Should he? He’s about to decide and I know
for a fact that he reads this board.
What do you say?
So it’s election year.
But it’s only election year in the US, not everywhere. And it’s only February and I am already so sick of the partisan running-off-at-the-mouth.
Can we perhaps pace ourselves with party-politics threads?
Don’t see this as partisan. There are some pretty
interesting issues, in fact, and he’s
about to decide. It’s plain that Gore
would now be pres if Nader hadn’t run,
and the Dem National Committee is appealing
to Nader not to run. Nader responds in some interesting
ways: ‘They presume they have the right to
citizen’s votes.’ It has to do with third parties
in American politics and the thread
on the dem primary is moribund. If this isn’t for you, Bloomie,
the thread is marked OT, its subject is obvious,
and there’s the tried and true method
of not reading it. Best
Yeah, that’ll happen.
But it’s only election year in the US, not everywhere. And it’s only February and I am already so sick of the partisan running-off-at-the-mouth.
Please, some restraints, gentlemen!
But seriously, Jim, what’s the point of this thread? Isn’t it a self answering question? Seems that way to me. 
No, it isn’t self-answering to me.
There are people who think
the two parties are essentially the same,
and another voice is desperately needed.
There are others who think that what matters
most is defeating Bush, or whoever the bad
guy is. There are others who think that if
you believe in something that nobody else
represents, and you can run on it, then do,
and don’t be blackmailed by the party that
says–'but you’ll cost US the election!
Don’t be a ‘spoiler.’ Nader is responding:
‘Who are these people who think they
have a right to be elected, and call me
a spoiler because people voted for me?’
What’s the truth?
Strikes me as interesting, but if nobody else
is interested, the thread will die. Nader is reading this, you know. Best
Well, from my perspective and bias, Nader should not run for the same reason I wish like hell he hadn’t in 2000. I would like to see Mr. Bush move on to his next venture and Nader can only hurt the chances of that happening.
For people who want Bush re-elected, send money and encouraging notes to Nader.
Yes, Jim, I am reading this. I think it’s important that the American people be faced with a choice that opens their eyes and reveals the stark reality of how similar the two-party system has become. I don’t mean any harm to the Democratic party, which I use to support, but if my presence on the ticket causes Bush to win again, I hope this will be the last time it is necessary for me to actively campaign for the presidency, in hopes that the Democratic party will seperate itself entirely from all resemblance of the Republicans, seeing what a disaster the last four years have been. 
I have always despised the “two party”
way of doing things and the assuption of the public
that that is how it should be.
I admit that I have been at least
partially caught up in this method of thinking;
voting for my favored of the two
mainstream parties instead of the one I wanted to to
keep the “evil” party out of power.
It makes me wonder how many others
are out there that are acting the same way. I also
wonder how things would
be if all of us would quit being afraid
and voted our conscience instead of the lesser
of two evils all the time.
When I was in Louisiana and David Duke ran for Gov
against Edwards, I simply didn’t vote. For this I
was upbraided by my colleagues–‘A vote for neither
is a vote for Duke!’ I might have asked ‘If that’s so
and I vote for Duke, is that two votes for Duke?’
I didn’t vote for Edwards, because he was pro-abortion,
as was Duke, and I long ago decided that
the best hope of influencing people politically
on this issue which is very important to me personally
was to make it as sure as death and taxes
that I won’t vote for pro-choicers.
People then
said I was a single-issue voter. But that
isn’t true; my friends didn’t vote for Duke
because he is a segregationist. They won’t
vote for any segregationist. Does that make
them single issue voters? (I wouldn’t vote for
a pro-life segregationist, either.)
If I cared a lot about the things Nader stands for,
like national health insurance, I would vote for him
and damn the torpedoes, I reckon. As long as the
major parties can count on people’s votes when
they don’t represent their views, they won’t
represent their views. I agree that this ‘lesser of
two evils’ is a bad argument. I expect Nader
will run. Best
The US needs true direct ellections for President, with multiple parties and 2 rounds of votes. You have no idea how much fun it is!
I’d happily support a moratorium, even though I have on occasion gotten into it.
Truth be told, it’s a large part of why I don’t come around much anymore. I find I can’t always bite my tongue (fingers?) hard enough to stifle a retort, even though I can’t remember a single time I didn’t regret it later.
Believe it or not, someone from this board sent me this URL.
Take a look…can’t hurt.
Mike
Oops!
Never mind.
He has decided to run.
Mike
Yep. Nader-Bush '04 is now underway.
Hehehe. It’s so hard to convey sarcasm via text. Well done.
Dale
Thanks. What can I say? It’s a gift. 
The question is not whether or not Nader should run, but whether or not anyone should vote for him.
Of course he should run. He will bring new and interesting ideas to the debate, will challenge the two mainstream candidates, and will be a catalyst for change, even if that change is very small or very gradual. Moving away from the two party system is a wonderful thing, in my opinion.
As far as voting for him, if you live in a state where the election will be close, you better vote for the mainstream candidate you would prefer. Nader will not win any states. If you’re in an overwhelmingly democratic or republican state, by all means vote for Nader. The more votes he gets, the more people will see third (or fourth) party candidates as viable in future elections.
Here in New York, whoever the dems name as their candidates will have our electoral votes, so I’d feel safe voting for Nader, if I thought he was the best candidate, regardless of which mainstream candidate I would prefer. It’s a throwaway vote, but has value for the reason I described above. Were I living in Florida, though, I’d have to vote for the mainstream candidate I least disliked, no matter how strongly I felt that Nader was the best overall. Voting for Nader in a state like Florida is just like voting for Bush, just as a vote for Perot in a swing state in '96 had the same effect as another vote for Clinton.
I’d love to see Nader run. Has he learnt to walk yet?
Seriously, I think jim_mc has put his finger on the problem. Unless you have a preferential voting system, as we do in Australia, you often can’t risk a protest vote or a change-of-system vote. I honestly don’t know whether Nader is the right person to attract those disaffected with both mainstream parties, but without a system that allows a safe way to register dissaffection we will never know.
I don’t think that the preferential system we have in Australia gives us a way of registering all the information we should want the candidates and parties to know at election time. For example, the only way to say ‘none of the above’ is to vote informally and that leaves one lumped in with the merely careless and the illiterate. Another problem is that no standard system gives us a way of saying that we are voting not so much for candidate A as against candidate B. The difference is crucial. Someone who gets voted in because of positive feelings about them and their policies has a mandate to implement their policies. Someone voted in only to prevent someone worse taking power has no real mandate to change anything and should be clearly seen in this light. It’s nauseating hearing people obviously in this position claiming they have a mandate for policies hidden in the small print at election time. They should, in a sense, be seen as only holding the fort until someone with ideas the electorate actually likes comes to power.
I doubt very much whether we shall ever have a system that allows information like this to be revealed at the ballot box. It would be a little bit too much democracy for any successful politician to stomach.
My feelings exactly. I voted for Nader in 2000 and I’ll probably vote for him again this year. In a state where all electoral votes have gone to Republicans since the beginning of time, my vote doesn’t matter but at least they know there are a few angry people out here.
Susan