More importantly, if the major parties are nearly equal in the polls, by denying your vote to your second best alternative who does have a chance, you may hand the election to the least desirable candidate. Let’s suppose there are two major candidates–let’s call them Bush and Gore–who are almost tied at 49 and 50 percent respectively. If a third party candidate – let’s call him Nader, takes two percent of the vote and that two percent happens to come mostly from people who otherwise would have picked Gore, then Bush ends up winning.
Ralph Nader… Jeez what an asshole.
Can’t he do something more productive with his time? Why not pull and Al Gore and become a well-known advocate for something important. I GUARANTEE you he’d get a lot more support for his message outside of the system than inside of it. You don’t have to run for election to get your point across. I think Al Gore has proven this. He has gotten a lot more mileage out of his current status than his previous one as former VP and failed Presidential candidate
What’s Ralph doing? Simple: Wasting his and everyone else’s time and money. I read it earlier today, the highlight of his candidacy was yesterday on Meet the Press.
Well said, sir. Personally, I think the only reason Nader’s running is to stroke his ego and get some attention without having to do much. I am a registered independent, mostly because there are things I strongly dislike about the Democratic Party, especially on a local level and the Republican Party. I voted for Kerry in the last presidential election because I didn’t want Bush to win, but if All Gore and George W. Bush really were the best this country had to offer as presidential candidates in 2000, I’m really not happy with what that has to say about this country. As Hawkeye Pierce once said in an episode of MASH*, “We want something else!” That “something else” isn’t Nader. He may have had some good ideas back in the 1970s, but now I see him as a man driven by his own ego, regardless of the consequences. I may be an independent, but given a choice between Nader and voting for a major party, there’s no doubt in my mind. If I vote for him, it will be the nadir of my voting career. Pun definitely intended!
NADAR: News Anchor Detection and Ranging
That’s how he became famous.
lol…yeah. Pretty much. However that was seriously ancient history to a lot of folks who only know him for his presidential bids and don’t remember the other stuff (where he was a safety advocate wrt the automobile industry…hell, I think he published some of his stuff even before I was born).
-XT
:cough: nonbinding resolution :cough:
Sorry, sometimes I cough when I say nonbinding resolution.
new to your site and thankful you exist. just a quick reply to the original question “what is Nader doing?”…he’s doing what he does best. thinking of himself and waiting for the moment when he can go on about the same old same old…i have to be honest and say that nader makes me nervous and I really want to believe that he will not have any effect on the votes this time but could he do it again??
There was a time when Nader’s movement made sense but that was a very long fucking time ago and now that I’m starting to believe that the Dems may have a chance to win, I wonder why Nader would attempt this after 8 years of watching a regime that created a war, ravaged our economy and lied everyday it was in power. Please Nader go away…
I really hope a bigger movement to get Nader to drop this lunacy will be generated by the people who want something else…maybe it won’t be the best government but it won’t be another gov’t with Bush bullshit policies and a 100 year war…
Self-expression is an exercise of political power.
I agree with you that voting is an exercise of political power. I do not agree with your other statement, however. I would argue that voting is a form of self-expression. For something counts as a form of self-expression if it is a means by which one communicates a message. And voting is a means by which one communicates a message.
Perhaps you meant voting is not supposed to be a form of self-expression. But voting is supposed to be a means by which one communicates a message–namely, the message “this is who I think should be president”–so in that sense, voting clearly is supposed to be a form of self-expression.
Perhaps you meant voting is not supposed to be a means whereby one communicates any message to anyone other than the person counting the votes. In other words, perhaps you will allow that while voting is supposed to be a means whereby one tells an election official who one thinks the president should be, still it is not supposed to be a means whereby one tells anyone else (for example, not the nation at large) who one thinks the president should be.
I would take issue even with this claim. For while the Constitution prescribes a procedure for voting, and prescribes a procedure for turning the outcome of a vote into a political state of affairs, nevertheless, the Constitution says not one whit about the basis upon which a person is supposed to decide which candidate to vote for. This seems to leave it open whether one may properly vote purely as an act of political power, or as an act of communication to the nation at large, or as a joke, or whatever.
