What do I think? Thanks for Iraq, Ralph. Maybe President McCain will send you some kind of residual check from the White House.

Thanks for Iraq? Oh please.

Let's blame the folks that participate in the system, rather than holding those who don't vote accountable. Or, maybe, hold those Dems accountable for being such a sloppy, weak party, they can't garner much of a vote.

I don't like Ralph at all, but this blaming the participants dealio for 00 or 04 is vile. I guess we are allowed a democracy, so long as you vote right.

Obama and Clinton are right on this point. His vote totals last round were terrible and are not likely to improve. Nader's moment came and went.

But I am tired of hearing people blame Nader for 2000. There's plenty of blame to go around on that point: the Supreme Court, bad ballots in Florida (even Pat Buchanan admitted that he received more votes than he deserved), Gore ran a mediocre campaign, culling of the ballots in a racist manner in more than one state, etc. Nader's pretty low fruit on that list.

The central conceit underpinning Ralph Nader's candidacy is the idea that there is no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. That animated his 2000 campaign, and has continued through. And that belief is demonstrably untrue.

Those who hold Nader solely accountable for the 2000 election are wrong, but it would also be wrong to deny that he was a factor. There were a lot of other things going on, and a lot of Republican dirty tricks (like voting roll purges) that have not really been sufficiently investigated or prosecuted. But Nader was a factor - the vote margin was so close in Florida in 2000 that it is fair to say that had Nader not been there, Gore would have won that state and the Presidency. And it's simply ludicrous to think that President Gore would done as much to shred the Constitution, undermine reproductive rights, transfer money from middle class and poor people to the wealthy and corporations, and, oh yeah, get us into a neverending war by lying to the American people, manipulating and subverting our foreign intelligence service. Would President Gore have put Robers and Alito on the Supreme Court?

Nader has as much right to run as anybody, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be called out for saying false stuff.

For the record, I love Nader's environmentalism and (most) of his policy views, but he could do SO much better work if he concentrated on direct rather than symbolic action. I'm all for raising consciousness, but not at the risk of preempting real, tangible change (changes I believe Obama or Clinton could bring).

I met my wife through a friend while they were tabling for Nader back in 2000, which might be the only good thing Ralph Nader has done for anybody since 1996.

Great. Let's hope you don't fuck over the Democrats this time.

Even though some may think he didn't effect the outcome, I believe that if he wasn't running, a lot more votes would have gone to Gore and he may have grabbed a state that went to Bush (either genuinely or *ahem* otherwise) and we wouldn't be in the fucking disastrous situation we're in now.

Remember when Ralph Nader actually, y'know, did stuff to help people? Back when he earned his cred as an advocate for regular people?

Yeah, me neither. But I've heard it actually happened.

He's running independent; Cynthia McKinney is running for president as a Green this year, right? I thought I watched her announcement speech on this website.

Nobody says Nader is solely responsible for Bush's presidency. But many do point out that is Nader's greatest accomlishment. And accomplishment is the right word for it, b/c he campaigned aggressively in Florida to try and make it happen.

Of course I despise Republicans more than Nader voters. But Nader voters are deluded fools. Voting for Nader is an act of political frustration. Instead of doing the thing with a frustratingly small benefit (voting Dem), you do something symbolically more meaningful to you (voting for Nader) with actually negative real consquences.

Yes, voting for Nader is an act of political frustration. And a big part of that frustration has to do with a two-party political system. Why should everyone with a generally liberal mindset have to buy into the Democratic party? Politics is not black and white and I think that many people are frustrated with it continually being presented that way. I don't think Nader voters are deluded fools. I think it's foolish to vote in a party block out of a feeling of obligation or to get a "frustratingly small benefit."

The Demorcatic Party is a good party and the one I want in charge of the country. But I'm not going to critisize every Bush-hater who isn't a good Democrat for not voting for them. The opposite of a Republican is not a Democrat, so let's not demonize those who are somewhere else on the spectrum. (I think of it the same way I do of gener. The opposite of a man is not a woman and recoginizing the fludity of gender, even when the majority of people do fall pretty neatly into "male" or "female" is important.)

I understand that there were more important factors then Nader in Bush's win in 2000. Still, his actions did contribute to a conservative win.

I think it is important that we recognize the effect of a third party in a duel-party system. When a third party rises up trumpeting a progressive cause (as Nader did for the environment), it forces the larger parties to incorporate those causes into their larger mission, or risk the exact effect that Nader had in 2000.

Therefore, third party candidates essentially integrate their individual causes into the belief system of the larger parties. This, obviously, is an important function, and one that needs to be considered.

I think that all you have to do is utter the word "Nader" & suddenly sites like Daily Kos start reading like they're written by the same cretins who brought you Little Green Footballs.

