# A Vote for Nader... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2000, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058 "2000-10-24T01:52:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Emilee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cab0a1/32.png) [@Emilee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emilee)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/1 "2000-10-24T01:52:14Z")
“A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!” In my mind this is the most annoying phrase of the 2000 campaign. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. A vote for Nader is a vote for a thrid party with some actual power. I know this was discussed in a thread a few weeks ago, but I curious to see how opinions may have changed. As the election draws closer, are some SDMB dems worried that Nader will hurt Gore? What do the SDMB Greens have to say in response? Nader needs five percent of the vote to get matching funds next time, and he has four percent now. Do you all like the idea of a recognized third party? ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/2 "2000-10-24T01:59:19Z")
Its just a phrase stupid democrats use, and of course the media is a stupid bunch of democrats. While I like the idea of a 3rd party, I don’t like the idea of a green party. 🙂 Ah well wheres libertarianism when u need it. ---
**Author:** ![Freedom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Freedom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedom)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/3 "2000-10-24T02:11:05Z")
High on my personal wish list for this November would be to see both the Green and the Libertarian party get 5%. I think the extremism of Buchanan helped dim the outcry of excluding 3rd parties from the debates. If Nader was receiving federal funding, I have this funny feeling that he would find a way to sue for inclusion. I pray this is the last Presidential election where we are subjected to 90 minute infomercials called debates. I want to see 4 or 5 people up there. I want them to be able to question each other. I want there to be RISK. (I did say that was my _wish_ list) ---
**Author:** ![UnEasyRider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e56c9b/32.png) [@UnEasyRider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UnEasyRider)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/4 "2000-10-24T02:28:44Z")
All candidates reguardless of party or voter share should be included in the debates. We should have the chance to watch all of them make fools of themselves. They should be able to ask each other questions. Just responding to a moderator isn’t a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Falcon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/49beb7/32.png) [@Falcon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falcon)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/5 "2000-10-24T02:32:15Z")
Well, I’ll come out and say YES, I think it’s a vote for Bush. The way our system is set up, a third party has little to no chance of suceeding. Honestly, I wish I could vote for Nader. BUT, I’m so scared of Bush winning that I will be voting for Gore instead. ---
**Author:** ![divemaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/divemaster/32/78_2.png) [@divemaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/divemaster)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/6 "2000-10-24T03:36:50Z")
**Falcon** , I assume you will be voting in Maryland? I think this in one of the few states Gore has locked up. If you are truly a Nader supporter and desire to vote for him, I don’t think you could inadvertantly put Bush over the top here. To my way of thinking, that puts you at the envy of many Nader supporters in the more closely contested states. (General question, not exclusively for Falcon) Why not vote your conscience? You’ll sleep better at night knowing you cast your vote for someone whom you support, rather than someone you can barely tolerate. Why base your decision on how some _other_ person may or may not vote? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/7 "2000-10-24T04:12:09Z")
A little reason: A President gets to appoint not only Supreme Court justices, but also Appellate circuit justices and appointees to such bodies as the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board). Assuming you are pro-labor (a large assumption I suppose) a vote for Nader does absolutely, positively nothing to advance the cause of getting judges who will keep not only abortion rights but also rulings that will allow unions to continue to function. It will do squat towards keeping the NLRB on the right side. Stop playing, people. This is real life, with real people and real issues. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/8 "2000-10-24T08:13:21Z")
If everyone who wanted to vote for Nader actually did, there wouldn’t be a problem. He’d easily have a large percentage of the vote. The problem is that everyone thinks “oh, if I vote for him I’ll be the only one and it’ll be a waste.” Not so. My friend was part of a telephone survey recently and when he said he wanted to vote for Nader but probably wouldn’t, the interview said “yeah, that’s what I hear from everyone.” My question is, what can be done about this? It’s like the Prisoner’s Dilemma. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/9 "2000-10-24T13:06:23Z")
In Ohio, the vote is very close. The newspaper says that if the small percentage that is voting for Nader voted for Gore he would beat Bush, if not, the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/10 "2000-10-24T13:51:36Z")
