tom_thinks
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Ralph Nader and the 2004 election
Howard Dean and Ralph Nader will debate for 90 minutes on July 9th for NPR's Justice Talking(Unfortunately, that show doesn't air on my NPR station). Dean will be debating that Nader's supporters stay inside the Democratic party and vote for Kerry. Nader will be advocating his position, whatever that is.
I, like many people, have mixed emotions about Nader's run for the presidency this year. In 2000, I campaigned for Nader. That campaign inspired me to become politically active and gave me hope that a better future was possible. I was sorely disappointed when Nader did not get the 5% of the vote he needed to assure the Greens a larger role in national politics. Even more upsetting, given hindsight, was that George W. Bush was allowed to occupy the White House.
Now we all know there were many factors that lead to this outcome; Gore was a boring candidate who played to the center,Gore refused to advocate a state-wide recount instead carefully selecting counties he felt would benefit him, Katherine Harris & Jeb Bush conspiring to eliminate eligible voters from the rolls, the Supreme Court's disturbing ruling to stop the recount and Ralph Nader. Perhaps if you eliminated any one of these factors things could have gone the other way (Gore did actually win the election, just not the presidency, remember).
Was it wrong to vote for Ralph Nader in 2000? I don't think so and I have absolutely no regrets about doing so. We shouldn't be blaming those who dared to hope for real substantial change when faced with two candidates who advocated the status quo.
But now Nader is running again. Many people call him egotistical, even egomaniacal. I don't know what's really motivating Ralph to run this time, but I hope its only to scare Kerry into moving Left. In this scenario, Nader's run is a direct threat to John Kerry, but is Nader offering the ultimatum, 'Go Left and I'll drop out or I'll stay in and you'll lose the election'? There are some hints of this. I heard Nader quoted on the radio last week saying something like, Why not give the democrats a scare before you vote for them? But these statements themselves undermine Nader's threat. If John Kerry knew Nader was going to drop out, then there is no threat. If Nader stays in, even if he makes statements such as 'what you do in the voting booth is your business', he will likely collect a number of votes, which could be significant in a close election. So what is the point of Nader's run? If its solely to raise issues or pull Kerry to the Left, then Nader would hopefully reach some agreement with Kerry and drop out, or together they could pursue a much more exciting and innovative stategy.
I mentioned this in one of my first posts. What if Nader nominated the exact same individuals to the electoral college that Kerry did? My limited understanding suggests that when we vote for a candidate for president, we are actually voting for that person's chosen nominees to the electoral college. These nominees then cast their votes for the candidate that nominated them. If Kerry where to choose his nominees, and Ralph Nader where to then choose these same individuals, would not a vote for Ralph Nader then be equal to a vote for John Kerry? Of course there are questions about the nominees being beholden to two candidates and some states might have laws that could restrict this. But if there is a real possibility that voting for Nader would actually elect Kerry, while still indicating a desire for a more leftward leaning candidate, shouldn't we (Progressives) pursue that goal? Using the electoral college in that manner would be tantamount to instant runoff voting; with the electors voting for whichever candidate that had nominated them with the majority of votes in their state. Instant runoff voting has been endorsed by people like John McCain and Howard Dean. In their upcoming debate, I'm interested to see if this electoral college issue comes up, because given Dean support for instant runoff voting, I believe he would be in favor of the idea. That said, I'm no expert on the electoral college, and this idea might not even be possible, but Yale law professor, Bruce Ackerman believes it is. If this plan is indeed possible, Progressives should aggressively get behind it, rather then bash Nader.
I, like many people, have mixed emotions about Nader's run for the presidency this year. In 2000, I campaigned for Nader. That campaign inspired me to become politically active and gave me hope that a better future was possible. I was sorely disappointed when Nader did not get the 5% of the vote he needed to assure the Greens a larger role in national politics. Even more upsetting, given hindsight, was that George W. Bush was allowed to occupy the White House.
Now we all know there were many factors that lead to this outcome; Gore was a boring candidate who played to the center,Gore refused to advocate a state-wide recount instead carefully selecting counties he felt would benefit him, Katherine Harris & Jeb Bush conspiring to eliminate eligible voters from the rolls, the Supreme Court's disturbing ruling to stop the recount and Ralph Nader. Perhaps if you eliminated any one of these factors things could have gone the other way (Gore did actually win the election, just not the presidency, remember).
Was it wrong to vote for Ralph Nader in 2000? I don't think so and I have absolutely no regrets about doing so. We shouldn't be blaming those who dared to hope for real substantial change when faced with two candidates who advocated the status quo.
But now Nader is running again. Many people call him egotistical, even egomaniacal. I don't know what's really motivating Ralph to run this time, but I hope its only to scare Kerry into moving Left. In this scenario, Nader's run is a direct threat to John Kerry, but is Nader offering the ultimatum, 'Go Left and I'll drop out or I'll stay in and you'll lose the election'? There are some hints of this. I heard Nader quoted on the radio last week saying something like, Why not give the democrats a scare before you vote for them? But these statements themselves undermine Nader's threat. If John Kerry knew Nader was going to drop out, then there is no threat. If Nader stays in, even if he makes statements such as 'what you do in the voting booth is your business', he will likely collect a number of votes, which could be significant in a close election. So what is the point of Nader's run? If its solely to raise issues or pull Kerry to the Left, then Nader would hopefully reach some agreement with Kerry and drop out, or together they could pursue a much more exciting and innovative stategy.
I mentioned this in one of my first posts. What if Nader nominated the exact same individuals to the electoral college that Kerry did? My limited understanding suggests that when we vote for a candidate for president, we are actually voting for that person's chosen nominees to the electoral college. These nominees then cast their votes for the candidate that nominated them. If Kerry where to choose his nominees, and Ralph Nader where to then choose these same individuals, would not a vote for Ralph Nader then be equal to a vote for John Kerry? Of course there are questions about the nominees being beholden to two candidates and some states might have laws that could restrict this. But if there is a real possibility that voting for Nader would actually elect Kerry, while still indicating a desire for a more leftward leaning candidate, shouldn't we (Progressives) pursue that goal? Using the electoral college in that manner would be tantamount to instant runoff voting; with the electors voting for whichever candidate that had nominated them with the majority of votes in their state. Instant runoff voting has been endorsed by people like John McCain and Howard Dean. In their upcoming debate, I'm interested to see if this electoral college issue comes up, because given Dean support for instant runoff voting, I believe he would be in favor of the idea. That said, I'm no expert on the electoral college, and this idea might not even be possible, but Yale law professor, Bruce Ackerman believes it is. If this plan is indeed possible, Progressives should aggressively get behind it, rather then bash Nader.
posted by Tom, 7/01/2004 01:38:00 PM