I'm not Nader's biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, & I can't agree more about what's been said about him being light-years more effective as a consumer advocate than as presidential candidate, but all of this trite Nader-bashing is the worst form of self-indulgent wankery. It completely belittles & ignores the fact that scores of democrats were intimidated for Voting While Black, lets Gore off the hook for not even bothering to fight for an election that Greg Palast & other investigative journalists have solidly proven he damn well fucking won, & gives a free pass to the Rethuglicans for their voter-intimidating, election-stealing assholery.

So when I hear some 'tard spouting off with some variation of "Ralph Nader & the Greens & the idiots who voted for him cost Gore the 2000 election" what I'm hearing is "we are ENTITLED to those votes by divine providence". Attention DLC: You can stuff your sense of entitlement up your ass for nothing & fuck off while your at it. & take that tired of bag of laundry that calls itself Joe Liberman with you.

Gore & the DLC fucked up by doing what the DLC does best: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Fucking own it already.

I think that all you have to do is utter the word "Nader" & suddenly sites like Daily Kos start reading like they're written by the same cretins who brought you Little Green Footballs.

I'm not Nader's biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination, & I can't agree more about what's been said about him being light-years more effective as a consumer advocate than as presidential candidate, but all of this trite Nader-bashing is the worst form of self-indulgent wankery. It completely belittles & ignores the fact that scores of democrats were intimidated for Voting While Black, lets Gore off the hook for not even bothering to fight for an election that Greg Palast & other investigative journalists have solidly proven he damn well fucking won, & gives a free pass to the Rethuglicans for their voter-intimidating, election-stealing assholery.

So when I hear some 'tard spouting off with some variation of "Ralph Nader & the Greens & the idiots who voted for him cost Gore the 2000 election" what I'm hearing is "we are ENTITLED to those votes by divine providence". Attention DLC: You can stuff your sense of entitlement up your ass for nothing & fuck off while your at it. & take that tired old bag of laundry that calls itself Joe Liberman with you.

Gore & the DLC fucked up by doing what the DLC does best: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Fucking own it already.

Ouch. Double post. Sorry.

nisemono,
you've got an excellent point - and nixon's endangered species act, etc. are more than enough testament to the power of a third party candidate.

further, i am sick to my stomach of all the dems who want to blame a guy who got the tiniest sliver of votes for their own failure to beat a fucking c student.

gore didn't lose because of nader. nader may have been a straw on the camel's back, but, most likely, had he not run, there would have been no difference in the election results, so stop blaming him for democrats' failure to actually make something happen...

regardless, are democrats the salvation of the world? lord knows they've gotten us out of iraq so quickly since capturing both the house and the senate (oh, wait, there's been a troop surge since then)...

and clinton secretly bombed sudan and passed doma and don't ask don't tell and on and on and on... and kennedy dug us even further into vietnam than we needed to be and on and on and on...

certainly, i think democraps are better than repooplicans, but they're both full of shit, okay?

god forbid someone doesn't want to elect one of the chosen few who make to the primaries... ever hear of "permanent government"? it's exactly what the founders of this country wanted to avoid and it's exactly what the entrenched two-party system continually reinforces.

so, i'm probably going to vote dem this year, but fuck the democrats on this issue...

i mean, really, you have two big parties, both run by the same interests (did you know 'foxy' murdoch is one of hillary's biggest financial supporters?)

at any rate, i hope nader gets on the ballot and forces obama or clinton to take strong stands on progressive issues, rather than pandering...

maybe he'll even get 5% of the vote this time (highly doubtful, as the democrats have done a great job of convincing the american people that a green vote is a red vote) and give us hope that, by the time i die at the ripe old age of 120, there may be a viable third party in this country.

ugh. this two-party kool aid shit makes me so furious... so i'm sorry if i made little sense, but it's just 'cos i'm incensed.

Yeah, what Tom Tomorrow said:http://thismodernworld.com/4209

Here's a good overview of the whole Nader factor allegations and what crap they are: http://prorev.com/2008/02/nader-and-now-slander-begins-again.html

"I think it's foolish to vote in a party block out of a feeling of obligation or to get a 'frustratingly small benefit.'"

What about voting in a patry bloc in order to vote against the candidate of a party bloc you like even less who does have a significant chance of winning?

"I think it is important that we recognize the effect of a third party in a duel-party system."

Exactly. It's also important to recognize the effect of voting for 1 candidate in a system which doesn't allow you to rank all the candidates on a ballot as Ireland does (see http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/elections-and-referenda/voting/proportional_representation )

Putting the blame on Nader for 2000 and 2004 is like blaming the "other person" if your SO cheats. Don't "blame" Nader, but rather the people who voted for him. He didn't FORCE them to do so.

If you're going to blame the voters, ask yourself why you would get angry if someone wants to use his or her hard-earned vote to vote for the candidate they see as most qualified. I agree it's frustrating that they didn't vote for a candidate with similar views to eject the candidate with significantly opposite ones, but there's a possibility those people would have just stayed at home anyway.