By gum, I said I would keep posting this same response to every “is a vote for Nader a vote for Bush?” thread from now to November 7, and by gum, I’m gonna do it. (I’m kinda surprised how many different threads we’ve had on the same subject, though!) Here is the Straight Dope on whether and how to vote for Nader without helping to elect Bush (now new and improved with updated poll sites!): > [@](#): > > Use the “Ivins rule” to determine if your state is so solidly behind either Bush or Gore that your vote won’t make a difference, and vote for Gore or Nader depending on whether it will or it won’t. See [this explanation](http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2000/09/29/7.html) at the Tom Paine website. More current poll information is available at [Portrait of America](http://www.portraitofamerica.com/html/section_1.html). > > While we have an undemocratic poll-driven, winner-take-all electoral system (and btw, perhaps the most effective blow we can strike for better representation for all political viewpoints is to institute electoral practice reforms such as [instant runoff voting](http://www.fairvote.org/irv/) and [proportional representation](http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/Bibliography/prbibht2.htm)), we should feel no shame about manipulating the system to the tiny extent we can, in order to make the best of our appallingly limited choices. ---
**Author:** ![Tretiak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a88e57/32.png) [@Tretiak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tretiak)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/11 "2000-10-24T14:10:31Z")
And I will say it a hundred times. No individual vote will sway any single state this election. I will take any bet anyone wants to make on that. The Ivins rule is cute nonsense. Do Nader votes collectively represent a more likely win for Bush. Yes. Does your vote? No. So it is only a question of conscience. Let me say however, that does not necessarily mean vote for nader if you like him. If you are so-minded, a vote of conscience can still be a vote for Gore even though you like Nader, if you feel that you don’t want to be part of a collective that may inadvertantly get Bush elected (alhtough individually there was nothing you could do)? or a vote of conscience may simply be voting for Nader because that is your favorite choice. The calculus of politics in this case should have almost nothing to do with trying to affect the outcome and everything to do with what will let you sleep well at night. ---
**Author:** ![RTA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b4bc9f/32.png) [@RTA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTA)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/12 "2000-10-24T14:44:16Z")
In a perfect world we’d elect Nader in a landslide. But if it so hapends that that cat ends up with, say, 5% of the vote, and Gore loses by 4%, Nader voters will in fact be directly responsible for electing Bush - just as Perot voters were mathematically responsible for electing Clinton in '92. Like it or not the catchphrase is in fact true - **IF** you live in a state where the vote is oh-so close: your vote for Nader **will** help get Bush elected. If you live in a state where one or the other major candidate is walking away with the electoral votes, go nuts. Vote Nader. Hell, vote for Bugs Bunny if you feel like it. Me, I live in a so-called “battleground state” so will swallow my gag reflex and vote Gore. I’m doing all I can to help keep the frat-boy retard out of the Oval Office and three more marginally-qualified right-wingers (such as Thomas) off the Supreme Court. Those who say that one individual’s vote doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things must also believe that a forest is a singularity not comprised of trees. It’s a ridiculous assertion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/13 "2000-10-24T15:19:11Z")
I’m amazed at the logic being used by people who are voting for Gore though they’d prefer Nader. A.) Your one vote does not change anything for Gore. Therefore, you might as well use it for whom _you_ want in office. Now, should the election swing down to the electoral votes of a single state, and that single state swing by a single vote, then I apologize for my advice. But when that happens, monkeys will dance in the heavens as the giant clowns rise from Hell to claim us as their love-slaves. In other words, it’s not likely. B.) Conversely, your vote _does_ change things for Nader. If he can get just 5% of the vote, the Green Party gets matching funds in '04, and may have a much better launching point for next election. And given the differences in numbers, you’ve 9 times the likelihood of getting Nader over that hump than you have of getting Gore elected by a single vote. C.) By voting for Gore, you’re telling the Democrats “we don’t care _how_ right-wing or moderate you run, so long as you’re not more right-wing than the Republicans!” And you’ll just see more Gores and Bradleys and Robbs and Kerreys and other moderate-to-right-wing Democrats being touted as Presidential candidates while the liberal wing of the party shrivels on the vine. Why? 'Cause they know they can take you for granted. Don’t want to be taken for granted? Want the party to actually consider your vote worth seeking? Then don’t vote Democrat, vote Green. D.) And for those who consider Bush to be the ultimate horror that could ever walk the face of this planet- get over yourself. Look, let’s just assume that your one vote _does_ elect Bush over Gore. Once we’ve dealt with the clowns from Hell (see response A), do you _really_ think that Bush will screw up the country _that_ much? Assuming the Republicans still control Congress, it’ll be slim margins at best, so we’re not talking about a railroad of uber-conservative programs going through. Despite all of their promises to the contrary, neither Gore nor Bush will be able to enact a great deal of legislation over the next two years. (And as far as the “three Supreme Court justices” goes; I’ve said this over and over and over again- the next President is likely to only see one Justice seat change from liberal to conservative or vice-versa. Yes, that’s enough to change some split decisions. Yes, Gore’s election would likely mean a slightly more liberal Court and Bush’s election a slightly more conservative. But nowhere _near_ the amount that “three Justices” makes it seem.) So, let me sum up. Even though the chance of your particular vote mattering to Gore is about as good as winning a $10 million lottery ticket, and even though your vote for Nader can help him not only in this election but in future elections, as well as pushing the Democratic Party back in your direction, you’re willing to throw all of that away in order to prevent (again, your chance of said prevention being equal to winning that lottery ticket) the election of a candidate whose agenda is merely unpalatable and easily undoable. _I_ know who’s wasting their vote, and it ain’t the people actually voting Nader. ---
