# Why vote for Nader? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 7, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033 "2004-07-07T23:18:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033/62 "2004-07-11T20:53:40Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > True but this isn’t an election. This is a discussion of electoral strategy. Some of us are positing a multi-election strategy and you are continually refusing to look beyond a single election. I’m not refusing to consider it at all–I just don’t think it has anything to do with how a person should vote in any particular election. Future elections are better influenced, in my opinion, by means other than voting, like protesting, lobbying, grassroots activities, and so on. If you are so very right, raising awareness will get you what you need. No matter how right you are, voting won’t make everyone aware of what is going on to you that needs such dire correction. And even if it makes people ask questions, you still have to explain anyway. So it seems to me that voting in this election has very little to do with future elections, unless candidates have a position on future elections (campaign financing, voting systems, etc). > [@](#): > > It seems to me that you are denying reality in order to avoid discussing the merits of the opposing plan. I find it meritless. But we may discuss it if you like. It makes me think of the apocryphal wife that withholds sex to get her husband to do what she wants. That is not a tactic I find especially conducive to democratic behavior. YMMV, I guess. > [@](#): > > If you have some logical reason to discount multi-election strategies then please let us know. There is no multi-election strategy. A vote doesn’t “mean” that much. It cannot. You can’t pick up a ballot and say, “Well, this person voted this way because such-and-such and surely didn’t think such-and-such, etc.” A protest vote without a protest is worthless, and a protest with a protest vote is cutting off your nose to spite your face (to me). ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033/63 "2004-07-11T21:36:21Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > Not inevitable at all, unless you assume that the people who vote for the 3rd party candidate would have cast their vote for one of the other two, rather than simply not voting. Given that 40-50%\* of the voting age population doesn’t even vote in a given election, that’s a rather large leap to make. > > How do you know the third party candidate didn’t inspire otherwise non-voters in a way the other two simply didn’t? Good point. If you’re going to say “I wasn’t going to vote at all, but I’ve decided to vote for the third party candidate instead,” I accept that as a valid reasoning for voting (not that you need my approval, but FWIW). However if a third party candidate claims he isn’t taking a single vote away from other candidates, that seems like a farfetched claim. Possible in theory, but isn’t it more likely that anyone who would think about the election enough to consider voting for a third party candidate also has reasonably strong opinions about the first two? ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033/64 "2004-07-11T21:51:13Z")
One thing that’s been brought up that has been bothering me is the “One vote isn’t going to change the outcome anyway” idea. While this is technically true, is it really OK to allow ourselves to think this way? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2004, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033/65 "2004-07-12T05:43:12Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > You, like Nader, don’t seem to know squat about politics. The people I’m talking about are the ones who mostly agree with us on the issues, but who may not vote as much as we’d need to win. You claimed that Dems simply take for granted whatever group votes for them consistently. On the contrary: these are the people we spend the MOST time doting over and trying to woo, not th least. You know I just can’t resist when you sweettalk me like that… Sarcasm aside, for the first time I actually see what you are saying here. But I don’t care about doting and wooing. Just commit to electoral reform and you can trust my vote. Get back to me on that, K? > [@](#): > > _It doesn’t involve citing the TITLE of a book and then misrepresenting its contents._ OK, real slow now. **I** was asking **you** for a cite. I wasn’t providing one myself. If you wanted me to cite my claim about the Vanishing Voter Project all you had to do was ask. Now, since you have accused me of misrepresenting Dr Patterson’s work I will ask you for a cite for that. Do you have any reason, other than pique, to attack my credibility? Where in the book does it state conclusions even approximating your original claim? Chapter and page number will do. I have a first edition if that matters. And if you can’t manage that, how about providing some kind of citation for your original claim? You’ve been ducking it so long I’ll go ahead and remind you of what you said: _"The reasons people don’t vote are varied, but they mostly border satisfied indifference, disinterest, and the feeling that there is no real urgency to vote when polls show that one guy or the other is going to win…_" > [@](#): > > _A lot of people just don’t care very much about politics. They prefer baseball. If you don’t know this, no cite can establish it as well as coming out of your ivory tower and actually meeting with real people._ Did you really miss the part in my last post about my job? Working class people can’t afford an ivory tower. > [@](#): > > _It is a rhetorical quesiton, which is exactly why it’s so dumb. It’s like saying that Nader