The media and the two major political parties work together: policies that are unique to third parties will never be promoted but simply not covered what-so-ever for political reasons. And since most humans are not independent rational thinkers, they will just do as the media tells them. Thus, third parties have no chance whatsoever: the media determines who we vote, and the media is not on the side of third parties. So, we are stuck with the two main parties. i will still though vote for the Reform Party of Pat Buchanana: the philosophy of Paleo-Conservatism (as opposed to George W. Bush’s Neo-Conservatism politics).
the media is a strong tide, but not the all decisive battle cry that you’re making it out to be. otherwise, howard dean would be the democratic prez nominnee right now.
i don’t see how nader is. the fact of the matter is that nader is an exterme socialist and america doesn’t want this. the unique thing about that country is that they don’t embrace the idea of the paternal gov’t that other countries do; fundamentally, they embrace the idea of freedom from the gov’t. nader is certainly not representative of this, no matter how smart he is, he’s ultimately pushing his idea of how the gov’t should be based on what he thinks is best for the ppl. while this is quaint, his thoughts on what the ppl want is far to extreme for most, and counter-acts most of basic american ideology. while ppl might be better off in a socialist utopia, (if this was even possible) by destroying american identity i highly doubt the citizens would embrace the policies he pushes.
I see what you mean. You are right about that, people in the US certainly don’t want the government in their lives - that is, the wealthy 50% who actually play a part in the electoral system.
I guess I see more of a tension between our views in the fact that you seem to believe that the people actually know what is best for them. I would say that most don’t. Then again government doesn’t know best either; at least, neither Democrats and Republicans.
What you say is paternalism I call morality. Protecting the environment, ensuring quality of life for all, relative equality, decent treatment for all. These are things that Nader stands for and we have duties to each other as members of society. I would say that these are in the public’s interest - ALL the public, not just the rich few. Why don’t you want to live in a country that cares for its citizens, environment etc.? I surely do, and I think once people get past their self-interest they would see the value in that.
And Nader is NOT an extreme socialist. Extreme socialists call for the abolition of the state or other EXTREME measures. What he is calling for is human decency.
theoria, you’re rather good at picking out my assumptions – that are unstated.
okay, nader’s not an extreme socialist. i agree that in theory he migh tnot be, and in theory i can think of other extreme socialist positions, but i think practice shows that nader’s plans are probably the only ones that are possible. that is, i don’t think extreme socialism exists in actuality. nader’s the closest thing, really, before an authoritarian system.
as for human decency and morality…
even if it does exist, i don’t think of any regime in which it exists under a socialist/communist system. in fact, the only regime it is allowed to exist is under a liberal capitalist system. because ppl, really, are who they are when they are not pressured to be.
but you’re also right, i do think everyone knows what’s best for them.
I am a liberal, I hate George Bush, I hate the democratic party, I will be voting for Nader. Even though i know he will not win.
One of Nader’s arguments that both his advocates and oponints in this thread have forgotten is that the debate commission is a coorporation owned by the democratic and republican parties and this allows these parties to prevent new parties from gaining support. The Commission on Presidential Debates requires:
How is a third party going to get 15% of popular opinion when they are not allowed to participate in nationally televised debates? How are they supposed to get their message out in an open forum that is unbiased by partisan media. Most third parties can’t afford to run televised advertiesments. Does 15% of the U.S. electorate know anything about Nader other than that he is possibly taking votes away from a worthless republican shill and giving them to a worthless republican?
I know Nader will not win, but in all good conscience i cannot vote for Kerry or Bush. But my vote does count, I am going to send a message that Nader represents me. The big parties want you to believe that your vote is meaningless, you have to chose one of those two, because those are the only ones the media look at anyways. I will vote for Nader even if it is for nothing else then to tell him that I was behind him. And maby some local station will mention the one guy in Minnesota that voted Nader.
Nader isn’t the only third party/independant candidate out there. Last elecion there were at least 5 parties other than Republican or Democrat represented on the ticket.
The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Socialist Party usually have a candidate on the presidential ballot besides any other parties who also run people like the Internet Party and others. And the Libertarian candidate wasn’t that far behind Nader in the last election for percentage of votes garnered.
Nader is not singlehandedly swinging the vote one way or another. All the third parties “take votes away” from the primary two parties. Sometimes their swing makes a difference in the election and sometimes it doesn’t. But what is good is that those parties exist and give America a chance to find alternatives.
Now MANY people feel the a third party vote is wasted. But if you don’t endorse a new ideal at some point, there will never be change. And many people are upset with the two parties and feeling that neither candidate is worthy of being the President. Want change? Vote the way you want to and forget anybody who says that you’re wasting your vote.
