Third Party & Independents: Archives

The beauty of Nader is that he runs knowing full well that he won’t get elected, but would rather garner the votes to help advance the Green party. It’s a shame at the same time because he’s probably the most worthy candidate of any. I guess the best question is: Which candidate gets hurt the most by Nader’s potential run?

I’ve always felt that Nader can pull some votes from the right, but would pull twice as many from the left. Economically he is more Republican but wants to be honest and fair. For that he loses the Republican power base of federal felony suspects and really can only pick up the guilt ridden fringe. On the other hand his communist streak is wide enough to appeal to independant Democrats disenfranchised with the nanny state concept but unwilling to forego welfarism and affirmative action. But Nader being the Tree Huggers Champion hands down is also what costs him the military defense voter in their made for Nader image of propane powered, kid safe tanks firing non lethal nurf rounds. Unfortunately for Nader fans, he is to intellectually clean to reach very far into either party yet to self infected to get elected. He would pull more Democrats though. IMO

Would Ralph Nader be better for the country than what we have now or what we are likely to get from the Democrats?

AJ, in response to your question, my answer is I don’t know. The reason is I am not familiar enough with his policy positions on a range of issues facing us today. While I respect immensely his views on money influence on government and environmental protection, I am not clear on his position on globalization, US diplomatic leadership, defense plans against terrorism, or social programs like headstart, S.S., and Medicare and Medicaid.

I will look forward to his views on these issues if he runs, but, I fear his candidacy will be built on only a couple of core issues, since, there is no realistic possibility of his winning, and exposing a broader agenda will dilute the focus on his core issues. Depending on the Democratic or Green Candidate, I may however, vote for him in protest to better alternatives.

Nader? Nader is a vote of convenience. It’s an easy way to say that you don’t support the establishment, when the actual result doesn’t stray far from what would happen if you actually applied your vote to a Republican or a Democrat.

In the end, a vote for Nader is a reactionary vote. It’s a vote that’s made to be contrary.
Here’s the thing though: The Republican win because they get the highest concentration of committed voters. The Left loses because many of our people could care less about showing up at the polls.

If you want real change, what you do is you inspire other Democrats, others in the Left, to make their presence known at the polls. The more presence is made there, the more the people in power will find it in their self interest to go our way, and the more the chances of conservative candidates on the other side winning in close elections are reduced.

But wait, you say, what about the corruption, what about the big money? Well, let me tell you this: Candidates will back off of corruption the moment we start giving a damn when it occurs. If a candidate takes a major risk by getting involved with such things, then the rewards will not be so tempting. Leaving alone corruption only guarantees that it continues.

Besides, if you think we’re going to get any perfect candidates, you’re sadly mistaken. Better to elect a somewhat less corrupt candidate, than allow a more corrupt
to remain in office. Then, eventually, you can wean the system off it’s corruption, by making it more difficult on candidates.

Now’s not the time to vote our disenchantment, or our pocketbooks. Nows the time to vote in our best interests.

Nows the time to vote in our best interests.

I believe that is exactly what the non-voters and independent and third party voters are doing. Their best interests are not being fulfilled by either of the two major parties, so they are not voting for them.

I can live with people voting for third parties. Non-voters should be ashamed of themselves, though. It is utterly ludicrous to give up what little control you have over the system, in order to protest your lack of influence over it.

As a writer, I was told to get something down, at the very least, and worry about revision later. When our votes write a candidate into office, we do have to live with the results, good and bad, while the person is in office, but when the next election comes along, we can always write another draft.

People might say, “but can’t that other candidate lie and dissemble to make themselves look as if they are not touched by the error you see in the incumbent?”

The answer is yes, of course. But that’s no free ride. There’s another thing taught in writing: kill your darlings.

Which means, for those hyperventilating right now, you subject everything you write to rigorous examination. Even if a scene looks promising, it has to work as a consistent part of your portrait of the characters and the events. If it doesn’t, you must let it go, or make something else out of it.

A candidate can and must be challenged. We have to make running for public office something more than a cakewalk. We have to throw every stumbling block we can to a candidates clean ascent to office that we can, because if we don’t, we learn nothing.

We should make them worry, we should make them sweat. We should make them start trying to guess what it is we are really worried about, and we should make them nervous about papering over anything. The ordeal of the process should work towards encourage the candidates to either blossom under the pressure, or wither under the focus.

But as long as we don’t vote, and the party faithful do, the selective evolutionary pressures will favor the yes-men. It takes an alert, partipating electorate to work against those kinds of candidates, to shift the balance, election by election, over to more engaged, more conscientious candidates.

Yes, all governments will make mistakes, even when the balance is regained. The current system, though, lets mistakes proliferate and fester when otherwise they would get taken care of.

Because candidates sense they can let things slide, they don’t make the effort to solve those problems. A more active system would require more due diligence of those in office, more nipping of incipient crises in the bud, less buck passing as people stall to let voter passions simmer down.

When we don’t vote, we don’t see the need to remember such things, because we aren’t involved anyways. If we maintain a more active attitude towards such things, politicians will find it harder to maintain power by dropping uncomfortable issues, the way Bush’s people do.

I appreciate your argument Stephen, but what you ask is that non-voters go vote for candidates they don’t believe will represent their interests.

The real question, is how do we instill confidence and respect for candidates and politicians which will justify non-voters to become motivated to vote.

Kind of a chicken and egg thing, which has to come first? A paradox for a constitutional democracy which has lost faith with 1/2 of the citizens.

It is looking like Nader make make another run at President but not for the Green Party. What gives?

This does not make any sense to me whatsoever.