is against infanticide, therefore there is broad support for his candidacy and he should win. EVERY candidate says that they are for good jobs, safe work, and against corporate greed and rule._ Before you said it would send people running for the hills. Now you say everyone supports it. Which is it? ( Answer quick before I drop a Kerry joke. ) > [@](#): > > \*Let’s see… > > Kerry can’t make headway on minor taxcut rollbacks… but you think that Nader’s giant tax hikes and massive expansion of the tax base will be a big win > > Kerry, a veteran, can barely make any headway on the issue of security and being for a strong military, but Ralph’s plan to eliminate nuclear weapons and drastically cut back the size of our military will be a big win. > > And so on. And yet you demand cites. How about you show me a poll, any poll, that shows that Americans want to cut back the military, drastically increase tax rates, socialize healthcare, and so on? How can anyone still breathing who has been watching the current national debates think that those are nationally viable positions? They are complete and utter political suicide in a general election.\* What I would like to see is where I said any of that. Again you are trying to change the subject. Since your memory is so poor let me repeat **yet again** the statement you disputed: “Who isn’t for good jobs, a safe work environment, or a government that serves people first and corporations 2nd?” > [@](#): > > _But you’ve yet to seriously outline how voting for a tiny majority candidate even accomplishes the long term goals._ Is this a joke? You quote my argument directly under that paragraph. > [@](#): > > - Why, why, why, would they go left if they can’t pick up the fringes? If the Greens or Nader people or whoever had shown that they could pull in any appreciable amount of the votes, then maybe you might have a case.\* They would “go left” because electoral reform gains them votes on the left without costing them anywhere else. > [@](#): > > _Ah. The people who aren’t even sure if they are going to vote for themselves in this election!_ ## You just explained that you Dems don’t trust your base to vote for you and you post this? You have chutzpa, I’ll give you that. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2004, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033/66 "2004-07-12T08:26:59Z")
I wish I could be done with you, akennet, but you have made such glaring errors that I really can’t let it go. > [@akennett](#): > > No, your vote has no effect on others, but your railing against those who would vote for a third party out of principle might. First of all, I haven’t “railed” against people who vote for a third party. You’re projecting your own emotionalism onto me. The only person I’ve railed against is _you_, but for your continual misrepresentations of what I’ve said and your dogged refusal to understand quite simple premises, not for your inclination to vote for a third party. > [@](#): > > You did assert that Nader voters would greatly prefer Kerry over Bush. Absolutely not. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by blowero > we’re talking about people who believe Kerry would be much more palatable than Bush. You took this out of context. Yes, that’s who we’re talking about _for purposes of this thread_. There is no assertion there as to statistically how many Nader voters think Kerry would be better than Bush. As I’ve said I don’t know how many times now, it makes no sense in this thread to discuss people who _don’t_ think Kerry would be better than Bush, because obviously Nader wouldn’t _be_ a spoiler vote for them. If they are ambivalent as to whether Bush or Kerry wins, then there’s nothing to spoil, is there? Really, one would have to be pretty thick to think I was making a statement as to _statistically_ how many Nader voters prefer Kerry over Bush. It has nothing to do with what I was talking about. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by blowero > if Kerry is such poison to the extreme left, surely Bush is 10 TIMES WORSE. This is obviously my opinion. Where is there any assertion here as to statistically how many Nader voters prefer Kerry over Bush? There is no such assertion here. > [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by blowero > I disagree. Kerry is much, much more palatable to the left on almost every issue: foreign policy, gay civil unions, the environment, education, tax structure, fiscal responsibility, you name it. Again, my opinion. There is no assertion here regarding voter statistics. So you can stop asking for a cite now. My opinion does not require a cite. I mean, my God, man, do you understand the difference? 1. “Surely Bush must be less palatable to the left than Kerry” 2. “Nader voters prefer Kerry over Bush” You _do_ understand the difference between 1 and 2, don’t you? (1) is a statement of opinion; (2) is a statement of fact. I never made such an assertion as (2). ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033/67 "2004-07-12T16:33:19Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > And you also have to assume that the third-party voters _didn’t_ prefer one of the two PubDems to the other… a bit larger stretch. > This would not change the fact that the election was spoiled, something thrid-party and independent voters deny even exists. “I wouldn’t have voted otherwise!” does not translate to “I have absolutely no preference between the two major candidates” which is what would be necessary for an unspoiled election. Oh, it’s certainly possible for a third party candidate to draw votes away from one of the other two parties, but the solution, see, is for the major party candidates to inspire more voters, doncha know. It’s not the duty of the other parties not to exist or be popular. Let’s look at the [1996 election](http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/summ.htm) (and no, I’m not going to try and explain why the FEC has two different result for vote totals in that election, other than to entertain the possibility that neary 9 million people showed up at the polls and, while voting for congess and whatever local races and ballot measures were there, weren’t moved to cast a vote for president, which only backs up my point.) Clinton: 47,402,357 Dole: 39,198,755 Perot: 8,085,402 Phillips: 184,820 None of these candidates (Nevada): 5,608 ← LOVE THIS!!! Nader et. al.: 1,400,692 The Electoral College is not really relevant to the point I’m trying to make here, so let’s pretend the popular vote decides the election. If all the people who voted for Perot and Phillips (U.S. Taxpayers Party, who I assume lean conservative) had voted for Dole, he would have won. From your point of view, they would have “spoiled” the election for Dole. However, it’s a big leap to say that if Perot and Phillips were not in the race, that all of those votes would magically have appeared in the Dole Column. Remember the estimated Voting Age Population that year was 196,498,000. More people didn’t vote for president than did. So where’s this stretch of which you speak? To expand: So apparently galvanized by the stakes of the election that they didn’t even show up: 91,481,000 (46.5%) Showed up and voted for Clinton: 47,402,357 (24.1%) Showed up and voted for Dole: 39,198,755 (20.0%) Showed up and voted for independents and candidates from lesser parties: 9,670,914 (4.9%) Showed up and, apparently (by comparisons with the numbers from the link in my previous post), with ballot in hand, couldn’t bring themselves to vote for anyone: 8,739,366 (4.4%) Showed up and actively voted against everyone: 5,608 (0.002%) So, given that the average person of voting age population in 1996 was over 45% likely not to show up at the polls at all, and if they did, were then only about 40% likely to vote for Dole, can it seriously be argued that other candidates really spoiled anything? Statistics say we could only take about 20% of those votes and apply them to Dole. (One out of every ten voters who felt compelled to vote for someone that year didn’t for for Dole OR Clinton, which I find interesting). Anyone who thinks that cutting back on the choice of candidates ought to (or is likely to) make voters feel FORCED to toe the line for one of the major parties is living in a dream world, one that is not nearly as free as America ought to be. Perhaps it is that entitled stench from BOTH major parties that brings the voters out in droves. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033/68 "2004-07-12T16:51:32Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > Oh, it’s certainly possible for a third party candidate to draw votes away from one of the other two parties, but the solution, see, is for the major party candidates to inspire more voters, doncha know. It’s not the duty of the other parties not to exist or be popular. I don’t believe I’ve said otherwise, but practicalities exist, like chasing Nader voters will cost more votes than it will gain, otherwise I’m pretty sure that such a tactic would have already been tried. > [@](#): > > The Electoral College is not really relevant to the point I’m trying to make here, so let’s pretend the popular vote decides the election. I find that perfectly reasonable. > [@](#): > > If all the people who voted for Perot and Phillips (U.S. Taxpayers Party, who I assume lean conservative) had voted for Dole, he would have won. From your point of view, they would have “spoiled” the election for Dole. No. The election was only spoiled if these voters _preferred Dole to Clinton_. The outcome of the election failed to match _voter preferences_. If those voters didn’t have such a preference, the election would not have been spoiled. > [@](#): > > However, it’s a big leap to say that if Perot and Phillips were not in the race, that all of those votes would magically have appeared in the Dole Column. It is indeed a leap to say that. Even if those voters did prefer Dole to Clinton, they still might not have voted. But that doesn’t mean the election wasn’t spoiled. There are voting systems where the spoiler effect doesn’t happen, and elections find other ways to align the result with voter preferences, however those preferences are measured (pairwise winners, avoid the worst of the worst, majority votes rather than plurality votes (as in approval voting), and so on). > [@](#): > > Remember the estimated Voting Age Population that year was 196,498,000. More people didn’t vote for president than did. So where’s this stretch of which you speak? That all those voters _didn’t_ have a preference between the two majority candidates. If they, or some subset of them, had a preference, and their preference would have tilted the election, and yet their preference didn’t tilt the election because of how they voted, then the election was, frankly, spoiled. I find it quite easy to believe that a great number of Perot voters had a preference which they failed to express due to the nature of the voting system. > [@](#): > > So, given that the average person of voting age population in 1996 was over 45% likely not to show up at the polls at all, and if they did, were then only about 40% likely to vote for Dole, can it seriously be argued that other candidates really spoiled anything? Yes. Non-voters have nothing to do with a spoiled election. An election only considers people who voted, quite rightly I might add. Voter turnout is an interesting discussion, but