Ralph Nader
Remember Ralph Nader?
In 2000, after the Supreme Court halted a recount that could have determined the real winner of the presidential election, official tallies showed Republican George W. Bush up by just 537 votes over Democrat Al Gore in the crucial state of Florida — with whoever won this crucial state slated to become the next president. Meanwhile, Nader racked up nearly 100,000 votes.
As political scientist Gerald Pomper explains, Nader’s margin was more than enough to hand the White House to the GOP. Exit polls showed that “approximately half (47 percent) of the Nader voters said they would choose Gore in a two-man race, a fifth (21 percent) would choose Bush, and a third (32 percent) would not vote.” Thus, had Nader not been in the race, “Gore would have achieved a net gain of 26,000 votes in Florida, far more than needed to carry the state easily.”
It’s a typical pattern that plays out in American elections where a third-party candidate makes a meaningful showing. Political scientists even […]
I agree. Arguments to “vote your conscience” and not for the “lesser evil” and/or make a “protest vote” against the (in Ralph Nader’s words) “two party duopoly” – they are hollow, even narcissistic, as I see it, at least. There are far better ways to protest than shooting yourself in the foot by giving an advantage to the greater evil candidate. It is a no-brainer, except that so many seem to indulge in this self-righteous notion. I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. Unfortunately, there may not be a “dime’s bit of difference” between major party candidates from the perspective of a far left (or far right) analysis. Yes, both are corporatist, capitalist, etc. Yes, both are coopted by the military industrial congressional complex. Etc. Yet, even if there’s only nine cents worth of difference, if that nine cents is important, it’s enough!
I was a strong Bernie supporter (including putting my money where my mouth was, as did so many others). I frankly abhor the Netanyahu/neocon-friendly militarist, retro Cold War foreign policy of the Democratic nominee. While I do not personally find Jill Stein to be so appealing – if anything, I am probably more inclined to the Libertarian, Johnson – I will nevertheless turn out and vote for Hillary. I won’t even say “hold my nose” for her, as if I deign to vote for her. She’s simply hands down better than Trump, on balance. As an attorney, the makeup of the Supreme Court is important to me. I also hope that – maybe, just maybe – Hillary’s proclivity toward imperialist warmongering will be restrained by the political forces in this county across the board who would oppose a “robust” interventionist set of policies, whether or not involving the use of direct military force.
By all means, lets change our society and our politics, even our Constitution if necessary – and let’s work even within the two party system to get nominated and elected much more truly progressive representatives and leaders. Let’s we the people lead them. And let’s get the corruption of money out of politics and limit the role of lobbying of all kinds – or at the very least, expose it to the light of day. Moreover, lets utilize the power of the internet as a democratizing force – and reduce the power of the major media. Let’s improve civics education, and discourse. Etc. But a “protest vote” is nothing but effete. I do not “blame” Ralph Nader for the Iraq War. I admire Nader’s career, no “ifs ands or buts” – and it is fine to have the platform of a candidacy. But it’s not fine to throw away your one and only vote, at least where the consequence would be potentially disastrous. George W was one such disaster. By all appearances, Trump might or would be, as well. Hillary…lesser so.
Divide and be conquered.
We don’t have a 2 party system. The D’s and R’s are two parts of the same corrupt party. The votes that count the most are 3rd party votes because it is a measure of disgust with the status quo. You are out of date on this.
The real power is behind the curtain, not in the Oval Office. There is no difference between what happened under Bush 2 and Obama.
A winner-take-all-by-state voting system that registers its votes through the Electoral College (and empowers the winner of such a contest to pick Supreme Court justices that serve for life) is a very specific situation that demands appropriate strategic participation. What works in many other political and organizing situations may not apply. Applying inappropriate political, moral, or emotional judgements can – and has been – extremely costly.
The article is disappointing – as far as it goes it is correct but it goes almost no where. The author apparently does not even know that this election Maine voters will be voting on a state initiative to replace plurality elections with majority vote/ranked choice ones. The author wrote about how LePage emerged from the plurality system but did not appear to know aht many Mainers are doing about it.
Briefly, Mainers got a state initiative on the ballot that will enable voters to vote for candidates in order of preference. If one does not get a majority the weakest candidate is dropped and that person’s voters’ second choices are added. This continues until someone gets a majority. LePage would never have won.
Interestingly, it also means third parties would never be spoilers. Very interestingly, so far as I know, no existing third parties have played no role in promoting this initiative. Except for occasional local members they are a waste of time and not worth giving 25 cents to until they grow up and get leaders who are serious about more than their egos.
on what is happening in Maine see rcvmaine.com