Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with him

Voting for Nader = Voting for 4 more years of W

from JoeUser Forums
I can understand why people would support Ralph Nader's ideology, but I can't understand why anyone would vote for him. If you vote for Nader, it means you are more concerned with making a statement than making sure the better man gets elected. If you think that there is absolutely no difference between Kerry and Bush and Kerry is equally as bad as Bush, then vote for Nader. But if you think Kerry would be better than Bush, even if you think he's worse than Nader, than vote for Kerry. If you vote for Nader, what you are not doing is voting for Kerry, and helping Bush get more votes than Kerry.

For those who say that Nader makes no difference, this isn't quite true. Exit polls from 2000 of Nader voters show that 50% would have voted for Gore, 20% for Bush, and 30% would have stayed home. So, if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won Florida, and with it the presidency. And can any Nader supporters really argue that Gore wouldn't have made a better president than Bush?
democrat
19,058 views 32 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have written several articles to the effect that I am appalled with people like you who would attempt to subvert the democratic process by browbeating people who support third party candidates. Shame on you.

People should feel free to vote for the candidate of their choice. The only reason Nader would be a poor choice is, he's not on the ballot in all 50 states and, last I heard, not even enough states to have an electoral college majority even if he won all of them.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your statement presupposes that Kerry would make a difference! From the looks of how the Dems have run their campaign, their aim is to win power by making as little difference as possible. It also presupposes that their interests are inseparable even from their base, but 93% of the delegates at the DP opposed the war while the candidates that they nominated support it. Winner-take all doesn't necessarily mean a win for everyone.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
I'm not trying to browbeat anyone at all. I usually support third parties, but I'm just asking Green voting in this election to consider their choice. They can vote for Nader, knowing he will not win or they can vote for Kerry and help him win. I would ask all Greens to consider if they think that John Kerry would really be as bad a president as George Bush, or if Kerry would be an acceptable alternative. If Kerry is not at all acceptable than by all means vote for Nader. But remember the old saying, united we stand, divided we fall. If the liberal half of America divides its votes they are ensuring that a conservative will be elected.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
And to add to that - the reason he's not on the ballot in 50 states is the Dems spent millions of dollars of our taxpayer money, hours of operative labor, and valued time where we actaully could have bee discussing serious issues (now there's a novel concept) to keep him from being a player. If they can do that to a man with a 40 year record of public service to this country, I hardly think we can count on them as the defenders of our democracy.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dear Gideon and others:

Please make sure to join the "Let Nader Debate" campaign by signing a letter at www.letnaderdebate.org.

Gwen
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
but I'm just asking Green voting in this election to consider their choice. They can vote for Nader, knowing he will not win or they can vote for Kerry and help him win. I would ask all Greens to consider if they think that John Kerry would really be as bad a president as George Bush, or if Kerry would be an acceptable alternative.


Nader isn't the Green Party candidate--David Cobb is!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know Nader isn't the Green Party candidate, I was just referring to his supporters as Greens since that's the political/idealogical group where he draws his support from.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please make sure to join the "Let Nader Debate" campaign by signing a letter at www.letnaderdebate.org.


I refuse to do that, because Nader has not supported the efforts to allow David Cobb (the Green Party candidate) and Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian Party candidate) into the debates as well. Incidentally, Cobb and Badnarik have worked together, despite their political opposition, to try to be recognized at the debates. Cobb and Badnarik are on the ballot in all fifty states; Nader is not. You can talk about how the dems tried to keep him off the ballot, but the Republicans also spent a good deal of money trying to get him ON the ballot, so it probably balances out.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know Nader isn't the Green Party candidate, I was just referring to his supporters as Greens since that's the political/idealogical group where he draws his support from.


