Slashdot Mirror
The Nader Factor
TolkiEinstein writes "The NY Times is running an article on The Nader Factor that details the threat level old Ralph represents to John Kerry. Nader has made it on the ballots of 30 states, and polls show he could influence the outcome of 9 states where the race is a dead heat. While Nader argues that he isn't a spoiler, a Zogby poll suggests that if he weren't on the ballot, 41 percent of his supporters would go to Kerry and 15 percent to Bush. Ironically, this is why some of the prime movers in getting him on the ballot have been Republicans. As per the article, Terry McAuliffe - the democratic party chairman - says he should 'end the charade' of a campaign being kept afloat by 'corporate backers.' Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph."
Democratic slant that is. Take this latest one as an example:
"Could it be that in this way Nader is beholden to corporate interests? For shame, Ralph"
What proof o they have for this?! It's just a smear campaign by the Democrats. Just look at what Dems have been doing to Nader... all those frivolous lawsuits, constant misinformation's... Dems should be ashamed.
Two lawsuits try to keep Nader off ballot And this is just in one state, Florida! They've been using the same dirty tactics in other states as well.
Don't vote for the "better" of two evils, vote Nader in 2004! Evil is still evil and there's very little difference between the two major parties.
http://www.votenader.org/
Why does this guy get all kinds of press when he is only on 30 states ballots. When Michael Badnarik is on 48 states and libertarian party has a far larger percentage of votes.......
Ohh yea Nader takes votes from Democrats and is a tool for the Republicans.
never mind.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
> Voteing for the lesser of two evils still gives you evil.
Yes, I keep hearing that.
But - *less* evil. *less*. That means not as much! I'm not sure why this is so hard for everyone to understand. Less evil is generally better than more evil, unless evil is your bag, baby.
Nader is pulling for *no* evil - and while that's laughably innocent, it's not gonna happen this time around - and the efforts squandered in going after no evil are efforts removed from getting little evil into the white house.
I am not a Nader fan, but hearing dems criticize Nader is like listening to neo-nazis bitch about being discriminated against. Yes, he will 'steal' some of Kerry's votes, but the fact of the matter is that the dems have been extremely active in trying to keep Nader off ballots via legal manuevers, rather underhanded if you ask me; not the sort of thing that I would find inspiring in my leaders.
In the upcoming election I will be voting for Kerry, but seeing dems attack Nader only further demonstrates how sad the state of affairs are in our country when the 2 parties involved need to resort to ridiculous legal strategies in order to secure their voter base. Between republican efforts to remove voters from the voter rolls and other various underhanded tactics involving misinformation (which, imo, is definitely worst), and the dems trying their hardest to keep 3rd party canidates off the ballot, this year's election is anything but exemplary for other countries and sure leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
The democratic party is, unfortunately, bankrupt in many metaphorical ways, amongst them ethically, progressively, and has lost many of the things that historically made them what they are. Its a sure sign that you need to seriously reassess your party's goals, orientation and voting base if you have to get court orders to remove candidates from the ballot in order to stay in power.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
The Greens are winning some local elections and with time might become a viable national party by working from the ground floor on up.
Which is the only way you'll get an alternative party. You can't win at the national level unless you have enough local support to mean something. I think there is plenty of room for a third party if enough groundswell can be had.
That being said, while I appreciate the greens view of how to form a proper party, the greens are running with associating themselves with a narrow issue. I think a party who spoke to a sweeping view of individual empowerment, pro-democracy and government ethics would do well in on both sides of the aisle, namely a party of the middle, without the rhetoric or corporate sponsership.
Giuliani would crush Hillary. Of course, Giuliani would never make it through the nomination gauntlet anyways, since the process on the Republican side is dominated by conservative and fundamentalist Christian interests. So it's kind of a moot point.
Pataki might make it, though.
Nader knows he won't win; he must.
Instead, he is running on the knowledge that if he or anyone else takes enough of the vote from one of the 2 major parties, they will alter laws so as to make 3rd party candidates not be spoilers.
