Not me. I want the Bushistas out of office.
I will. To make a long story short, it’s a protest vote, but you can read on for details.
FYI, I will just be 18 for the election, so this will be my first vote.
I’m a social libertarian and an economic moderate, so I have no love of Bush. I would vote for the Democrat regardless of who it is, just to beat Bush, but someone at Plastic.com convinced me.
Their argument was that the major problem isn’t Bush himself. Bush is just a symptom of the larger problem in politics today, one endemic of a two-party all-or-nothing system.
Democrats and Republicans are pretty close on most major issues nowadays, at least (Kerry, Edwards, and Bush all like tax cuts; they all support anti-terrorism very much; they are all against gay marriage, although there is some waffling about civil unions; etc.) I’m not saying that I agree with Nader that they are pretty much identical. My point is that they don’t really like to take a stand, for fear of offending too many people. That’s why I like Dean so much, it’s a pity that he is portrayed as so angry and liberal (a competent, moderate-pro gun control and a fiscal conservative, although he is socially liberal, Governor who balanced the budget when almost every other state had a huge deficit).
Since there is no run-off system, no porportional representation for Congress, you get situations where Gore wins the popular vote but loses the election, even in an instance where almost all the 2.8 million Nader voters would have preferred Gore. You also get situations where someone like McCain (who I would vote for in an instant) is in the same party with Bush, although they seem vastly different.
If only the political party system were more like Europe, where you could have a slightly authoritarian Christian Right party, a Libertarian party, a Socialist party, a Moderate party, and a Progressive slightly-left-of-center party all have Congressional representation and a good chance of getting >15-20% of the vote.
I’ll be voting in Tennessee, so my vote will have a lot more impact than my home state Illinois. Still, I think it would be more productive to lodge a protest vote for an Independant than give Kerry or Edwards another 1 vote.
I’m with you, Boyo Jim. I was ticked when I found out Nader was making his run again. I think it might be sour grapes, he’s run so many times and never even come close, so now he’s going to run against them all, knowing that his votes are coming out of the people who would normally vote democrat, and enflict Bush on us, for the third, bloody time.
Ok, maybe it’s not sour grapes, but he still shouldn’t run. He might have cost us the electoral election in '00 and he might do it again.
A vote for Nader is almost like a vote for Bush, and I can’t believe he doesn’t know that. Whatever qualms you might have about the democratic party (I think a lot of them have been pretty weak-minded lately, until Dean came alone), a democrat HAS to be better than Bush.
I voted for Nader in 2000. It was probably related to the fact that I was 18 years old at the time. In this election, I will vote for the Democratic candidate, regardless of who it is.
My reasoning: yes, the two major parties are quite similar on many important issues, including Medicare, education, the War on Drugs, gun control, trade, and overall outlays to Transportation and various other departments that most people don’t care about. However, it’s incorrect to state that their entirely identical. For instance, there was the energy bill that Senate Democrats shot down, one that basically consisted of handing $27 billion of taxpayer money over to oil and agribusiness concerns. Environmental issues are still a major flash point, giving that Shrub seems intent on tearing down all progress that’s been made in the past two generations.
Then there’s the issue of Supreme Court nominees. Lost in all the hoopla about the Pickering nomination is the fact that most of Shrub’s judical selections have not been ranting right-wing zealots. If a Supreme Court spot opened up, he would likely choose some bland, please-all-sides type who leaned slightly to the right. And Kerry would likely choose some bland, please-all-sides type who leaned slightly to the left. Not much difference, you say? But any new nominees might well stay on the bench for decades, and they can change considerably in their views over the years. Better to be on the safe side.
BTW, I lived in California in 2000. This time, I will probably live in Tennessee.
I might. I’m annoyed about the outcome of the 2000 election, and I want a democratic president. However, I understand the cause for which Nader runs, and I would like him to be able to get federal funding for his party.
And, most importantly, I’m a democrat living in Texas. This state is a lost cause, we’re, sadly, going to end up going Republican anyway, so my vote may as well be for something. If I lived in a swing state, I’d be voting Democrat, any Democrat, all the way.
Here’s an interesting statistic (my 2.8 million guess was wrong):
Source: http://clerk.house.gov/members/election_information/2000/TABLE.HTM
2000 Green Popular Vote: 2,529,871
1996 Green Popular Vote: 156,342
2000 Vote - 1996 Vote = 2,373,529
I’m guessing that the vast majority of people who went to the Green party in 2000 but not in 1996 were dissatisfied with the choice for president. The Green party is much closer aligned with the Democrats than Republicans so people voting for Nader in 2000 are much more likely to vote Democratic now, especially because Bush has ~90% job disapproval among Democrats (and maybe even higher among Greens). Many people believe that Nader won’t steal a significant number of votes from the Democrats as instead of the lesser of two evils, it is an incredible evil (as perceived by liberals) against at most, a minor evil (Kerry is more liberal than Gore).
So:
Nader Vote 2000 - Nader Vote 1996 (2,373,529) + Gore Vote 2000 (50,996,062) - Bush Vote 2000 (50,465,169) = 2,904,422
So, if the electoral stage is much the same as 4 years ago, then a conservative estimate would give at least 2 million more votes to Gore than Bush, and almost definately a win.
Of course, my layman’s political reasoning is probably wrong, but we’ll see in a few months, won’t we?
My father will be. He’s a republican.
You are aware he’s running as an indy, not as a Green?
2000 Nader voter here. I don’t think people realize how alike Gore and Bush seemed at the time (and how relatively inoffensive Bush was until recently), but it really felt like it didn’t matter which one of them got elected. But I was voting in Louisiana, so my Democratic vote wouldn’t have mattered.
