You say that like it’s a bad thing Nader was in the race and that people chose to, and even had the option, to vote for him.
I’m rather glad there are people out there who believe strongly enough in their political views to vote for principle rather than just strategic short term practicality. We only have two main political parties. Without the radicals on the left and the right the two parties would just merge into a homogeneous glob in a strategic bid for the middle and the majority. They would cease to stand for anything. We would effectively be down to just one choice in elections. Some people would already say we effectively have just one choice with the Democrats and the Republicans being one and the same.
I think it is a good thing that independents bring up issues that the other candidates would rather not discuss but it is a lost cause voting for them because as much as anyone wants to believe that it is an open government it is really only a two party system where independents are normally cast aside. I am not blaming Nader but this is the historical background Democrats(those with primarily democratic beliefs) run as a independent party and split the democratic vote and in turn a republican gets elected.
I believe that the lesser of the two evils is the better so even if you disagree with some points that the front running democrat makes but your views are primarily democratic then support that candidate or go about change before November roles around.
Also you can not blame the politicians for becoming more moderate. seeing as most Americans are moderate the only logical conclusion would be the candidates become more moderate in order to be elected/reelected
You are absolutely correct. In 2000 the two parties merged into one and ran nearly identical candidates. It turns out that later they became very different, but at the time they were the same.
Nader didn’t steal my vote from Gore, Gore lost it by being the same as Bush. Myself, like most Nader voters, would have rather stayed home than vote for Gore or Bush.
Besides, our goals weren’t to elect Nader, it was to get the green party the necessary percentage of votes to get them on the ballot next time. It was also to get the Dems to wake up and come back left where they belong. I can’t say whether that worked or not because the war and 911 broke up our single party system much better than a third party candidate ever could.
[QUOTE=uniextreme]
So he’s running again in 08 votenader.org. Thoughts and feelings?[/QUOTE
In Canada, we have a tradition of multi-party politics. So when we see Ralph Nader or a Ross Perot enter into what is essentially the American version of democracy—the two party system–we are encouraged. Not that having a whack of parties makes for better government----consider Italy, a country, apparently, where any two like-minded individuals may form a political union and run for office, resulting in, since 1945, something like fifty different versions of “government.”
Israel is another of consensus-building democracy: how in the hell do they reconcile such disparate views of the world? The answer is, thy can’t, but that’s the process. “Nature is all it can be at any one moment.” We are evolving, there is no end point, and Ralph Nader proves the point.
He offers alternative views; in a system that is tired and running on ideas a hundred years old, it is not surprising that a “new” approach raises interest.
Thanks for the chance to clarify my thinking on this. A good question is often the stimulus for reducing vague thoughts and unformed convictions to a concrete point of view.
Thanks, from the right coast of Canada, where, now, the sun is rising and the gibbous moon is just disappearing.
[QUOTE=uniextreme]
So he’s running again in 08 votenader.org. Thoughts and feelings?[/QUOTE
In Canada, we have a tradition of multi-party politics. So when we see Ralph Nader or a Ross Perot enter into what is essentially the American version of democracy—the two party system–we are encouraged. Not that having a whack of parties makes for better government----consider Italy, a country, apparently, where any two like-minded individuals may form a political union and run for office, resulting in, since 1945, something like fifty different versions of “government.”
Israel is another example of consensus-building democracy: how in the hell do they reconcile such disparate views of the world? The answer is, they can’t, but that’s the process.
“Nature is all it can be at any one moment.” We are evolving, there is no end point, and Ralph Nader proves the point.
He offers alternative views; in a system that is tired and running on ideas a hundred years old, it is not surprising that a “new” approach raises interest.
Thanks for the chance to clarify my thinking on this. A good question is often the stimulus for reducing vague thoughts and unformed convictions to a concrete point of view.
Thanks, from the right coast of Canada, where, now, the sun is rising and the gibbous moon is just disappearing.
It’s amusing this year, actually. Both parties finally swung back left. We have one of the most liberal republicans running and two nice and liberal democrats. No need to vote for a third party this time, the mainstream candidates have already come back home. Nader is only needed when both parties swing the other direction. (like in 2000)
Nope. You still need Nader even this election cycle. Hillary or Obama aren’t going to satisfy a true Nader supporter. Plus, if you’re a Nader supporter the only way to keep your vision going is to push for him every election cycle. If they let off this election cycle they won’t be able to get traction going in the next election cycle.
Were the people who voted for Nader in 2000 supporters of the MAN or of his IDEAS? I voted for him because of his IDEAS, and because the two alternative candidates were (at the time) nearly identical conservatives. Nader was a tool in 2000, nothing more. We knew he’d lose, but he’d act as a lever to move the Dems closer to wear they belong in the process.
I still support the same IDEAS, and the best way to support those ideas now is to vote Dem in this election. Later that may change.
Hell, Nader isn’t even in the green party anymore (atleast not as of the 2004 election.) He’s changed from who he was in 2000, as well. I say never, EVER throw unweilding support behind any one person. Vote for whoever your IDEAS fall nearest to in any election.
//edit: You may be right though. We do “need” him in the sense that he’ll keep scaring the dems and keep them from moving back right again.