The talk of Ralph Nader possible running for president made me wonder, why? It has to be obvious to him that he can’t possibly win. He won’t come even close.
Yet, he, and people like him, from time to time, run, without a snow balls chance in hell. Why? 
Ego, for the most part. They know they can’t win but it’s still something that most anyone else has no chance of either.
So, does running boost their ego, or is it that they run because they have an ego, or maybe both?
I would guess the latter. Have you ever been in a competition you know you had no chance of winning but still held out hope that some miracle would happen and you might get it? I equate Nader, Perot, et al with that same mentality.
Probably most of them do it because it gives them more media coverage of their pet issues/agenda than they would get otherwise.
If they can get enough support to steal supporters from one fo the main candidates, obviously that main candidate will have to give some attention to their concerns.
And, who knows, if they keep at it long enough they might just garner enough support to eventually become a major contender. It won’t happen with just one election, but slowly it could change things in their favor. The USA system is set up so there can only be two major parties, but those parties don’t have to be the Dems and Reps. In theory, the Green party or Libertarians could end up attracting enough support to replace one of the current major parties’ influence.
The phenoenon begs the concomitant question: why do people vote for obvious dark horses? I think that these 3rd party candidates provide an avenue for protest voting, and they do get votes.
As has been noted, in the U.S. we have a two party system. So, myriad issues must be resolved into two platforms, and all you’ve got are two real choices. I tend to vote Republican, but I sure as hell don’t agree with all that gets bandied about by Republican voices, and I presume (I hope) the same can be said about those who tend to vote for Democrats.
People become frustrated by this system, and a certain number will respond to the opportunity to, essentially, vote for none of the above. George Wallace characterized the Republicans and the Democrats as “Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum,” meaning there was no real choice between them. Many people voted for Ross Perot whom I doubt wanted Clinton in the White House; as well, many voted for Nader whom I doubt wanted Bush to win.
I suspect we’ll see 3rd party candidates for a long time to come.
Because we EVIL Republicans are bankrolling him to siphon off votes of the Democrats.
MWHAHAHAHAAHAHHA!!! 
Two obvious reasons:
1)Running gets publicity for the issues you hold important.
2)Your presence in the race may force other candidates to alter their platforms, even if you don’t have a chance of winning. For example, Nader threatens to pull votes from the Dems off the left wing, and so he may be able to force the Dem candidate to the left, which I presume Ralph would see as a win.
As to why people vote for them - well, here’s my voting philosophy. The probability that my vote will be decisive in deciding the outcome of an election approaches zero. Therefore, I don’t vote for a candidate with the intention that my vote be instrumental in getting that candidate into office, but rather to voice my support for that candidate’s platform.
Now, you splutter and say, “But…but…Florida…”
Hogwash. Even in Florida in 2000, a single vote made not a lick of difference. Indeed, if Florida showed us anything, it showed us that really really close races are decided essentially by a coinflip (or, as it turned out, by how effective the respective parties had been in stuffing ideologues into the Supreme Court), since the results there were clearly inside the margin of error for the counting technique - i.e., we have no way whatsoever of knowing which of Bush or Gore actually received more votes. It was a tie, just like an opinion poll split 51%-49% with a 4% margin of error is a tie.
I believe this reasoning holds true even though my vote actually has more weight than it would have in Florida - in the last provincial election my riding registerd 9298 votes cast, and 1 out of 9k is vastly greater say than 1 out of 9 million, or whatever. Still, the chance that my single vote would be swing the election is so negligible as to be not worth considering.
I realize that my voting philosophy isn’t shared by many, but I know of no really cogent argument against it.
Apparently the Green Party would get some sort of government funding/recognition were it to receive 5% of the popular vote. I can’t remember the details; my brother was a Green Partier back in 2000.
Yeah, it’s something like that. I learned about that when Perot was able to get federal funding because he pulled in 5% of the vote or so.
Nader’s running for President for the same reason he does almost everything; to get attention for the causes he personally holds dear, namely:
Etc. etc. Some of his ideas are good (2 and 3) and some are stupid (4, 6 and 8, especially.) Either way, his ideas are mostly ideas that the Republicans and Democrats don’t care about, so running for President is one way he can get people to think about them. Otherwise his issues will not be issues during the election campaign.
Yeah, but to be honest, I didn’t know what he stood for, until reading this. If running is a way to get his message out, I think that he’s doing a poor job of it.
Al Sharpton’s gonna be pissed.
Issues. . .tissues–the guy’s a political onanist.
Hell, I think that Al Shaprton would have a better chance of winning the presidency than Nader 