Probably you meant one should not (regardless of what the constitutional voting process fails to say about whether one is supposed to) vote as an act of self-expression in the sense of communication of a message to the nation at large. I do not know what your argument is that one should not do this. I can present arguments that it is permissible rather than to be forbidden. One argument consists in pointing out that most elections are foregone conclusions, and in such cases, someone who is not happy with the foregone conclusion nor with its major competitor has no reason in terms of political outcomes not to register his dissatisfaction with his vote. But of course not all elections are foregone conclusions. So what about the most difficult case–the case in which the outcome is not a foregone conclusion, and in which for all a person knows, his vote will contribute crucially to the outcome of the election. And let’s say the person does not like either of the two major candidates, but finds one far more satisfactory than the other. (Note that many Nader supporters do not find either major candidate satisfactory at all, by the way. Such a voter can not be blamed for not voting for either candidate.) I maintain that it is permissible (in whatever sense you were claiming it is not) that this voter vote for his preferred third-party candidate, as an act of communication to the nation at large. For one thing, the very idea of an election is that one is supposed to vote for the candidate he prefers. To fail to do so is to do an injustice to the election process, and it does not make sense to do injustice to a process one voluntarily partakes of. For another thing, the voter knows that his vote will contribute to a final tally and that this final tally will give the nation at large a certain impression of its own political makeup. This is to say that his vote is an act of communication to the nation at large whether he intends it to be or not. And to use this act of communication to create a false impression–the impression that one less person prefers the third party candidate than actually does–is dishonest. And I had a third argument–a real zinger–but I forgot it while crafting the horrid prose you just read.
-FrL-
Someday, some way, I am absolutely certain that we will learn of stunning amounts of cash being funnelled from the Republican party to Nader’s personal coffers. When you imagine the hate mail and death threats that must be coming down on this poor man’s head, you have to wonder who would go through that and why.
At least I hope it’s a stunning amount of cash. If it turns out to be $40,000 or somesuch, I weep.
Since I don’t see it mentioned yet, I will state with a completely straight face the rationale for casting a vote for an “alternate candidate” with no choice of winning. Theoretically, it would indirectly move the platform of one or more majority parties in their favor by forcing competition over the issue. If the Democrats are concerned about losing to Nader, by his reasoning, they can just make their platform more Nader-like. The Democrats can’t ignore those people because Now They Have A Choice.
Of course in real life, it just makes the Democrats choose between the moderate left and the nutjob left. If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch whether the Naderites, having seen the results of splitting the 2000 election, are willing to kick themselves in the nuts again, with feeling this time.
Do you think that people who vote democrat in a state that goes republican every year, or vice versa, are throwing away their votes? After all, the guy they’re voting for isn’t going to win, why bother?
The “lesser of two evils” thing is an effective trick that our government has conned us with. They give us two choices - both of which differ only minorly - both who fundamentally have the goal of increasing government size and power and lessening protection of our rights.
And they’ve managed to work people up into such a rabid “us vs them” mentality that they pick a side and blindly consider everything their party does and says to be right and defend it and consider everything the opposing side does is wrong and attack it.
And the affiliations run so strong that the parties can screw their constituencies and completely violate their principles and people keep supporting them because WE HAVE TO SUPPORT OUR SIDE NO MATTER WHAT BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE IS ALWAYS WRONG AND EVIL! So Republicans (for example) can expand the government more than any democrat in recent history has ever dreamed of, totally contrary to the wishes of most of their constituency, and yet most of their constituency still supports them because of the blind loyalty/lesser of two evils thing. Most of the people are accepting of being forsaken and mistreated as long as they perceive it as being done as one of their own.
On a fundamental level, votes for Nader didn’t result in Bush becoming president. I’m guessing relatively few people actually liked Bush as an individual and wanted him to be president. But he was the guy that their side chose. And a lot of people viewed democrats, the opposite side, as the greater evil. And so our mentality that any vote other than for the two major parties is wasted, combined with the illogical and rabid attachments and hatred we form on political issues, resulted in people voting for Bush who, at the time, felt he was the lesser of two evils. If it weren’t for that mentality in American politics, and people were more thoughtful and less rabid in deciding where to put their loyalties then someone like Bush couldn’t be elected.
The only ethical and responsible choice in my view is to vote for someone who you feel comes close to your views for what is best for the country. That may be a democrat or republican - in which case go ahead and vote for them in good conscience, but it may not be. And if it’s not, and you still vote for the lesser of two evils, you’re buying into this system that hurts all of us. You’re complicit in the same sort of mentality that got Bush elected even if you’re a die-hard liberal.
Practically, even if the person you vote for doesn’t win, it still has an effect. For me, since I will almost certainly not feel good about either candidate running from the major parties, if I didn’t vote a third party or write in, I’d stay home. I refuse to be complicit in this horrible system. But staying home is pretty much totally unproductive… it suggests apathy or laziness more than a protest of the system.
What would happen if the loyalties weren’t so rabid and illogical? What if people actually started questioning their loyalty to the major parties when those parties completely went against their principles and the principles of their constituency?
What if all of the people who came to the Republican party because they once advocated small government now abandoned the party because the republicans obviously don’t practice that, instead of either staying home or voting for them anyway?