I don't know, I think I'm just really sensitive about this in light of the current election. Basically I've had people tell me my candidate "can't win" is "unlikeable," and that I should vote for the one who makes people feel good, despite the fact I think the other one is most qualified.

To be honest though, Nader does have a shitload of experience. I'd never vote for him based solely on the "gonadal politics" blunder.

I voted for Nader in two elections. Why? I thought he had valuable ideas, and maybe if he got a few percentage points, the big parties would realize they were missing out on some of us, the public.

But I don't think that cost anyone an election. Had he not been running, I would have stayed home. Gore's 2000 and Kerry's 2004 campaigns were so pathetic I could not in good conscience cast a vote for them.

Though I might vote for Gore NOW if he ran.

This year, I'll probably vote Dem. I dont have any major problems with Clinton or Obama.

Let's blame Ralph Nader, not a terrible Democratic campaign in 2000. Because if we can blame a little guy it's just so much easier than dealing with the problems at hand. Third party candidates have been forcing issues to the table in American politics for a very long time, and their role is very important. You can't claim to support third party candidates and outside opinions and then slam people for voting for the "wrong candidate". That's the height of arrogance in my opinion, to say someone voted "wrong".

Are we going to get mad when black people vote for McCain or when women don't vote for Hillary in the primaries? Are they "voting wrong"? Telling someone they have to vote Democrat because of their political viewpoint is ridiculous. Ralph Nader only offered voters an option in 2000, and some people took him up on that offer. Pro choice means supporting all informed choices, even the ones you don't agree with. I respect the voting process too much to imply that somehow people can "vote wrong".

I am shocked by the Nader-haters on this site. I have voted democrat in the past, and I have seen few of the policies I care for advance, and most fall back toward the 50s. More importantly, the potential democratic candidates are only liberal on a few issues--for the rest, they are in line with big money corporate interests. I can't vote for another democrat for pres just because they're two or three steps closer to my ideology than mccain. I will vote for the candidate who is most closely in line with my ideology period, even if it is a third party candidate and all my democratic friends will scream at me because I'm supposed to be a "liberal" democrat.

I don't like Nader.

And it doesn't have much to do with my personal political stances.

It has to do with the fact that I have a sound understanding of the American political system, thanks to some college Poli Sci classes.

There most likely will /never be/ a third party in the United States, at least unless someone re-writes the way our government seats are assigned.

The reason that countries in Europe can have several parties, is because they have proportional representation. Seats will be filled in their legislative bodies according to the percentage of support a given party gets in the general population. In many countries, people vote for parties instead of individuals, even.

Not so in the United States. The United States is a winner take-all system. Look up what that means, if you don't know.

The Republican and Democratic parties are what they are in terms of stances on issues, mainly because of the fact that approximately 50% of the US population aligns with each of them. In order to have 3 parties, say, you'd have to have 3 parties that held political stances for which the American public would break up into roughly 33%-33%-33%. The chances of that happening are less likely.

Also, because the fact is that almost all recent elections /have/ been close to 50%-50%, of /course/ an independent candidate taking just 1-5% of the vote is going to have a significant effect.

(there will most likely never be a /viable/ third party in the US, I mean)

I think Nader is a narcissistic jerk, and Nader voters are deluded fools. And don't even try to pretend that this implies there were no other factors in the 2000 election--sure there were, but Bush's "official" margin in Florida was way smaller than the votes Nader got.

This even discounting Emmy who would've stayed home if Nader hadn't run. Apparently

Gore's 2000 and Kerry's 2004 campaigns were so pathetic I could not in good conscience cast a vote for them.

Well, Emmy, if you live in Florida, NOT voting for Gore directly led to Bush's "victory". Hope you got something good out of the past 7 years, because most of the rest of humanity got screwed!

I love Nader. I wish he would just come to Canada so he would have a chance at being elected.

"The reason that countries in Europe can have several parties, is because they have proportional representation. Seats will be filled in their legislative bodies according to the percentage of support a given party gets in the general population. In many countries, people vote for parties instead of individuals, even."

OTOH, the amount of seats each party gets is more relevant for the legislature than for a 1-seat presidency.

Were you thinking of the instant-runoff version of proportional representation?

For anyone who doesn't know, a runoff is a second election to choose between the winners of the previous election for a seat. France had one for the presidency after Royal and Sarkozy were the top 2 winners of the previous election. This way, if your first choice was Bayrou or Le Pen or whomever then you still got a solid chance to vote against Sarkozy or Royal.

Instant runoff means letting voters rank their preferences on the ballot, and reassigning votes as the candidates who came in last to third are ruled out. For example, if French presidential elections had this, you hated Sarkozy, and you voted 1 Bayrou 2 Royal then your vote would be transferred to Royal once Bayrou was ruled out, instead of helping Sarkozy.

Nader probably won't be a huge deal. There's too much excitement about Obama, and I think many of the people who would support Nader switch over because he gives the impression of being something new.