox titled "The Roots of Third Party Voting" compares Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential campaign to that of third parties throughout U.S. history.

and that would be accurate but not particularly pertinent in the section.

The inaccurate text was put back (with accusations of vandalism) by the IP, twice. So I fixed it so at least it accurately says what the study really says on the spoiler question (the only thing the study says on that question) and the IP reverted again with accusations of vandalism.

Should the inaccurate characterization be returned? Should it be left as it is? Or should it be removed entirely?

If your analysis is correct it should be moved to an appropriate part of the article or to a further reading section. Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Basically it compares Naders candidacy to other third party candidates and concludes that a.) his candidacy was not much different from other examples of third party candidacies in the past, b.) that the majority of Naders votes weren't taken from Gore and were from those who would otherwise not have voted or would have voted for other third party candidates but c.) he in fact did take enough votes from Gore in Florida to affect the outcome of the election. Notice it's really only the "c" part that has direct bearing on the spoiler controversy, with the "b" part being tangential to the issue. But looking at it now I'm thinking that due to both "b' and "c" it might merit inclusion in that section. The IP user recently expanded the quote in a way that I don't really object to except in that the quote is much too long. I prefer at least partially summarizing. Something like--

An analysis and study by Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox titled "The Roots of Third Party Voting" determined that although Nader did take enough votes from Gore to affect the outcome of the election, that also:

On the whole, however, our analysis of voters who support third party and independent presidential candidates suggests that these voters, in keeping with the history of third party candidacies as vehicles for protest against the two-party system, would have voted for other independent or third party candidates, or would not have voted, if Nader had not been an available alternative to Gore or Bush.

Mystylplx (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New change by IP

[edit]
Well, that's better than saying they drew similar conclusions to Burden, but now the quote is too long. How about paraphrasing instead? Something like, "...found that the majority of Nader voters would not have voted for Gore anyway, but enough would have that it still affected the outcome of the election?" Mystylplx (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

Note for newcomers regarding article content

[edit]

I am not going to go into the many and various elements of disputes or vandalism here, as I do not believe it is the appropriate forum for such. Not only would I view such behaviour as unseemly, I believe most newcomers would find it tiresome. Below are my recommendations regarding improvement of the article:

I. Anyone wishing to quote a study do so accurately, paying close attention to the context and comprehension of the content.

II. Do not paraphrase; there is too much room for violations of WP:NPOV that often lead to inaccuracies.

III. Read a study in its entirety prior to commenting on it.

IV. Read the article in full.

V. If you are here for Nader-bashing, find a political forum for that.

Thank you in advance, 99.12.181.124 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

[edit]

Perhaps the article, considering the undue weight of a single topic, ought to be titled Ralph Nader "Spoiler" Controversy 2000. A separate article that actually addresses the 2000 campaign could be created. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OK with me. The controversy would still need to be summarized in the new article with a link to the controversy article, though. Mystylplx (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP changes to article

[edit]

User:99.12.181.124, mostly a single purpose account, is making quite a few changes to the article, both stylistic and substantive. Some are okay, but some are not for various reasons, including unreliable sources, odd language, and apparent ignorance of Wikipedia style. I became interested in the article only because of a report at WP:ANI concerning the IP and the article. I could use some help in evaluating the IP's changes as he is fairly insistent, and I don't want to get into edit wars with him.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

[edit]

Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000 is very heavily weighted toward the so-called "spoiler" controversy, as opposed to the campaign. The dominating "spoiler" controversy runs on the same theme and tone throughout, no text or sources regarding alternate perspectives. Reads like a poorly-written slam piece, not an encyclopedia article on the subject. The lack of WP:NPOV is so glaring, with the negative agenda so transparent, it's becoming absurd. I would not even guide my students towards this entry, much less accept it as source. 99.12.181.124 (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we drop the spoiler nonsense already?

[edit]

The stupid notion that Nader spoiled the election for Gore is hogwash. It assumes that most of the 2.9 million Nader voters would have voted for Gore had Nader not been on the ballot. How in God's name do we know that? They could have just as easily stayed home. This 20-year myth has persisted for far too long.198.103.223.35 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Nader_2000_presidential_campaign&oldid=1245338059"