Most recent polls show Ralph Nader getting about 5% of votes in a presidential race between Bush, Kerry and Nader; and Bush getting enough votes to win the election. Without Nader in the race, polls show that Kerry would win the election.
I realize that opinions change, and things might be different come election day. But that isn’t my point. What I am wondering is what are those people thinking? What is their rationale? Without Nader, they’ve indicated they would vote for Kerry, so obviously Bush isn’t their second choice. But, yet they’re willing to materially contribute to his re-election.
I am not bashing Nader supporters. What I am hoping to discuss is what outcome do they expect by voting for Nader, since they can’t possibly be hoping he becomes president? Or are they?
Are they so disillusioned by the Democratic Party that they would rather see a Republican win in order to force some changes within the Democratic Party?
Are they so ambivalent toward the two major parties that they don’t care who wins? (Their voting for Kerry wouldn’t support this. In this case, you would expect them not to vote at all if Nader wasn’t running).
Do they think their candidate has a shot at winning? (Although he needs approximately a 6-time improvement in his numbers just to reach parity with the other two. Not a likely scenario).
Do they believe that over time, and many elections, a third party may become a viable alternative? If this is the case, what do they think about another four years of Bush?
It’s too early for Nader supporters to declare for a major candidate.
Why should they do that now when there are so many other undecided in both parties plus the actual independents out there?
As for third parties, don’t forget that Ross Perot made a good show for himself.
He might have been elected if he’d had a platform other than anti-Nafta and the old generic “I’m fed up and I won’t take it any more.”
I’m in Texas. If I vote for Nader and Bush wins the election it’s not my fault 'cos Bush would have won Texas anyway. If I vote for Nader and Kerry wins, he’s not my fault either. So my political carping in 2005-2009 will be from an unassailable nonpartisian fortress of Nader!
In the long run, their strategy may be to ensure that the Democrats don’t drift further to the right. To many of them, the Democrats are already too far to the right. They are forcing the Dem candidate to weigh up the options of pursuing evermore centrist ground against losing votes from further left. Overall, the effect of Nader voters is to input a leftist influence into US politics, which might disappear if they voted Dem no matter what.
I still don’t get the logic of bashing those who voted for Nader in 2000 when fully half of the voting populace stayed home. Why not actually spend some time trying to figure out why the Democrats didn’t reach any of those 100 million people with their election-year message?
Yeah, but this strategy doesn’t hold any water at all.
Let’s say, for shits and grins, that in the last election we had Party A, center right, getting 49% of the vote, Party B, center left, getting 48%, and an independent Far Left Loony Party getting 2%. The balance of the vote went to various cranks and weirdos.
You’re in charge of election strategy for Party B. You really want to win. Do you try to go after some of the Far Left Loony Party voters? You might get some of them, but they’re a cranky bunch. And trying to appease them might chase some of your more moderate members over to Party A.
Going after some of that big Party A vote is the correct course. This is how Bill Clinton won - by running as a moderate Democrat.
(This example was for illustrative purposes only. Please don’t beat me over the head with shrill reminders over who won the popular vote in 2000.)
For the candidate, maybe. For the leftist who thinks that both A and B are too far to the right, and that the only way to make party B at least stop and think before shamelessly seeking A votes, voting for the Loony Party is a reasonable, logical and above all democratic decision in order to exert a leftist influence on politics overall.
Mr. Moto is exactly correct. If I’m John Kerry I look to my left and see Nader and if I look to my right (WAY over to my right) I see Bush. I have to think 1) people that would vote for Nader are not going to be changed if I move left and 2) there will be a lot more votes to be won by moving right. The strategy should be to move right and let the Naderites fall where they may.
Politics is an everyday affair, not a once-every-four-years affair. The far left and far right would far better serve their purposes by aligning with the main party closer to their ideals and working to change politics from within. The best hope we have for diversified politics is a change in the voting system. The worst hope we have is political idealism. The only way the dems will stop chasing the center is when the center stops responding, or the far left becomes bigger than the center. I don’t see that a case can be made that either will happen if only people voted for the independent/third parties, which is putting the cart before the horse.
SentientMeat people may vote as they see fit. I was only stating that a vote for Nader seems misguided. I don’t think it will influence the Democratic Party or John Kerry either way.
Again, I’m saying that they cause the Dem candidate to weigh up their future course. If there were no influence on Dem policies from the left voters themselves, there would be nothing to stop Kerry sidling within a whisker of Bush on almost all issues. As in the recent threads ‘What would it take…?’, there are possible positions which Kerry could take which are far right of his present position but not quite as right as Bush. More voters would then either vote for Nader or stay at home.
And personally, I find the idea of ‘working from within’ somewhat idealistic myself.
The two-party system works because of the “lesser of two evils” philosophy. There are things the Republicans advocate that I disagree with, but for the most part they are closer to the pragmatic world view that I myself hold.
People who vote for third-party candidates like Nadar do it out of stubbornness. They see themselves as “pioneers fighting for change”. It makes them feel good. They are unwilling to accept the idea that they are helping the Republicans. And as a Bush supporter, I say more power to them.
All it takes is a grasp of math and an open mind to look at the vote totals in a few states to see that Ralph Nadar cost Al Gore the White House in 2000.
I think “alienated” is a really strong word to use here, one that might tip the hand of third party voters. I feel very alienated by major political forces, it is true, but that should not stop me from weighing out the benefits and losses for different votes. Does voting for Nader in a close election stand any chance of alienating democrats–the very folks that are supposed to come over to the left more? Or are only greens allowed to balk at politics?
I don’t blame Nader, I blame Gore–he didn’t run the swiftest campaign he could have, and I think that’s very unfortunate. But this is not to say that Nader voters couldn’t have swung the election back. They could have. Some Nader voters felt it was a safe vote because Gore “had” the election, riding on Clinton’s coattails. These voters will probably not be so quick to play to their ideals this election. That’s a shame, I agree, but in general every person should vote as if it was their vote that decided the election; seen in this light, each vote for Nader was a vote for Bush whenever a Nader voter marginally preferred Gore to Bush in 2000. Same thing with Perot voters, or Buchannan’s followers, or etc.
I’m a political conservative. That means, for as long as I’ve been politically aware, I’ve found far more to be unhappy about in American political life than I’ve found to be happy about.
I don’t let it drive me out of the process, though. I stay inside the Republican Party and use my (albeit small) influence within it to sway the party in a conservative direction. I’ve done this as a voter, a primary voter, a caucus participant, a donor, a county committee member and a delegate to the Virginia Republican Convention.
I think the Republican Party is stronger for conservatives staying in, and participating in the process.
Now, you can bail on the Democrats if you want to, and go play by yourself. But the party won’t miss you, especially with more Americans describing themselves as independents than either Republicans or Democrats anyway. Nader would have to accumulate a far greater vote total before he has any kind of impact, at which point history suggests his movement would be reabsorbed into the Democratic Party.
IMO, getting involved with your local Democratic party and working on local races would make a much bigger impact, and actually give you some chance at victory and local influence. Why aren’t you exploring this option?