GMOs Decoded
April 13, 2019
Whistleblowing Engineers/Social Security
April 27, 2019
Show all

What Netanyahu Wants

Ralph talks to founder of Ballot Access News, Richard Winger, about among other things, eliminating the Electoral College and the need for Federal ballot access laws. And Jerome Segal, founder of the Jewish Peace Lobby talks AIPAC and Netanyahu’s plans after his re-election.

Richard Winger is an advocate for more equitable laws allowing access to the ballot for minor parties. Winger has testified on behalf of these issues in court cases across the country and has been published in journals ranging from the Journal of Election Law to the Fordham Urban Law Review. In 1985 he began publishing Ballot Access News, the national monthly newsletter covering developments in ballot access law and third parties in general. 

“We made huge gains in 2016, 2017, and 2018, but I’m sorry to say this year there’s thirteen states where legislators have introduced bills to make the ballot access laws worse. And three of them have already passed. It’s a bad year in the legislatures. When there’s a lot of unhappiness in the country, the ballot access laws generally get worse. When people are sort of in a good mood, like in the late 1990s, they get better.” Richard Winger, founder of Ballot Access News

Jerome Segal is a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for International and Strategic Studies as well as a Research Scholar at the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland. In addition, he is President and founder of The Jewish Peace Lobby. He is the author of “Graceful Simplicity: The Philosophy and Politics of an Alternate American Dream.”

“When the United States invaded Iraq, (former Israeli Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon said, ‘Wrong country.’ He said they should have gone after Iran. And I think that’s the real danger right now, because that’s exactly what Netanyahu really wants.” Jerome Segal, founder of The Jewish Peace Lobby

Ralph Nader Radio Hour Ep 267 Transcript(Right click to download)


  1. Patric Currie says:

    Dear Ralf Nader Radio Hour show,

    I’m a 26 year old male and love the content of the show. However, I believe the show would attract a wider, younger audience if you include a video feed of the show and post it on YouTube. People of my generation respond more to visual format than strictly radio/audio. Joe Rogan is a perfect example of a successful YouTube podcast/talk show host. He has millions of subscribers who regularly listen AND watch his content on YouTube. Joe Rogan, as a comedian and a familiar face, facilitates in keeping people focused on sometimes complex and difficult subject matters. Thanks again for the show. I truly believe that what you and the people on your show have to say is vital and deserves far more attention. As a politician and intellectual, Ralph Nader is a hero to the American people in my book. Thanks again!


    Patric Currie

  2. Don Harris says:

    Once again you asked about Richard Winger being on the MSM, PBS, NPR, talked about giving people more voices and choices and encouraged citizens to get involved. You also talked about RCV/IRV and NPV.

    It’s time to live up to the high standards you expect from other media and offer some other choices and voices.

    You could put me on your program as you said you would on Washington Journal last fall to discuss the campaign financing approach of One Demand that can implemented immediately because it requires no legislation, only citizen participation, and I can also explain why RCV/IRV will not help third parties, maintains the status quo, does not achieve majority support for the “winner” and can be, as is the case in Maine, mandatory lesser evil voting and why NPV does not solve the problem with the electoral college- it merely transfers the injustice from the state level to the national level.( Ross Perot still gets zero electoral votes under NPV and citizens in a state could vote 70% for a candidate that does not win the national popular vote and the state would give all the state’s electoral votes to a candidate that won less than 30% of the state’s votes.)

    We have the same goals, but different approaches.

    Please move beyond saying people should be offered more voices and choices and be a complete vehicle for that sentiment by putting people like me (citizens trying to be involved) on your program along with the same old “experts” saying the same old things.

    Why not a segment once every ten shows highlighting a citizen trying to get involved that can’t even get coverage from the alternate news sources? That’s just four or five segments a year.

    It doesn’t do a lot of good to encourage citizens to get involved and then ignore a citizen that is trying to get involved since 2015.

    But as I said in the information sent to you as requested, even more important than putting me on your program is an explanation of why One Demand is not worthy of coverage. If there is something that needs to be improved with One Demand to make the idea worthy of discussion, it is not possible to make the improvement if you do not inform me of the deficiencies or perceived deficiencies that I may actually already be able to address and may be able find a way to address if I know what they are.


  3. Joseph Aiello says:

    Ralph, you started the show by complaining that WPFW doesn’t carry your show, so I sent them an email requesting they carry your program and here’s the response I received.

    “We aired the Ralph Nader radio hour for several months. While I agree that his topics and guests were solid, we found he and his production team to be in responsive and less than cooperative. This made it impossible for WPFW to continue airing the program.”

    I’m not sure what that means but the program director passed the blame back to you! Care to respond?

    • Skro35 says:

      Joseph, can you email us the entire correspondence from WPFW? Just click on “Listener Questions” at the top of the page. Thanks, Steve Skrovan

  4. Mario says:

    Nonono, remember those 2.3 trillion dollars one day before 911 well that was por payroll on black gold activities and guess who’s the master mind, exactly

  5. Afdal Shahanshah says:

    Instant Runoff Voting is indeed what people actually mean; it’s important to be clear about this because there are many different voting methods involving ranking. IRV is actually one of the worst ranked-choice voting methods and importantly it is NOT, in fact a good enough voting reform to get third parties elected. While it is better than plurality voting, IRV does not actually cure the spoiler effect and does not eliminate tactical voting to a high enough degree. In fact it invents several new election outcome pathologies that tend to cancel out many of its improvements over plurality voting. These outcomes can be so upsetting to the electorate that they choose to repeal it later. Don’t be surprised if Maine residents do this eventually. It’s what happened in 2009 in Burlington, Vermont when some of the worst, most counter-intuitive pathologies of instant runoff voting manifested themselves in only the second election they tried it.

