Tell us something.: I'm a New York native who gradually slid west and landed in the Phoenix area. I like riding on the back seat of a tandem bicycle. I like dogs and have three of them. I am a sometime actor and an all the time teacher, husband, and dad.
The question is not whether or not Nader should run, but whether or not anyone should vote for him.
Of course he should run. He will bring new and interesting ideas to the debate, will challenge the two mainstream candidates, and will be a catalyst for change, even if that change is very small or very gradual. Moving away from the two party system is a wonderful thing, in my opinion.
As far as voting for him, if you live in a state where the election will be close, you better vote for the mainstream candidate you would prefer. Nader will not win any states. If you're in an overwhelmingly democratic or republican state, by all means vote for Nader. The more votes he gets, the more people will see third (or fourth) party candidates as viable in future elections.
Here in New York, whoever the dems name as their candidates will have our electoral votes, so I'd feel safe voting for Nader, if I thought he was the best candidate, regardless of which mainstream candidate I would prefer. It's a throwaway vote, but has value for the reason I described above. Were I living in Florida, though, I'd have to vote for the mainstream candidate I least disliked, no matter how strongly I felt that Nader was the best overall. Voting for Nader in a state like Florida is just like voting for Bush, just as a vote for Perot in a swing state in '96 had the same effect as another vote for Clinton.
I'd love to see Nader run. Has he learnt to walk yet?
Seriously, I think jim_mc has put his finger on the problem. Unless you have a preferential voting system, as we do in Australia, you often can't risk a protest vote or a change-of-system vote. I honestly don't know whether Nader is the right person to attract those disaffected with both mainstream parties, but without a system that allows a safe way to register dissaffection we will never know.
I don't think that the preferential system we have in Australia gives us a way of registering all the information we should want the candidates and parties to know at election time. For example, the only way to say 'none of the above' is to vote informally and that leaves one lumped in with the merely careless and the illiterate. Another problem is that no standard system gives us a way of saying that we are voting not so much for candidate A as against candidate B. The difference is crucial. Someone who gets voted in because of positive feelings about them and their policies has a mandate to implement their policies. Someone voted in only to prevent someone worse taking power has no real mandate to change anything and should be clearly seen in this light. It's nauseating hearing people obviously in this position claiming they have a mandate for policies hidden in the small print at election time. They should, in a sense, be seen as only holding the fort until someone with ideas the electorate actually likes comes to power.
I doubt very much whether we shall ever have a system that allows information like this to be revealed at the ballot box. It would be a little bit too much democracy for any successful politician to stomach.
jim_mc wrote:Of course he should run. He will bring new and interesting ideas to the debate, will challenge the two mainstream candidates, and will be a catalyst for change, even if that change is very small or very gradual. Moving away from the two party system is a wonderful thing in my opinion.
My feelings exactly. I voted for Nader in 2000 and I'll probably vote for him again this year. In a state where all electoral votes have gone to Republicans since the beginning of time, my vote doesn't matter but at least they know there are a few angry people out here.
Can anyone present a non-partisan argument supporting the position that Nader (or anyone else) should not enter the race? I haven't heard one to date. Democrats who hold forth that Nader shouldn't even run exhibit an arrogance equal to anything I've seen out of the Bush administration.
Last edited by U2 on Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
This paragraph from a blog on the Nation's website just about made my day:
NADER MAY NOT EVEN BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INDEPENDENT OR THIRD-PARTY CONTENDER IN 2004: Those in the Bush White House and its echo chambers on right-wing talk radio and the Fox television network, who have been delighting in the prospect of a Nader run, may not be laughing for long. Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama jurist whose fight to display the Ten Commandments on state property drew national attention last year, is being courted by the right-wing Constitution Party as a potential presidential candidate. (The Constitution Party was on the ballot in 41 states in 2000, and retains a solid network of activist supporters nationwide.) With growing numbers of core conservatives angered by Bush's policies on immigration, federal spending and individual liberties, a Moore candidacy could develop into a serious problem for the president. More than 20 percent of the voters in January's New Hampshire Republican primary cast ballots for someone other than Bush; more than 10 percent of Oklahoma Republican primary voters did the same. Come November, Moore could pose a greater threat to Republican prospects than Nader will to the Democrats.
Bush is actively working to secure the conservative
flank of the Republican party, meeting with them
at the White House. They are expressing pleasure;
he has a way to go but he's definitely moving
in the right direction, they say, according to
the news.
Gore, recall, had the advantage of incumbency,
or vice-incumbancy, which Kerry lacks.
(And incumbency during a time of remarkable
prosperity, to boot.)
My liberal and political family in Massachusetts
considers Kerry another politician, he goes the
way the wind blows, they say. Probably this is true,
no prejudice against Kerry. If this much is perceived
by the general public it's going to damage him;
better the politician (or the devil) we know than
the politician we don't, may be the sentiment,
especially as we have troops all over the
place and what will Kerry do? Really do, once he;s
in office. Will we get a peacenik, a warrior,
or what? Unless things are going very badly
in Iraq and with the economy, the country is
unlikely to risk changing administrations
in mid-stream.