**Author:** ![Falcon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/49beb7/32.png) [@Falcon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falcon)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/14 "2000-10-24T15:32:23Z")
And John, we’ve said BACK to you that one vote would likely result in abortion restrictions. Something I canNOT support in any way or form. Those votes are 5-4 now. One switch reverses the majority. RTA - thanks for making my point a hell of a lot better than I did. 🙂 divemaster - thanks. I know Maryland isn’t one of those states where Gore’s in danger…good lord, we elect Sarbanes back to the Senate every time. (I love living in a liberal state.) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/15 "2000-10-24T15:51:44Z")
After this post I’m staying out of this debate. I just thought you guys might be interested in this [article](http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2000/10/24/nader/index.html) concerning Nader. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/16 "2000-10-24T16:27:49Z")
A vote for Nader is a vote for Scalia and Thomas. The fact is, contrary to what Nader supporters usually say, in a perfect world Nader would _not_ win by a landslide victory. He has already dismissed women’s and gay rights as “gonadal politics,” a comment which few people have forgiven. Furthermore, I am not alone in distrusting Nader with the course of US foreign policy. So I have a few responses so what has been said above. So you think you live in a state that Gore has all locked up. Do you _really_ want to trust the fate of this country to a few Gallup and Zogby polls? If voting according to your conscience is such a high priority, are you really satisfied rationalizing that your vote won’t really make a difference based on a poll or even a historical precedent? Furthermore, it is possible for Gore to win the electoral vote and _lose_ the popular vote. While uncommon, this eventuality would complicate things to a serious degree. And John, you, Nader, and perhaps a few other people here are about the only individuals in this country who are trying to minimize the Supreme Court argument. The fact that partisans on both sides of the political spectrum are using it as a rallying point should tell you something. Sure, I don’t think our next president is going to appoint _four_ justices. But two or three is still extremely likely, especially if he serves two terms. MR ---
**Author:** ![Rasa](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rasa/32/3578_2.png) [@Rasa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rasa)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/17 "2000-10-24T16:28:14Z")
John Corrado is now my favorite Republican. High compliment, as I consider being Republican a character flaw. (Though being a Democrat isn’t much better these days.) ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/18 "2000-10-24T16:37:22Z")
Is there any proof that Nader is drawing mostly from Gore? Perot drew votes equally from both candidate in 92 according to all exit polling data I’ve seen. I’d be voting for Bush if Nader wasn’t running. I doubt I’m the only semi-Republican drawn to Nader’s anti-corporatization message. [Small weekly cartoon propels Bush to White House](http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/10/16/tomo/index.html) [Spooky parallel earth](http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/10/23/tomo/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Amok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f17d59/32.png) [@Amok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amok)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/19 "2000-10-24T16:55:48Z")
> [@](#): > > _Maeglin wrote:_ > And John, you, Nader, and perhaps a few other people here are about the only individuals in this country who are trying to minimize the Supreme Court argument. The fact that partisans on both sides of the political spectrum are using it as a rallying point should tell you something. I know it tells me something. Namely that few use reasonable arguments as rallying points when they can instead use scare tactics. ---
**Author:** ![KSO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@KSO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KSO)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2000, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058/20 "2000-10-24T16:57:51Z")
I’m another semi-Republican who will be voting for Nader. I suspect a majority of Nader voters are NOT disillusioned Democrats who will hold their nose and vote for Gore on Nov. 7, but people who feel disinfranchised by both parties or simply can’t stomach what they perceive to be, on the one hand, an incompetent frat boy and, on the other hand, an overbearing untrustworthy gasbag. I’m in Connecticut, which is a sure thing for Gore and his spineless running mate Lieberman. If it were going to be close, I’d vote for Bush. Maeglin: can you explain why you think problems would arise if Gore loses the popular vote and wins the electoral college? I don’t understand your concern. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-vote-for-nader/38058.md?page=2)