It’s all about choice. Choose to vote for who you want, not vote against who you don’t want. Find the candidate you like and agree with the most and vote for them.
don’t you think voters, perhaps, have a responsibilty in ensuring that they cast their ballot based on who will do the best job in office? if one were to vote according to your logic, then a skinhead who votes for a neo-nazi is more responsible/a wiser voter, than someone who votes by weighing the most likely outcome and decides to endorse that candidate.
that is, if voting is simply a consupmtion activity and investment is totally excluded from the equation, the door to a corrupt/ineffective government can be opened.
the other candidates might have a chance if sponsoring of campaings was not allowed…
this is one of the main reasons US election is undemocratic
If the decision to vote for who you think is the most responsible and would fit the position of president the best is what you want to do, then that is the candidate that best fits what you want. It is voting for who you want. I believe that people should vote for who they want.
If that skinhead votes for a neo-nazi, that is his right. I am saying that he is as responsible a voter as the person who votes for Nader because they believe in his principles. If the neo-nazis win the election, then I believe that would be a fairly accurate representation of the voting populace. I’m not saying that the system works perfectly, but it does give some indication.
I just don’t believe in voting against people. “I hate Bush so I am going to vote for Kerry even though I hate him too, but I hate Bush more.” I don’t believe that this line of logic works well for America. If you can’t find a candidate that you do want to win, then yes, voting for the lesser of 9 (or however many candidates there are) evils is your best option. But, I disagree with the people who vote Democrat or Republican on a certain election because they hate the other, either as a group or the candidate specifically without actually judging the qualities of the other candidate.
Do they not allow private funding for campaigns in Europe?
to caste a ‘negative’ vote (i.e. one simply meant to keep one part out of office) doesn’t have to be as awful as you put it. some candidates intentionally campagin on the platform of, whatever he’s doing, i’m going to do. the estabilishment of such polar opposition policy plans and views would allow a voter, perhaps not as fully awear of the ‘negative’ candidate, the ability to see that he will probably agree with him. so in this case, voting in that respect doesn’t seem to be problematic.
but, the case that you seem to be suggesting is voting when one disagrees with most/some/all of a candidate’s policies, but votes for him anyway because he doesn’t want the opponent to win office. and i would agree that this is wrong.
i would think that this is wrong, however, is because the voter isn’t being responsible by rationally deciding to vote for who he thinks will best run the country. i realize that there are ‘rational’ extremists out there – ones who have carefully formulated a rational behind their beliefs. for the most part, however, voters are not at this level. and if they vote for who they rationally believe to be the best, i can’t see a neo-nazi gaining office. but this could happen, however, when they vote using their feelings/gut. the feeling could run, ‘ah, politicians don’t do nothing anyways! i might as well just vote for who i like.’ if this position is to be adopted, i fear the results to be dangerous.
Other people have mentioned this previously, but perhaps the solution is to get rid of parties. Alot of voters vote on party alone, without putting any thought into the actual issues and just assume that the candidate represents their party’s stance, whcih the voter generally agrees with even though that voter probably doesn’t fully understand all of that party’s opinions.
By just doing away with political parties, and hell why not private investors while we’re at it, we can make the elections about the issues and not just party lines. And hopefully the people that do vote will be the ones who are actually aware of the individual candidates ideas. Maby this partyless system will actually force people to learn the current issues and the candidates opinions on those issues.
I’ve already said that I’ll be voting Nader, but I know very little about the Green Party (He’s not even running under that banner this time) but I like him and what he has done for this country in the past and I like his ideas about the future. As much as I don’t like the dems. and GOP on principle I would’ve voted for Dean had he gotten the party endorsement because I liked his ideas and I like his passion, which the so-called ‘leftist’ media portrayed as uncontrollable rage and insanity.
the irony, of course, being that america has the weakest political groups among all industrial democarcy. i.e. it’s the closest, in practice, that one gets to having ‘no parties’.
Idealogicaly the members of the American parties differ on almost every issue. But they have the financial support of the party and party investors. If a candidate wants to run on their own terms and not be bought out by corporate/private intrest groups they will be trampled by the the two parties’ financial superiority.
If there even are two parties, if one looks at Kerry’s positions on anything he looks like a republican. And I have recently learned that Kerry and Bush are both members of the secret “Skull and Bones Society”.
The American polical parties are too corrupt to be kept around. Hell, America is too corrupt to be kept around.
hey peeps…
so i vote green party, which is pretty much the party nader was in last federal election. the difference is that i vote for policy issues more than anything, and i voted for the green part for the provincial/local elections b/c i think my province could do more enivornmentally speaking. the other issues were all pretty much agreed upon by all the parties, i.e. raise healthcare and education spending, cut taxes, blah blah blah.
but i recently just voted for conservatives at the federal elections, so i’m a real loose cannon when it comes to partisian lines.
in canada, the social democratic party (= to the libertarian party in america, a true socialist party all over) looks like it has a fair chance at being in a substantial spot of power and control. canada’s becoming soo european.
so euro trash, in fact, that i recently saw a campagin ad on television for the marxist-lenninist party of canada!!! i know all countries have these quirky, weird based parties, but our commie party actually have enough money/support to openly campagin. the leader’s on tv, telling us how we need to “work hard” for a better country – i suppose it’s a subtle way of introducing work camps to the ppl. … 
I’m moving to Canada. Even if they could afford to make advertisments here in the U.S., you’d never see that on T.V.