The only argument against Nader,
partisan or not, is that Bush is the Beast From
Hell who Must Be Stopped at all costs.
This will bring along the choir, but not the
masses of Americans. There's the implicit
assumption that the Dems are significantly
better. As this is precisely what a third party on
the left denies, the argument simply begs the question; it is,
as Nader recognizes, an argument against
any third parties. If Bush were Hitler it
would have more force, but, once again,
only the choir believes anything like that.
Nader actually believes something, I think,
which is refreshing; the personal attacks on him
which in effect deny this, are discouraging.
Last edited by jim stone on Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
U2 wrote:Can anyone present a non-partisan argument supporting the position that Nader (or anyone else) should not enter the race? I haven't heard one to date. Democrats who hold forth that Nader shouldn't even run exhibit an arrogance equal to anything I've seen out of the Bush administration.
Well I thought I had just done this, although that might not have been obvious from the way I phrased it.
In a non-preferential voting system, voters often have to make the following decision. Do I vote for A, the candidate I want, thereby making it more likely that C (the candidate I least want) will win. Alternatively, do I vote for B, the candidate I much prefer to C and who I think has the best chance of beating C, thereby not voting for the candidate I most want. IMO, a voting system should be designned to avoid forcing voters to gamble in this way.
But, in the States at the moment, voters are forced to gamble in this way. This means that potential candidates who would place some voters in this dilemma owe it to the voters to think twice about running. They have to judge whether it is better for the nation to risk having the worst candidate elected so those who want something different have a choice. Just as I think that he voter shouldn't be asked to gamble, so too do I think that potential candidates should not be asked to make judgments of this kind. But that's what the system currently demands.
This argument isn't in the slightest bit partisan.
Edited to add: Jim's suggestion that it is partisanship that opposes Nader ignores the fact that the structural flaw in the voting system cuts both ways.
Makes sense to me. Certainly your
argument isn't begging any questions. Let me add the small
technical point that the fact that an argument is
partisan doesn't mean, as far as I'm concerned,
that it's necessarily a bad argument. But
partisan arguments against third parties
look question begging.
Ralph checks with me before making big decisions,
and I've advised him to read chiffandfipple to
see which way the wind is blowing.
Basically I'm running his campaign.
He doesn't know I'm a Republican (just
kidding about being a Republican, of course,
Ralph).
Wombat - I understand and accept that someone might choose to use their vote to seat the lesser of two evils. What I was addressing was the partisanship and absolute arrogance of a "democrat" to suggest someone shouldn't enter the race because it complicates it for them and their goals. I consider someone using their vote strategically to obtain an objective they support a very different thing than having democrats minimize the legitimacy of a third party candidate out of fear.
When speaking of the last election, and Florida, they use shrill language about the threat it posed to democracy. Now that they think it might be another close one, some don't seem all that concerned with democracy and principal. It's rather transparent.
I have had this discussion with different folks since Nader made his announcement. Some said that a third party can't possibly win because either people want the man who's in office to stay so they'll vote Republican, or they want him to go badly enough they'll vote for the one challenger who can win.
One person pointed out that if we had a different voting system, the third party would be more viable. I think they have this system in Australia so maybe Wombat can confirm this. Under this different system, you could register a first and second choice. Thus if you really wanted the third party, that could be your first choice. But if the third party was nowhere near getting elected, the system would take the second choice of all those who voted for the third party in their first choice (kind of like a reverse-immediate-run-off election). This would allow you to make your third party statement, but not have to live with the consequences of it should he not go far.
Susan, don't just assume that your state will go Republican in this election, particularly after your state government (Republican) just dissed Bush and his No Child Left Behind Act. Wouldn't it be a bummer if there were enough Republicans not happy with Bush that they could swing the vote if only the disillusioned people would have pitched in. Plus voting for Nader doesn't let anyone know there's any angry people out here - it didn't make any difference last time. And voting for Nader just to make a statement and not based upon his stand on the issues doesn't help the system. Unfortunately that's the reason I hear many Nader-voters give for their choice - just because they're tired of what we have.
Montana wrote:I have had this discussion with different folks since Nader made his announcement. Some said that a third party can't possibly win because either people want the man who's in office to stay so they'll vote Republican, or they want him to go badly enough they'll vote for the one challenger who can win.
One person pointed out that if we had a different voting system, the third party would be more viable. I think they have this system in Australia so maybe Wombat can confirm this. Under this different system, you could register a first and second choice. Thus if you really wanted the third party, that could be your first choice. But if the third party was nowhere near getting elected, the system would take the second choice of all those who voted for the third party in their first choice (kind of like a reverse-immediate-run-off election). This would allow you to make your third party statement, but not have to live with the consequences of it should he not go far.
That's exactly how it works. It means that electors don't have to gamble on their best guess as to what other people are going to do and can vote as they think fit, safe in the knowledge that their vote will count. It also means that potential independent candidates do not have to worry that people will end up with someone they didn't want because, when they gambled, they guessed wrong.
Thanks. What can I say? It's a gift. 
And voting for Nader just to make a statement and not based upon his stand on the issues doesn't help the system. Unfortunately that's the reason I hear many Nader-voters give for their choice - just because they're tired of what we have.