This, of course, benefits everyone in the long run.
However, in the short run, a lot of folks won't vote for a 3rd party candidate if there is much at stake. It could be argued that the 2 major parties want people to think there is much at stake in every election, so they always remain the only two real options.
So, what I propose is that a party (probably the democrats) create legislation before it becomes an issue to eliminate the spoiler thing, or perhaps strike a deal with Nader that "If you don't run, we'll make the process more fair".
In other systems, if a party gets, say, 5% of the vote, they get 5% representation. That makes it appealing to start parties -- if you get 5% of the vote, you get 5% representation in parlament. In order to lead parlament, you need a majority. If no party has a majority, they need to get other parties to sign on with them. My 5% now comes in handy: I tell the Christian Democrat party that I'll support them for Prime Minister if they let me be the head of a committee of if they help to pass legislation that I support but that they are ambivelant about.
/.ers felt that each cadidate should be his own man, and fight for his own beliefs, etc. But if I and 20 other candidates do that but one of our opponents gathers many constituents together and represents them, he will win, unless we counter with our own block.
In the US, the President and Congress get elected by a winner-take-all system. This might be becuse the US was the first country to experiment with how to make elections work -- this method seemed reasonable and there were no experiments to study which election method best acheived good results in terms of the Founding Fathers' values.
In the US way, it is natural for a 2 party system to evolve. That way, any given consituent maximizes his chances of getting power. If you start your own party and get only 5% of the vote, you get nothing, exept the ability to bargin with your opponents -- to tell them you won't run again if you make room in your party for me and my ideas; they're worth 5%. The system encourages parties to disolve themselves to join forces early to win a majority.
G Washington saw that two parties were natually forming and this bugged him -- he, like may
It is in this sense that Nader is a spoiler -- not because he doesn't have good ideas or because people shouldn't fight or vote for what they believe in, but becasue he is not acting in the interests of his constuents. If he were to bargin with his 5%, he'd get something done -- he could try to get Kerry to promise him Labor Secretary or to put some Nader issue on his agenda.
As it is now, he will get nothing -- no proportional representation, no Democratic appeasment, no favors. And since he isn't even acting within a party anymore, he'll get no future bargining power for the 3% he may get this time.
I don't understand what the big fuss is. He jumped throught the hoops and played by the rules and he's a candidate. He doesn't claim to be a different kind of democrat.
BTW, the argument could just as easily be made that the libertarians "steal" conservative votes. I've just never heard it.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
The lesser of two evils is still a corprate whore who's policies will take money out of middle america and use it to enrich upper crust america.
Look at the percentage tax that the Kerry family pays... A full 10% less than mine - if he believes in his cause so much, why isn't he writing an extra payment for the taxes he THINKS he should pay to the government instead of paying accountants to shield his Income from taxes
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
and yet
Are you sure about that? Apparently voters like you are willing to give away your vote to an "ethically, progressively" "bankrupt" political party. So long as that is true, why shouldn't the Democrats continue to run to the Right and take their Progressive base for granted? You're not alone: lots of Progressive organizations (NOW, environmental organizations, educational organizations, and others) are willing to unconditionally endorse Kerry. What is the Progressive breaking point?
Digital Citizen
This time around the Greens are trying very hard to avoid being called spoilers by endorsing Kerry in contested states. This, despite how the Democrat platform has more in common with the Republican platform than the Green platform. This had little to do with avoiding a one-candidate party but real differences of opinion on when the Greens were deciding to run anyone for president and whether to run a 50-state campaign.
Part of the support the Greens got in 1996 and 2000 came from the awareness raised by Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns--campaigns that were endorsed by the Green Party.
Politics doesn't work according to the sequencing you're mentioning. Working together on specific issues is a great way to get things done, but first local, then national simply isn't how the Greens got the attention they now have.
Digital Citizen
The United States is not a democracy, it is a Republic. Unfortunately, we have been slipping towards a Democracy for nearly 100 years now.
I guess that means Nader himself is pro-Bush- that he thinks 4 more years of W is better than Kerry. He's lost all of my respect at this point.