Free speech my ass.
I’d like to think that Ralph Nader has a conscience. In fact I’d like to believe it’s Nader’s uncompromising moral sense that has led him into two hopeless bids for the presidency. And I’d like to think that same strength of character is what will lead him to withdraw from the race before Election Day. The reports from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the revelation of the August 1, 2002 Justice Dept. memo (which basically says that anti-torture conventions do not apply to anyone the government labels a “terroristâ€) followed by the almost identical Defense Dept. memo issued shortly before the invasion of Iraq (and this should really piss you off)—compounded by the Bush administration’s persistent effort to cover these revelations up in the name of “securityâ€â€”gives every indication that we are dealing with something far more serious than run-of-the-mill Republican arrogance. These are the tactics of a dictator, and we’ve seen this pattern too many times throughout history to write it off as merely an opposing political perspective. (Of course, I’m not one to make silly comparisons to Hitler, but I am aware that the structure of checks and balances—the system Ashcroft et al find so horribly inconvenient—is our only real insurance against presidential autocracy.)
Bush administration policies present a serious threat to core elements of our political system, and Nader realizes that. Which is why I don’t think he can conscionably give these people another term in the White House. If Nader realizes he can give Kerry the edge by withdrawing (and perhaps the polls will tilt in Kerry’s favor without Nader’s help—in which case, it may be perfectly fine for him to continue his campaign), I believe he will. Because he’s smart enough to know that, if he takes crucial votes away from the Democrats this time—as he did in 2000—he will bear partial responsibility for whatever damage this administration continues to do to the American system over the next four years.
Does it really matter who wins, when it’ll still be a crime to be poor?
Rich enough to own a car, but too poor to pay for the insurance and tags? Tough go to jail, and we’re impounding the car because the tag is out, and you can’t park it there.
No matter who wins I still get a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt.
No matter who wins I still can’t fight my game cock, and in fact, just owning it is a felony.
No matter who wins I still can’t cut hair without gov’t approval.
No matter who wins I still can’t make my own fireworks.
No matter who wins I still can’t fly because I’m red flagged.
I’m not seeing that it matters who wins, we’ll just lose whatever freedom they have a petpeeve against.
Wouldn’t destroying corporations also destroy the jobs they create?
Are you sure you want america unemployed in order to save it?
I’m a big fan of the Green Party and have voted for them in the past, especially when I was living in California and they actually had a good strong showing in lots of local elections.
HOWEVER…
Any decent American citizen right now is aware of the fact that a certain DUBYA needs to get the hell out of dodge before he ruins this country and the trajectory of the world. Dramatic? Yes. Incorrect? No. I can go on and on about this, but I won’t right now because I’m at work and need to get back to my papers.
Therefore, Nader is, right now, pissing me off. This election is gonna be waaaay too close for comfort and – while in theory bla bla bla more than two parties, green party is great, let him run, everyone sucks – we can’t afford Bush to win. We need to ALL get behind ONE opponent. Else, Bush will have another 4 years of destruction.
I can’t imagine why Nader, with all that he has done with his career (which I have followed and love dearly) would be doing this right now. Its not practical.
Here is the problem with adding a third party (of any stripe) to a position where they may influence the outcome of an election.
American Politics has ALWAYS consisted of two main parties. This began with the Federalists and Anti Federalists representing two ends of the political spectrum and has continued (with changes here and there, sometiumes with one party switching roles, etc) to the present day.
What tends to happen with two parties (one representing the left, one representing the right) is that both parties usually wind up consuming other parties that represent viewpoints on similar issues. It is self perpetuating, as the two major parties derive their power from appealing to the middle, which is where, except for times of extreme duress, the majority will reside.
Thus in the parties themselves most of the adherents will tend toward the middle, thereby weakening the more radical or reactionary adherents in the party itself.
In every case where the party splits itself over what it considers to be key issues, the opposing party not only takes power, but it keeps it, as the other party must first settle whatever it is that caused it to split before it can return as a viable option.
Evidence tends to support that Winner Take All voting systems lead to two party governments, while Proportional Voting systems lead to Multi Party governments ( where three or more parties control the government).
Even in Multi Party governments, power is often achieved through alliances linking similar minded parties together in coalitions.
Consider Democrats and Republicans having an equal share of Moderates, from there, the Democrats tend to appeal to the remaining people on the left, while the Republicans tend to appeal on the remaining people on the right.
What Nader is doing, almost as if the interests of big business had paid him to do it, is to insure that Republicans (who are traditionally more friendly to Big Business than Democrats) will continue controlling the Executive branch.