I will not be doing it again. It’s too important this year.
I’m going to be voting in Wisconsin, where Gore won by less than 6,000 votes in the last election. Had I been 18 in 2000, I would have considered voting for Nader, but probably would have ended up going for Gore. I don’t blame Nader for what happened in 2000 - there was no way to tell it’d come out like that. Nevertheless, there is no WAY I’m voting for Nader in this election. This is how I’ve evaluated it:
Can voting for Nader make things better? In 2000, the Green party was trying to get federal funding, and a vote for Nader would have brought them that little bit closer to that coveted 5%. This time, a whole lot of left-leaning people seem to be much more interested in getting Bush out of office as fast as possible than anything else, so I feel pretty certain that Nader will get much less than 5% of the vote. And even if he WERE to get 5%, he’s not even running as the Green party candidate! He’s independent! So unless I’m terribly mistaken, a good showing by Nader can’t even HELP the Green party. It would reflect my true political views more closely than a Democratic vote would, but I wouldn’t say that a vote for Nader would make anything better.
Can voting for Nader make things worse? Wisconsin’s electoral votes could make the difference in who gets the presidency. And to be honest, my political views have recently prioritized themselves thusly:
- Aaaaah! Bush! Aaaaaah!
- Other stuff
From my point of view, voting for Nader definitely CAN make things worse. I’d be much happier if he went away quietly, used his campaign money for more important things, (even if it was just for supporting the Green party on a local level) and came back at a time when people who agree with him are far less frightened.
I don’t like Bush, voted for Gore in 2000 (for all the good that did), and plan on voting for whomever the Democratic candidate is in 2004. Maybe I’m unusual but I wouldn’t vote for Ralph Nader because I dislike the man and his principles. In fact, given his zealotry, I might consider voting for Bush if Nader was the Democratic candidate.
For those who think there’s no difference between a Republican and Democratic administration, ask yourself if you believe Gore or Clinton or Carter would have invaded Iraq, would have enacted tax cuts for the wealthy, would have gutted enviromental regulations, would have ignored civil rights, or would have named Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist to the Supreme Court.
In American politics, Conservatives tend to unite behind a major candidate. Liberals, on the other hand, often vote for third parties or don’t vote at all. This means most elections are between a Moderate and a Conservative and no serious candidate bothers seeking out the Liberal vote.
This will be my standard response, it’s the one i sent to a dear friend who insists all the same stuff we’ve been hearing to justify voting Nader, and here it is:
The Democrats are warty with imperfections. But you know as perfectly as I do that in power, they are fuzzy kitties compared to bush/cheny/rumsfeld/ashcroft, especially that crew let loose without a re-election to worry about. You know as perfectly as I do that the matters at stake are not small intellectual exercises, they are life and death, literally. Freedom vs. tyranny, literally.
So just be clear about the choice you are making and what it represents. By not contributing your vote to the only candidate who can actually replace Bush, by not canceling a Bush vote with a Dem vote, * you contribute to his being elected *, whatever your motive for making that choice. Sometimes it really doesn’t matter what your intention is, it only matters what your effect is. This is absolutely one of those times.
Don’t do it. Just this once. Never forget what the road to hell is paved with.
Ah, another thread has reminded me of the biggest reason I voted for Nader. Liberman. If they run THAT bastard again, then all bets are off.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and may again for the same reasons:
- I was reasonably confident that Illinois would go for Gore (the lesser of two evils - IMO) by a healthy margin, so my vote would have been a bit of piling on.
- I like the idea of a viable third party, since I could then choose from the least of three evils.
Given that George Ryan’s legacy is an Illinois Republican Party that can’t scrub off that Statesville Smell, and the Daley Machine in the north and the Costello Machine in the south, I’m pretty confident that the state will once again go Dem.
Say what you will about the Electoral College, at least it allows one the opportunity to indulge in a bit of subversiveness while still hedging your bet.
I voted for him in '96, I voted for him in '00, and it’s likely I’ll vote for him again.
The Dems and the Repubs are two sides of the same, corrupt coin. Don’t kid yourselves.
Voted Nader in 2000, may do it again this year, but will have to see how things unfold. Right now it’s a choice between Nader and not voting at all.
I mean, I support bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan now. I support gay marriage. I support universal health care, and I want an end to the death penalty. Which of the two mainstream parties am I supposed to vote for?
No thanks, I’d rather vote for a self-serving egotist who has a chance to win.
I voted for him in 2000, and will probably do it again. Don’t like the two party strangle hold, and this is my “protest”.
That being said, the only reason I am voting for Nader is that I live in Utah, and my presidential vote won’t count. Utah has, by far, the largest Republican majority of any state, and there isn’t even an outside chance that a democrat could carry this state.
It bothers me how many here keep saying that they’ll vote for Nader because their vote ‘doesn’t count’ otherwise- because they see themselves living in either a solid blue or red state.
Maybe this is the same reasoning that makes folks just stay at home and not participate at all?
To me, it’s simple: a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
Like most other things that appear simple, pestie, that’s wrong. Bush won through playing filthy pool with the Florida recount and through Gore proving himself not worth voting for. There were 51 million people who registered to vote in the 2000 election and who didn’t - that is, Gore had a potential 51 million more votes to work on getting instead of slamming Nader for running in the first place.
I voted Nader because I didn’t like either Gore or Bush. And I think it likely I’ll vote for him this time around as well - I still don’t like Bush and I don’t think much of Kerry, either. But then again, I understand political activity involves a lot more than pulling a switch every two or four years, so no matter who is elected President this November I’ll be out organizing, mobilizing, and fighting around the issues that concern me and on which I’ll likely be in opposition to both Democrats and Republicans.