Your logic is so simplistic, that if it weren't so pervasive and common, would be truly laughable. Unfortunately, you are in good company.
So, if Nader thinks that Kerry would not make a good president, this somehow makes him pro-Bush. Fascinating... Logic dictates that the statement is fairly self-explanatory... "Nader thinks Kerry would make a bad president." Thank [deity] we have people like you to reach between/beyond the words, to extract meaning that escapes the rest of us!
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
It's nice to hear someone make that concession to reality. Kerry's not my dream candidate, but then who is? And could my Dream Candidate even get elected? My Dream Candidate would have the balls to stand up and say all kinds of honest and controversial things... which would then cause people to vote against him.
And I think pandering is underrated. Bush is principled, sure. But his principles represent a small, very conservative subset of the nation. From a practical standpoint, I'd rather have someone like Clinton who tests the political wind and then goes whichever way it's blowing. OK, maybe he's not being true to his values. But if he's being true to the values of the electorate, that's more important. Hell, isn't that why we elect them: to promote our values, not their own?
Furthermore, what would Nader expect to do once in office? Assuming the Dems didn't pack up and move to Saharan Africa, there will still be the Senate, there will still be the House, there will still be the bureaucracy. Nader by himself would get nothing done. He is just one man, one standard deviation too much away from the mean.
Nader was an outstanding consumer advocate. Making the Corvair look bad, unfortunately, does not prep you for the presidency.
Kerry and Bush came down on different sides of virtually every single issue in the debates. Taxes. Abortion. Foreign policy. Health care. Iraq. The environment.
But other than that, yeah. Both parties are the same.
I'm sorry, but I cannot respect your viewpoint. The Bush administration is simply a catastrophe. First of all, they fucked up on 9/11. They were warned about al Qaeda, instead Bush chose to antagonize North Korea and China and spend billions on National Missile Defense. The Afghanistan invasion was the right move, but since then the nation has fallen into the hands of warlords and drug lords. The invasion of Iraq has been a massive catastrophe. We've managed to kill thousands of civilians, destroyed our image abroad with Abu Graib, and given new motivation to anti-US terrorists worldwide. Plus, Bush has ruined the country financially by spending massive amounts on Iraq while cutting taxes on the richest of the rich. Oh, and let's not forget that this president who promised to be a "uniter, not a divider" has pandered to the radical fundamentalist Christians and Neocons and left the nation more polarized than it has been in a generation. By any objective standard, the Bush administration is a massive, catastrophic failure and he's one of the worst presidents in a century.
Maybe Kerry ain't perfect, but he's better. A lobotomized chimp would be better than Bush (and smarter). We've got to make realistic choices. Between bad and worse, I'll take bad. That's life. You have to make tough choices- it's part of being grown up and mature. Don't like it? Tough shit, that's life. Suck it up and deal.
It's hard not to be slightly biased to the democrats. As a european I find it mind boggling that a guy like Bush can become president, basically do everything his opponents feared he would do (and much worse) and still convince about half of the electorate that he's doing an ok job. Clinton lied about a woman, Bush lied about a lot more.
Personally I think America really deserves another four years of Bush (and the associated prolonged economical problems). They've been arrogant, dominant and foolish. Four years ought to be enough to at least double the deficit, kill what's left of US industry and alienate the rest of the world insofar that has not been accomplished yet. Unfortunately, that would likely affect other countries (such as my own) so it would be better for me and my fellow non US world citizens if Kerry were to win.
If you are planning to vote Nader, just remember that neither Bush nor Nader needs your vote. Nader doesn't expect to win and Bush will cheer you as a disgruntled democrat that won't put any votes in Kerry's pocket. It's as simple as that.
This election is about selecting the next US president. You have four options: not voting at all, voting Nader, voting Bush and voting Kerry. Three of those options will help Bush more than Kerry, so really there's only two choices: Bush or Kerry. You can support Bush by not voting, by voting for Nader (which is essentially the same thing) or by voting for Bush directly. You can only support Kerry by voting for him. If enough people get off their ass to vote (whatever they want to vote) on the election day, Kerry will easily win this election. All the current polls take into account a siginificant number of mostly poorly educated americans not voting. Bush depends on those people staying at home because these are mostly potential democratic votes.