I don’t think we can suggest very much about them. > [@](#): > > Anyone who thinks that cutting back on the choice of candidates ought to (or is likely to) make voters feel FORCED to toe the line for one of the major parties is living in a dream world, one that is not nearly as free as America ought to be. We’ve had quite a few of these discussions in the past six month, in GD and in the pit, and believe me I very much support third parties. Donate money to them. Give them airtime. Most importanly, try and get the voting system changed. Raise awareness to get third parties into congress first, raise awareness, etc. It is a long term goal, but that goal does not, and never shall, depend on people voting their conscience under first-past-the-post voting. It amazes me that people will devote so much time to understanding global warming, to research numbers and trends, only to tackle the voting issue like it is beyond reproach to treat it similarly, and that anyone who doesn’t vote their conscience isn’t being practical but stupid, immoral, or etc. Turn that sharp eye, that inquisitive brain, onto the problem of voting itself. What can a single vote “mean”? Given any election with multiple candidates and a specified voting system, how should I vote? Will that answer change depending on the candidates? Will that answer change depending on the _voting system_? Etc, etc. > [@](#): > > Perhaps it is that entitled stench from BOTH major parties that brings the voters out in droves. :rolleyes: No one is entitled to your vote. If you want to debate with me, you’ll need to drop that tired line, because I’m not pushing it at all, and I’ve explained myself very well without ever using or implying the word “deserve”. The strategy I outline has nothing to do with major parties at all, only those that have strong public support, as divined by whatever method you have at your disposal to divine such things. If that is Nader or the Greens or the Constitution party or the Republicans is irrelevant to my argument. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033/69 "2004-07-12T17:30:55Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > The election was only spoiled if these voters _preferred Dole to Clinton_. The outcome of the election failed to match _voter preferences_. If those voters didn’t have such a preference, the election would not have been spoiled. \ I see, I see. You assumed somehow that my initial post was referring to some system you are proposing. How you arrived at this conclusion, given that I quoted the OP, is somewhat beyond me, but I’ll let that go. The problem with pushing a “list the candidates in order of preference” system is that it is based on a presumption that the voter is too dumb to know which way the wind blows on Election Day. Relevant to my example, you are postulating that there are droves of people who voted for Perot and Phillips, but IF they couldn’t have their choice, would have preferred Dole to Clinton, and this was not reflected in the results. I say that it is upon you to demonstrate that such people exist in any significant numbers. Not that there a lot of WEREN’T people who really wanted Perot but, barring his victory, would definitely have preferred Dole to Clinton. But you know what I think? I think they sensed what was what in November 1996, and went ahead and voted for Dole. IMO, most of those who actually voted for Perot or Nader or the others had a very good sense that they wouldn’t win, but probably _didn’t give a rat’s ass whether Dole or Clinton won._ The numbers that show that the largest number of Americans couldn’t even be bothered to hoist themselves off the Barca-Lounger to go vote bears this opinion out. I think that within the current system, people vote their minds. No doubt there are some who would have voted for Nader over Gore in 2000, but felt he was “unelectable”. However, it is an insult to the intelligence to say that, in his particular case, the numbers suggest they were in the majority. I think most people didn’t vote for Nader because they simply didn’t want him as President. Unlike many candidates, Nader has had about 35 years in the public eye. Most people of voting age have made up their minds about him by now. It’s all well and good to propose changes to our certainly flawed system, but you need numbers to show that the changes will result in an improvement of the system. The problem with the system is not that people don’t get to express their opinions, it’s that people can’t seem to be bothered to have strong opinions on the subject at all. Your system does not address this apathy. \ ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033/70 "2004-07-12T21:31:45Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > \ > I see, I see. You assumed somehow that my initial post was referring to some system you are proposing. How you arrived at this conclusion, given that I quoted the OP, is somewhat beyond me, but I’ll let that go. My post did not assume you were responding to my “system”. It only attempted to clear up some misconceptions you had about when an election is spoiled. > [@](#): > > The problem with pushing a “list the candidates in order of preference” system is that it is based on a presumption that the voter is too dumb to know which way the wind blows on Election Day. This is the problem with more options? Or is forcing your political opinions down to a single candidate on election day assuming that voters are too dumb? Or is it neither, and we can probably drop this kind of rhetoric? > [@](#): > > Relevant to my example, you are postulating that there are droves of people who voted for Perot and Phillips, but IF they couldn’t have their choice, would have preferred