Yes, unfortunately, though, many people do believe Nader to be the Green candidate, which is detrimental to the Green party, as Nader threw a pretty nasty temper tantrum in his split with the Greens because the Greens would not nominate him as their candidate (he even launched a failed attempt to split up the Green party by trying to get California Greens to nominate him, instead of Cobb, to their ballot slot). Frankly, I think Nader has shown a horrendous lack of diplomacy.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm sorry if I made anyone think I'm insensitive to the plight of third parties. I actually do recognize that third parties have huge problems facing them. I was just trying to say that people have the choice of voting for the third party that most represents their veiws or to vote for the candidate who could be elected that more represents their veiws. The only problem with letting third parties into debates is that their are about 15 parties seeking the presidency. Logistically 15 people in the debate would not work. Maybe they should either take the top 4 or 5 candidates according to the polls, or set a minimum polling percentage for participation in the debate.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only problem with letting third parties into debates is that their are about 15 parties seeking the presidency.


That's the thing. There aren't 15 parties that made the ballot in all 50 states, and that's significant. I believe the debates could/should be limited to those who made the ballot in all 50, which narrows it down considerably (republican, democrat, green and libertarian are all I know of...this would leave us with a debate between Bush, Kerry, Cobb and Badnarik).
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think what we really need is a system where third parties do more than just take away votes from the major parties. The best idea I have heard so far is instant-runoff voting. In this system people put a list of their choices in order of preference. After all the votes are counted, if no candidate has a majority, then the votes of the candidate who received the least votes are redistributed to their second choices. If there's still no majority, then the candidate with the second least votes would have his votes redistributed to his voters second choices, and so on until there's a majority. This way people could voice their support for a third party candidate while not taking votes away from the major party candidate they most agree with.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact is, the third parties are not taking votes away from the major parties. I refuse to vote Bush or Kerry; if allowed no other choice, I would simply turn in a blank ballot.
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
Actually, the last Gallup poll has Nader hurting Bush more so than Kerry. The reason is as you know most people who vote for Nader is considered as independent and as we know right now, independents are starting to shift to Bush (that is you see a bounce for the Bush after the GOP convention). Are you still against Nader running since he may be hurting Bush more than Kerry.

I read the Exit Poll too. The Exit poll never made the claim that Gore would win if Nader didn't run, you made your own assumption. Show me the articule.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
They are taking votes away from the major parties though. During exit polls in 2000 people who voted for Nader what they would have done if Nader weren't on the ballot. 50% would have voted for Gore, 20% for Bush, and a minority 30% would have stayed home. So the fact is Nader did actually take away enough votes in Florida to swing the election.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

People should vote for Nader (or another candidate they like) if they agree with him because if they simply vote for the lesser of the two evils, then both of the major parties can disregard the demands of their supporters knowing that they'll have their support anyway. If they know they could lose the election because of another party, then they'll actually have to do something to keep those votes.


It wasn't Nader's fault that Gore lost. It was Gore's fault for not doing enough to appeal to Nader supporters.


That said though, I'm voting for Bush because I'm really starting to like the guy.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm really starting to like the guy.


After what he has done?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
As I've said before, I'm not against Nader running, I'm simply asking his supporters to consider whether it is more important for them to vote for Nader to voice their support or to vote for the electable candidate that most represents their veiws.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
Matt,

That is a difference between not wanting Bush re-elected and not believing in voting for thrid party. If you truely believe that voting for third party is wrong, then your position should be unshaked even Nader are getting more votes from Bush supporters than Kerry supporters, which is what happening now. Before the GOP convention, Gallup Poll has Bush ahead of Kerry by 3 points in a two way race, but only a 2 points with Nader included. Of course, that could simply due to statisitc uncertainty. Nevertheless, it is not justifiable to tell people not to vote for Nader just because Bush may win. Look at this very moment, Nader is hurting Bush more, and I want Bush to be re-elect but I am not going to tell people not to vote for Nader because that is fundmentally wrong.