Let’s say this resulted in a libertarian candidate receiving a significant minority of the popular vote. The republicans would lose massively. Would the libertarian win? No. But does that mean all their votes were wasted? No. The republican party would have to change meaningfully to try to recover those votes, or they’d never win again. They’d actually have to start living up to their supposed advocacy of small government. Or the political landscape could be changed enough so that the next election might actually see a viable third party candidate with a chance to win, or even a change in which two parties were represented in our two-party system.
When you buy into the system of blind loyalty of one side, and blind hatred of another… when you buy into the system of always trying to vote for the lesser of two evils… you create this situation where each side can totally ignore and screw over their constituents and persue their own goals. The only winner is the government at the expense of the people. When you browbeat people for “throwing away their vote” and demand that they conform to the current system, you help to create this horrible political mess that we’re in.
If more people realized this and were willing to buck the system, it would cause change. But everyone is too scared that alone, their gesture will be meaningless, so no one does it. Essentially, no one does it because they’re afraid no one else will join them in doing it.
<snipped for long wall of text>
To be blunt, the people voting democrat in a republican state may have a chance of winning. But at this point in time Nader has no chance of winning. ***Zero. Nada. Zilch. “Ain’t gonna happen”. ***So voting for him is at best throwing away your vote, at worst its helping to elect the guy you really didn’t want. Its that simple. Theres no fancy philosophy involved.
Hey, if Nader runs a great campaign and gets people interested and has a great plan on how to fix this country, great. I’d vote for him too. But he doesn’t. He’s using the election to get some air time and generally be a pain in the ass. I don’t even think he’s fucking serious about being president. That alone is a reason to ignore him (and for me, ridicule him, but thats because I’m kind of mean this early in the morning)
Quite wrong. First, political parties had been active in the English Parliament for about a hundred years, and the founders were quite knowledgeable about Parliament. And the American political parties were founded by our Revolutionary Founders: Thomas Jefferson on the one side, and Alexander Hamilton on the other.
Most people understand this, now. But in 2000, I think a lot of people didn’t expect Bush to win. So they voted for Nader to give Gore a gentle nudge.
My points were really seperate - I was just taking the notion of wasting your vote to its logical conclusion. Sure, you can turn a traditionally red state blue with enough people - but you can elect a third party candidate with the same method.
What if one acknowledges that the lesser of two evils is still evil, and by being complicit in the system, they’re perpetuating both that evil and the system which only gives people that limited, unsatisfactory choice?
Stay home?
Those are great reasons not to vote for Nader then. I’m not advocating anyone vote for him. I’m saying that the system, as it is - forcing people to select from the lesser of two evils and no matter what, always getting evil - is reprehensible and the people who criticize those who refuse to be complicit in it are the reason the system exists as it does. It wouldn’t work if people didn’t fall for it hook line and sinker.
When you have the choice of voting between two perceived evils, and one is greater than the other, vote for the lesser evil. This shows that you are willing to help heal the country, even one step at a time, and gives hope to others who need it.
If you were given a choice between having a finger cut off and a hand cut off, would you really say, “Since they would both do me harm, it doesn’t matter what you do to me”?
I understand what you’re saying, and theres nothing wrong with voting for a valid 3rd party candidate. The problem is Nader isn’t a serious candidate. His running is largely a publicity stunt. (I’m not saying you’re advocating him, BTW).
As for the lesser of 2 evils, lets say you think Obama’s all talk and no show, has good ideas, but maybe lacks the “experience” to implement them and McCain is too “old school”, too old and will prolong a war that is a disaster for the country. Nader on the other hand, is saying things you totally agree with, even though he’s only doing this to get some air time. You know he’s not even gonna be close to winning. His chances of being president are less than laughable. Even if McCain and Obama are 2 evils you can vote for the one that is likely to not screw up the country anymore than it is. It may be an unpleasant choice, its a choice. Not voting or voting for Nader just to show 'em isn’t helping anything.
Now, even if Nader said everything i wanted to hear from a candidate I still wouldn’t vote for him. Why? because he’s not serious about being president. he’s being an attention whore, and his “campaign” is worse than Hillary’s. Why wait until now to get started? If he really wanted to run he should have been laying groundwork since 2004 to try and get his party some political legitimacy. No one is forcing anyone to pick from only two choices…its just that there are only 2 choices. The greens sure haven’t done a lot to make their voices heard since the last election. I had forgotten they existed until Nader stuck his stupid melon into the race.
Except it’s spelled “Nader”, not “Nadar” nor “Nadir”, knowwhatimean? (I’m an alliterative fool)
When you flip the lever for Nader you think ,If enough people do this we can really shake up the system. So far it has not happened. Maybe this time it will. Only one way to find out.