Dole to Clinton, and this was not reflected in the results. I say that it is upon you to demonstrate that such people exist in any significant numbers. Still not getting it. I am not suggesting that Perot voters would have voted Dole if Perot wasn’t on the ballot. I am suggesting that if we had transferable votes or some other preferential _or_ multi-vote system (like my favorite, approval voting) _that we would avoid the problem of the spoiler effect completely_. You suggest it is incumbent on me to prove there is a spoiler effect. Doing this would require a voting system which allowed preferential voting, and to replay past elections. Thanks, but I’ll pass on that kind of proof. I’ve explained what the spoiler effect is. People who have studied voting systems have demonstrated that the spoiler effect is not pie-in-the-sky thinking. > [@](#): > > IMO, most of those who actually voted for Perot or Nader or the others > had a very good sense that they wouldn’t win, but probably _didn’t give a rat’s ass whether Dole or Clinton won._ There is not enough information in a vote to tell. Voting for Clinton, Dole, Brown, or Daffy Duck does not tell anyone why the person voted this way, only that they did. Generally, I consider that humans beings do not have such exclusive or black and white opinions, and that if given the opportunity to show a spectrum of thought, they will show a spectrum of thought. As such, I feel it is perfectly reasonable that if given the opportunity to _both_ vote for a third party candidate _and_ express a preference on other candidates that have a good chance of winning over their own that they certainly would do so. I find it, in fact, very hard to believe that the majority of third-party voters have _no preference_ whatsoever between major candidates. But maybe I’m just projecting. > [@](#): > > The numbers that show that the largest number of Americans couldn’t even be bothered to hoist themselves off the Barca-Lounger to go vote bears this opinion out. It bears nothing out. You have no idea why they didn’t vote. I didn’t vote because I felt quite confident that Massachusetts would go Democrat, which is how I would have voted anyway. Whether or not this was a sound decision is open to question, but it had nothing to do with how lazy I was. Similarly, a husband might be a republican and his wife, a democrat. Knowing this, and knowing that their votes will simply cancel each other out, they elect to go to the beach instead of the voting booth. Perhaps, though a voter had a preference about the candidates, the preference wasn’t strong enough to warrant voting, and yet the person still didn’t like any third party enough to vote for them, either. How many more scenarios can we concoct that have nothing to do with laziness? Third parties have been around for a while, and they have not particularly inspired voters. I do not believe that this is because they feel that the third party just can’t win. Rather I feel that their views are not sufficiently represented–but again, who can say. Perhaps they’ve read the compelling argument that it isn’t worth the effort to vote because the chance of any person’s vote deciding an election is vanishingly small (look for **hawthorne** ’s posts on the subject in a semi-recent thread). There are plenty of reasons to not vote that has nothing to do with laziness. > [@](#): > > I think that within the current system, people vote their minds. And what opinion must one have of people’s minds if one thinks the current system is a good one and doesn’t have a real spoiler effect? > [@](#): > > No doubt there are some who would have voted for Nader over Gore in 2000, but felt he was “unelectable”. Some people have testified that they voted for Nader over Gore because they felt confident that gore had the election in hand, and wanted Nader to get the 10% necessary for public funding. Needless to say, it didn’t work. > [@](#): > > However, it is an insult to the intelligence to say that, in his particular case, the numbers suggest they were in the majority. I think most people didn’t vote for Nader because they simply didn’t want him as President. Obviously. But that is not at the core of the spoiler effect. > [@](#): > > It’s all well and good to propose changes to our certainly flawed system, but you need numbers to show that the changes will result in an improvement of the system. I’ve shown you a trivial example with small numbers that indicate the problem. Given today’s culture, approximately 20% of the voting population can swing in either direction–a pretty small margin, when you think about it. > [@](#): > > The problem with the system is not that people don’t get to express their opinions, it’s that people can’t seem to be bothered to have strong opinions on the subject at all. Your system does not address this apathy. Because it isn’t supposed to address apathy, it is supposed to address the idea that first-past-the-post voting is an inferior system because it is not sufficiently broad to represent voters’ opinions, and because of the spoiler effect, and (though I haven’t mentioned it yet) because it has a strong tendency to create two-party systems. Interestingly, this tendency doesn’t mean that there will only be two political parties, only that there is a strong tendency for only two parties to compete at any particular level or district (Duverger’s Law). However, I do believe that having a different voting system, one which encourages multiple parties, will indeed have some impact on voter apathy as there will be more chances for candidates to emerge that will inspire different portions of the population. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-vote-for-nader/254033.md?page=3)