We’re tired of your self-aggrandizing posturing. We have an election to win. We don’t need your pathetic sideshow (again).
Respectfully, America
Jon Stahl's Journal
Politics, the environment, technology, activism. And stuff.
We’re tired of your self-aggrandizing posturing. We have an election to win. We don’t need your pathetic sideshow (again).
Respectfully, America
Seriously. How much different would the world be today if Nader had stayed out in 2000?
Go away, Ralph.
I think the cardinal premise of democracy is the individual’s right to vote for whomever he or she finds representative. The electoral system in the United States is unfortunately only equipped for a two-party system.
Does this mean that there should only be two parties, or that the electoral should be changed. And until such a change should incur, is it fair to criticize fellow citizens for voting what they believe?
Democracy is not a game, certainly not a strategic one. Vote what you believe.
The same.
I’m so tired of hearing people on the left complaining about Nader. Save your anger for your enemies, not you allies.
Forgive me, Jon, for being blunt — but if you don’t like Ralph Nader, then just don’t vote for him. Democracy was all about giving power to the people to elect somebody they want to run the country, and if people think that person should be Nader, then it seems to me that they have every right to vote for him. Like Jeff Rush said in a recent blogpost, “If we believe in democracy and having choices and voices, then anyone should be able to run for president”.
It’s not like many candidates will lead to a balkanization of either house of parliament or government in America, thanks to the winner-takes-it-all system. The lack of such a system has been troublesome for several European countries. For instance, we now have a five party system in Germany (after a having a 4 party system for 20 years, and before that a 3 party system) and no president or governor-equivalent is elected directly (but through parliament). So it’s not a winner-takes-it-all system, but a let’s-try-and-work-together-in-coalitions-until-we-can-find-a-reason-to-exit-the-coalition-and-provoke-new-elections system. We’re the next Italy.
To summarize: choice is good. Political views can’t always be just black or white, woman or man, etc. As long as the winner takes it all (to ensure a functional and stable government), it’s simply up to the people.
Peace, Philipp
Or, to put it in a way that maximizes rather than minimizes voter choice, “How different would the world be today if FL voters had gone to the polls and had their votes counted in the way that they intended to cast them?”
And to actually answer your question: for one thing, the Democratic party would probably still be the corporate-interest-beholden, center-pandering, DLC-dominated batch of losers it was back then. The Dean-led DNC is much more palatable to Nader voters like myself, and I think that Nader was part of what has led the Democratic party to make some glacial moves to the left.
I agree with Phillip, with a caveat.
It’s a mistake to compare winner-take-all electoral systems with parliament coalition type governing systems. One does not imply the other.
It’s also a mistake to lump all winner-take-all systems. Naturally, in any electoral contest with only one seat, only one candidate can win. But there are better options to measure the will of the people than throwing away the votes of a large fraction of the electorate as we do now.
With regards to Ralph Nader running, I’ve never bought the argument that his campaign “lost” the election for Gore. It seems pretty clear that Gore would have lost the election all on his own. Anyone remember his running mate? That choice perhaps more than anything turned away scores of progressive voters. But in any case, this sort of argument is both factually debatable and morally bankrupt. If we believe that our electoral systems aren’t truly representing the will of the people, the blame lies in the systems, not the candidates.
Err… I meant to say…
It’s a mistake to compare winner-take-all electoral systems with parliament coalition type governing systems. [The lack of] one does not imply the other.
it is like to say: “what would be if Usa don’t rule the world?” Eh…