    3rd party advocates need to stop shooting themselves in the foot pushing IRV and look at the examples around the world where it has failed. Ireland, Malta, and Austalia for example. The Australian House has used IRV for over 80 years for its single-winner House district elections and third parties still have almost non-existent representation in it, and this is IN SPITE of having proportional representation in other forms of government that actually does get 3rd parties significant electoral representation in those areas. IRV is simply not good enough without also using proportional representation, and since proportional representation is generally a much more difficult reform to get than voting reform in the United States, IRV is not the stepping stone to proportional representation that its proponents sometimes make it out to be.

    Now there are actually single-winner voting systems that can reliably get third parties elected. Two of the voting systems agreed to be the most expressive and least tactical by most voting method scientists are Approval and Score voting. Fargo, North Dakota became the most progressive place for voting reform in 2018 by being the first place in the country to move to Approval voting. It is extremely important that progressives get themselves educated on this topic because in a way IRV almost functions as a Trojan Horse of voting reform. Its passage and failure will greatly harm the voting reform movement for decades to come (“Change the voting system? We’ve tried that before with ranked choice voting and it didn’t work! It’s a lost cause!”). That should be reason enough to attack IRV in favor for something better before the damage is done. Which fight do you want to pick? A marginal pseudo-victory just because IRV has more momentum right now due to better marketing by a misleading group (FairVote), or ACTUALLY solving the problem of Duverger’s Law by supporting the right alternatives?

    • bruce k says:

      Afdal Shahanshah details a lot of important points. It makes me wonder whether Ralph and company know about this or are playing an unwitting part in an electoral system bait and switch. A change should not be pushed just because it is different or something new … how about some of the real critical analysis Ralph is so famous for.

      Any mistakes in voting now are going to be like the placement of Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court … with us for a long time and meant to undermine the will and best interests of the citizens of the United States. The right knows they cannot remain in power based on the truth, and that in the long term the trends are against them, so they will analyze the subject and not be shy about doing whatever they think they need to do to keep the system under their domination and paying off the same people only even more so.

      The right knows this and they have the money and resources to develop and market their strategies. So far the right has been having its way with our country’s political system to the point where our institutions seem like a lumbering obsolete joke. The effect Real-Id will have in CA in the next election is something that I find a major concern as well. Don’t think that we can just change these things back either … look how long Citizen’s United has been reviled and how nothing has come close to calling it into question.

      So far the Right has been getting exactly what they want out of these changes, so how about a lot more depth and concrete examples about these different voting systems and where they are being proposed from?

  6. Nader (whom I greatly admire) said: “The worst anti-Semitism is against Arabs…. [T]here are two anti-Semitisms–against Jews and against Arabs ….”

    This is a canard. The term never had any application to Arabs. It was never used against Semites generally, i.e., Jews, Arabs, Samaritans, Mhallamis, Assyrians, Mandaeans, Druze, etc. It always has referred solely to Jews and Jew-hatred. “The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites.”

    Marr formed the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879, and his term was adopted by the Deutsche anti-semitische Vereinigung (German Anti-Semitic League).

    Nader is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School and a man of towering intellect. He surely knows this. Therefore, his statement that Arabs are the victims of anti-Semitism is intellectually dishonest.

    Nader also made the demonstrably absurd claim that “AIPAC is as a minority of Jewish American opinion. J Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, Peace Now, etcetera reflect far greater opinion” of American Jewry, and embraces the Walt-Meirsheimer thesis that AIPAC is an evil influence on U.S. foreign policy. He defends Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic statement about Jews and money (“it’s all about the Benjamins”) as if she were making a neutral comment about the influence of money and politics generally. This, too, is intellectually dishonest.

    Indeed, Nader’s anti-Zionist hostility is revealed by his statement that AIPAC’s “money it is actually a smaller part of it. Far greater is just constant lobbying. You can learn a lot of lessons from how AIPAC is mobilized its base, which was never more than 300,000 people to begin with. But they focus on every Senator, every Representative. They make them go to meetings; they know who their associates are back home who can influence them. And then the ultimate two weapons, politically that they use is the anti-Semitic smear and they will challenge the incumbent in the primary ….”

    Try and find him complaining about lobbying by CAIR or Arab regimes.

    Nader is no different than many on the left: Jews with a distinctly progressive value system are acceptable, but self-identified, nationalist, overtly Zionist Jews are not. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Jews from the Middle East who comprise Israel’s majority population are unacceptable because they are: (i) unflinchingly Zionist and (ii) the descendants of nearly 1,000,000 victims of ethnic cleansing by Arab regimes during 1948-50.

    In the broadcast transcript, Prof. Segal claims, “Netanyahu comes from Florida; he’s the son and brother of a former mayor of Miami.” Netanyahu never lived in Florida, and his father, Prof. Ben Tzion Netanyahu, was never the Mayor of Miami. Further his son Benjamin is not both his “son and brother” because that would mean Ben Tzion sired a child with his sister. He had a brother, but not a sister. He sired his three sons with his wife, Tzila Segal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.