That would be a totally cool thing for Nader to do one week before election day. But on to the point…
I have noticed a number of posts here where people have said that they will be voting for Nader, but if they had to pick Bush or Gore, they would lean towards Gore. This seems to say that there are a lot of people out there that are willing to risk a Bush victory even though they would otherwise (given no other choice) vote for Gore, just to (I suppose) make some statement of principle about how unfair it is to omit 3rd party candidates from the debates and the ballots in some states, or about how splendidly mediocre the two party candidates are this time around.
Nader voters: am I reading you right? Would your vote be for Gore if you didn’t have Nader on your ballot? And if so, are you prepared for the posibility of a Bush victory in light of the ~5% popular vote going to somebody who can’t possibly win?
And as for you, Mr. Nader (I know you read the Straight Dope, so don’t pretend, ok?), which of the other two candidates would you vote for if you woke up tomorrow and realized that you won’t be sitting in the oval office any time soon? How do you justify shaving critical tie-breaking support off of the democratic ticket just so you can say that you left a fingerprint on the 2000 election? [I don’t know a great deal about Nader’s political inclination, but I’m tempted to say that he’d rather chew on a jumbo roll of aluminum foil than see Bush in the White House. I’m sure somebody will correct me if I’m mistaken.]
I’ve seen posts here & there where people grumble about Nader being left out of debates, denied the right to be on the ballot (in some states) and so on. Let’s get those thoughts all together, here in one thread.
You got me all worried there. It brought forth some of my old fears about Nader, namely that he is indeed a closet Gore supporter.
If nader were not on the ballot, I would not vote for Gore. The justification for taking points away from Gore, is that he and Bush are no better nor worse. Nader would hate if either of them got elected. So in that case, there really is no reason for him to support Gore, a man he views as morally bankrupt. Or Bush, a man who could best be described as a twitchy little dip
You ask an interesting question. I was, in fact, going to start my own thread on a very similar topic. I was going to post a question about why it is assumed a Vote for Nader (or Brown, or Buchanan, etc.) is considered a Vote against Gore.
I understand that it is if you accept the assumption that people would vote for Gore if they did not vote for Nader. However, I think this is an erroneous assumption. As oldscratch states, I think there are many people who would not vote for either Bush or Gore. Therefore, a vote for Nader takes the vote from neither candidate.
What it does do is perhaps earn a third party candidate a 5% or greater percenatage of the vote. What this does is insures that party will get federal funding in the next election (if I understand that correctly). I believe this is what happened when Perot garnered so many votes for the Reform Party in the 1992 (?) election. This will help that Party to have a larger voice in the next election. It may also serve as a “wake up call” for politicians and cause them to examine issues that are left out of the big 2 parties.
I don’t believe my voting for a third party candidate in any way “takes votes away” from anyone. It’s much more important to me that I vote my conscience than vote for the lesser of evils.
If I were forced to vote for Gore or Bush, yes, I’d likely vote for Algore. But I’m not–I’d write in Pat Paulsen before either of those two trained lemurs. Thuse, Algore does not lose my vote–he never had it.
I was having this discussion with my ex a while back when I told her I was voting Green this election and she said pretty much a “vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.”. While this may be true in a practical sense I have a real problem with that mentality.
I tend to belive that every time you convince someone to vote against their own natural choice you have conspired to defraud the democratic process and that you are part of what makes this nations politics a stinking pile of pig shit.
Pretty vivid statement but thats how i feel and I think I can back up the meataphor.
Politics are not just based on who wins but also on how well the loser did. I like Naders personal ethics and ecumen. I’m pretty sure he won’t win but I will vote for him because who ever wins will look at the number of votes Nader got hopefully be influenced by his totals.
A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader and a vote for a losing candidate still has influence.
Vote your concience and screw everyone else. They can vote they way they want to.
I’ve already said that I would much rather vote for Nader, but if it looks like the retarded frat boy puppet might actually win, then I have no choice but to vote for Gore.
My principles, or conscience, liberal pique or whatever you want to call it is not as important as trying to save America from evildoers.
The idea of the retarded frat boy puppet putting 3 more Clarence Thomases on the Supreme Court is simply too horrible to contemplate.
I live in California. There is no way that anyone but Gore will win this great state’s electoral vote. Therefor I am free to vote Nader without fear of hurting Gore. honestly, though, Gore is no prize.
Plus a Nader vote counts towards the total of popular votes that might help the green party qualify for matching funds. A vote for Nader is a vote for the future.
Actually, one of Bush’s supporters was saying on PBS last night that Bush might end up winning California. He’s only 6 points back.
I, for one, am voting for Nader, but Bush is my runner up. I too view Gore as a tax and spend liberal who does not care about people so much as he cares about making government bigger. And he’s a pathological liar, apparently.
Go Nader!!
(I guess it is too late to let him debate, huh? Bastards!)
Here I am, checking the Green Party’s website (which is here if you’re interested) to keep current on what’s going on, and wondering how the hell this slipped by me.
I’m voting for Nader. Did in the last election as a write-in, now he’s on the ballot in my state (RI). If Nader weren’t on the ballot, I’d vote for McReynolds-Hollis. (Though not sure if they’re on the ballot in RI, should check into that.)
I don’t view my vote as wasted if I vote for Nader–hell, we all know he’s not going to win, but if he can get the 5%, the GPUSA will be a recognized party. That might send the signal to Washington that we’re sick of the two-party system, and open the door for parties like the Socialist Party USA and the like. Actually the GP & SP USA aren’t too far apart, I think the Greens just don’t have enough of an economic restructuring plan to align them with the SP… but I may be wrong.
I agree. And I’d also like to think that if Nader were not on the ballot, voters would take the time to see who else is out there, and represents them, not “corporate America”.
The Green Party might have a chance of becoming an actual contender, but the Socialist Party will never, ever, get more than 5% of the popular vote, barring a miracle. Like it or not, socialism is never going to be openly accepted in this country.
Am I throwing away my vote? I’m a Bush supporter in a state that is totally locked up for Gore. Yet, I can’t imagine not voting. Maybe it has something to do with being at peace with myself that I supported what I believed in rather than basing my vote on what other people may or may not do.
What have you got against us Lemurs? What are you, some kind of speciesist? Imagine, insulting the whole lemur family by comparing us to those two trained humans…
Ge, that was MY reasoning way back in 1980, when I was 20 years old and cast my very first Presidential vote for Dr. Barry Commoner of the Citizens’ Party.
Whoops! Eight years of Ronald Reagan, then another four of Bush Senior!