To give you another example, I remind and encourage my Democrat friends to vote in the 2000 presidential election and the California Governor Recall race (now you know I live in California). I drag them to vote with me, despite the facts that I know they may very well vote the opposite I do. Why do I do that? Because freedom to vote is important and because freedom to express one's opinion should count for something. I will not discourage my Democrat friends to vote even they are voting opposite to me. Ultimately it is wrong to discourage people to vote for what they believe -- even if you believe they are wrong. You may think they are wasting their vote, because their candiate has no chnace winning. But people don't simply vote to win. To vote to express. I debate with some of my hard core democrat friends. I don't debate to win or convince them. I debate to express my view. Freedom to Vote is tie to Freedom to Speech, not freedom to win.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Chemical,

Good observations. In one of the many related posts, someone made the analogy of voting as choosing what you want to eat. They said that if someone offers you peas and liver, and you say "pizza" it doesn't matter.

Using that analogy, yes, I may get peas or liver despite my desire for pizza. But if I say pizza, two things happen:

1. over time, more and more people start to see that pizza really is a better choice, and will join with me. We may not get pizza, but at least it will encourage people to change the menu.

2. When people start bitching about the peas and liver, I know, at least, that I didn't support either choice.

Personally, though, I think the peas and liver analogy is giving the major parties too much credit. I prefer to comparing it to having a choise between moose dung and elk dung.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Monday, September 06, 2004I am appalled with people like you who would attempt to subvert the democratic process by browbeating people who support third party candidates. Shame on you.


I am really tired of so-called progressives scape-goating Ralph Nader for Gore's failure in the last election. Will anyone really try to convince us that the United States really passed up the chance to elect a great Democratic president when Gore wasn't elected? Get over it.

At the same time that I will not be casting a vote for either major party this election, I will also not try to discourage my peers from voting for Kerry. I can appreciate the fear otherwise "progressive" voters are experiencing leading to their support for Kerry. Despite my hard outter shell, I am an optimist and I will continue to vote as an optimist, not as the average scared citizen who will always settle for a "better than." For me, however, I will not vote for a democrat until the Democratic Party really opens their ears to the concerns of third party supporters. Very few democrats, possibly with the exception of now deceased Paul Wellstone of my home state, have ever done that. Putting issues like Instant Run-Off Voting in the debates would definitely create some interesting discussion.

But Matt, let's face it. W never would've been elected if a shitload of people hadn't voted for him...so why don't you flick them off and leave us peace mongers alone.

-Suspeckted
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is a difference between not wanting Bush re-elected and not believing in voting for thrid party. If you truely believe that voting for third party is wrong, then your position should be unshaked even Nader are getting more votes from Bush supporters than Kerry supporters, which is what happening now.


I don't beleive it's wrong to vote for a third party. I'm saying people should choose between, as you put it, voting to express, and voting to put the better guy in office. I'm saying that if you are planning to vote for a third party, you should sit down and consider whether you would rather vote to express, or vote for the guy more in line with your views, keeping in mind that if you vote to express you may be letting someone less in line with your views. If you think it's more important to vote for express, than great, vote for a third party.

Another option, which is what some parties do, is for a third party to nominate the major party candidate. That way people still express their support of the third party, but can still vote for the better major party candidate. If the greeen party did this, I wouldn't be surprised if many more people started voting green. The problem with this though is that it doesn't allow people who truly think both major party candidates are despicable to vote for a different candidate. Maybe there should be two options when voting for a third party, such as Green Party- David Cobb, or Green Party - John Kerry.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon, if Howard dean were the candidate for the democratic ticket, would you vote for him?
Reply #25 from PolMach Forums Top
Matt,

Yes, I understand you said you are trying to point out to those voting for Nader that it is a choice between expression and getting the second best perosn in office. But you made one assumption: They are stupid! You are implying these people who vote for Nader to express their views do not know Nader will lose. Of course, they do. It is obvious. They made that choice already stop telling them something they are full awared. Look, I thought I made that argumenet already. When I debate with my hardcore Democrat friends, I am not trying to win. I am trying to express my view. I don't need someone come to me and tell me that I cann't convince my friends. I know that, and I don't think Nader supporter really need you to tell them that Nader will lose.