Jilles
I support third parties and fully believe that the only way to take out the two headed hydra that dominates DC is to run non-conventional candidates against them. However, Nader is just as scary, if not scarier than wack jobs like Buchannan and Perot. Nader has alot of ideas that I agree with. But honestly, he has the kind divine authoratian streak that make many slashdotters question our current pResident's sanity. My problem with Nader's run isn't that he'll take votes from Kerry, actually. Its the fact that Nader and his followers are puritanical ideologues convinced wholeheartedly of their own greatness. The fact that Smirk getting back into office doesn't scare them should send chills up the spine of any sane or rational progressive. The scarier problem would be if these freaks ever came to power. One of my biggest fears with Nader is not whether or not Bush wins...its the eerie notion of Nader a president. It would the bizarre bastard child of force-fed political correctness, 1950's style social graces and left-wing Fascism that will define a Nader presidency. Remember that crap ass movie "Demolition Man"? Remember the vegan, androgynous wimp world that they future was? There was no meat, rock music or profanity or sex. Im a vegan and I would cringe at the type of world. This is the kind of whacked out world would be a political wet dream from people like Nader. Talking to a lot of Naderites, there's an eerie dictatorial streak within them. They think just because they may be right, they can shoehorn and ram their ideas down peoples throats. Seeing as many of these guys think Communist Russia wasn't that bad doesn't surprise me. I asked a fellow Green and ardent Naderite how does Nader expect to pass all of his more whacked out notions (like banning video games) without the support of Congress. He said without blinking an eye that Ralph could just pass everything as an executive order. Isn't that the kind of tyrannical bullshit that they get all pissed about with Bush? Its fine for Nader to rule by fiat because "he fights for the people"? Come on guys, lay off the weed! We agree on one point, if Bush gets elected, no Republican would be able to seek office for next 20-30 years, if the nation survives that long afterward. If Nader, or anyone like him, were to get into the drivers seat, he'll set our agenda back twice as far. Even the national Green Parties (they are technically two) told Nader to take a hike. Why? Because Nader basically felt that somehow the GP needed him, He calls us political immature because we as a party had the audacity to nominate an actual Green for president. He didn't notice that Greens are officially the nation's third largest political party and are growing in spite of him. I'm a Green and will continue to be one. But my biggest pet peeves in politics are stubbornness and arrogance. Nader's a threat because he would put Bush back into office. But I would argue Ralph Nader would be just as scary, if not scarier, if he were in power A REAL Green
If everyone who would have voted for Gandhi instead votes for Bush, it's very likely that Bush will win, making the world less evil than had Satan himself been elected. In that case, swallowing one's pride and voting for the lesser of two evils rather than the best candidate overall would make the world less evil, and hence be a good thing.
Here's how I think people should make their decisions: First, evaluate all the candidates, and rank them in the order of quality. Then check the polls and see who the two most electable candidates are.
If you don't see a compelling difference between the two leading candidates, vote third party. But take into account that, the closer the race, the less compelling the difference has to be. For example, if you end up casting *the* tiebreaking vote, even a 1% evil differential should be enough to make you choose the lesser evil rather than the best good.
If the race isn't even close in your state, feel free to vote for the best candidate running. I'm in Utah, where GW leads JFK 64% to 27%. In that case, why not vote Nader? A lot of people here are thinking that way, and it looks like he'll get about 4% of the vote.
I'm not following my own advice, in that I'm actually pretty comfortable with the idea that Kerry would do a better job than Nader. I'm also a little miffed about how he screwed up Florida in 2000. But I'm also in favor of third parties, and figure that a strong third party presence on the Left would force Dems to take interest in things like runoff ballots and splitting electoral votes (as is done in Maine, and as is being proposed for Colorado).
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!