in the story, nader replies to the critics who say that he is going to contribute to bush staying in the white house as those voters who would be democrats would vote for him instead. as the 2000 election was super close, especially in states like new mexico and florida, the 2.8% of the vote could have a huge impact. here is why he thinks that running for president is worth it:
okay, i’m canadian. and i can only say that i can give a rat’s ass how many political parties are on my ticket. does it honestly matter, people? does anyone look at the ballot and go, oh, only 2 parties? forget this!
party-centered politics are of course easier in a parlimentary system, as is canada and west. europe, so it’s no wonder that there are so many parties. candidate centered politics is much more likely in presidential systems where those seeking election must find ways to distinguish themselves from the party. in essence, parties themselves hold little power for voters IF the candidates are strong.
and i fail to see the gross democratic violations in this. of course, anyone who wants to run should by all means be allowed to run. but to charge that a political system is less democratic because of the number of parties seems to be a gross oversimplification and can lead to wrong conclusions.
but i think it’s an idea that is popular among liberals because it plays on the sentiments of freedom and choice that americans believe in. i don’t know, who thinks nader has a shot this election? and who thinks that political parties are an indication of a democracy’s health?
People are historically voting for particular parties and not exploring their options.
The result? Two almost identical parties that vary on only the most key issues competeing against historical vote.
Come to America, ask someone what they voted in the past and ask them what they’re probably going to vote this year and you’ll see… it’s not about the person anymore. It’s about the party.
Add more parties to the mix and the swing voters matter more and more, yes? Plus more issues become important to debates.
Two parties are flawed. Three parties are better, but the more parties the better.
i’m confused. if you are saying that people in america vote based on history, (i.e. through past experience with a party and the formation of party identification) that’s fine. i’ll agree with this. there’s people in the south, lower-economic white class who vote republican because their family did – and this can be traced back to the civil war. also, african americans are known to satistically, have a strong tendency to identify with the democratic party (extending from the civil rights movement). okay, so partisanship comes down heavy on voting issues.
however, i don’t see how this leads to the fact that given more options people will vote outside party identification. if i’m a redneck who votes republican, because i am a republican (by rafa, your own admission) than ain’t nobody gonna care if a 3rd party is created! if history is such a strong indication than this leaves even less hope for future alterations having a big impact.
I think you’re confusing the party’s supporters with the actual parties.
Anyway, I don’t think there is alot of point in Nader running, if we look at what happened last time, he got kicked out of the debate.
for the first time in my life i am going to vote democrat
i have always voted for the third party underdog
i voted for nader last time
now i just want bush gone
if kerry gets elected i will push for the third party in 2008
republicans are a disease
democrats are virtually the same
why are voters afraid to vote for the candidate that makes the most sense?
i believe there are islands in the south pacific that might cater to your daydream, frighter. you should consider moving. of course, not internet or much technology. but then, these things are contingent on an organized central authority. interesting how the same system you renounce you’re quick to reap the benefits from.
kasey, the dems are counting on ppl like you to vote bush out. i still think bush will win, however.
The polls show otherwise.
edit- the difference is marginal. That’s why I don’t think Nader should run, there’s far too much to lose. Bush wants an anti-ssm amendment, for example.
polls like to dick aroung like that. rove hasn’t started his spinning yet, and that will change everything. also, polls don’t really show those people who don’t hold opinions, so are ill-informed. i think the media spin is going to be spectacluar. bush will prevail though, because i think people generally like him.
also, what’s up with the pink floyd/princess di joke??? that was soooo not dirty! when i see tasteless, i want at least SOME sex. i expect more, metavoid
nader certainly won’t win prez – i don’t think that’s his intention, though. i think that he just wants to show that a 3rd part is a viable possibility. i think this pursuit is an ultimate failure because it is flawed
First, choice - which you seem to deride - is fundamental to democracy. The less choice, the less likely you will find a party that matches your beliefs or values. Representative democracy is premised on representing its citizens (hence the name), and if you don’t have a party that represents you how can you said to be a meaningful citizen or have your say in government? For example, Canadian Conservatves have a different program than do liberals on social issues and the NDP represents an actual ideological difference. These represent the three largest voting blocks in Canada (leaving aside, of course, the Bloc - which trancends ideology in favour of nationalism).
In the United States, choice - and therefore representation - is limited. Despite vociferous differences on some policy issuse (gay marriage, abortion etc.) the debate is actually quite banal. Both parties represent corporate capitalist interests (a given in North American democracy), pursue foriegn policies that put the US interest ahead of any other, eschew significant social programs and generally agree on most ideological issues. The only real differences lie in implementation. And in the end, whoever wins must pander to the same powerful interests in order to have a chance at reelection. Neoconservatives and neoliberals aren’t that much different.
This is just the nature of most liberal democracies. But some other democracies function much more propitiously. Scandanavian countries are models for the world. They employ proportional representation that allows smaller parties to voice their opinions, offering alternatives to mainstream ideology and a chance to change society. I wonder who you vote for. Do you actually beleive that people matter? They don’t in the US, where individual representatives have much more say. In Canada, they matter even less as party discipline stifles individuality and silences opposition.
Thus, the US should be open to more choice and new candidates. However, I would suggest to anyone who might be thinking about voting for Nader that they shouldn’t. Though the rep. and dem. don’t really differ much in the grand scheme, the present administration differs in key areas. Foreign polices such as preemption and international disengagement are salient. While both dem. and rep. claim to protect americans and be ‘patriots’, and while both believe in American interests, the policy differences are extremely important. Bush’s preemptive doctrine is the most frightening thing to happen to the world since the fall of communism. And Richard Pearl, Rumsfeld et al. actually have the will to invade countries such as Iran, while dem. planners do not. So, that the dem. would not endorse preemption is significant. There are some important nuanced decisions to be made in the US, and since Nader could help Bush get reelected he should recognize that Bush must go down and step aside.
you’re confusing choice with parties. candidates can represent choice, maybe not on a large scale, but the us has the most electons in a year than any other country in the world, and they have plenty of elected reps. while the prez might not rep a citizen, there’s a good chance that the senator, congressman, local judge, sheirff, mayor, counscellor, etc will.
scandanavian countries are also largely homogeneous. while there are notable difference, belguim for instance, the differences are no insumountable – there are common similarities in the slight differences. i think a candidate should be responsible to the ppl, not party, but am not sure what your question exactly is.
“you’re confusing choice with parties. candidates can represent choice, maybe not on a large scale, but the us has the most electons in a year than any other country in the world, and they have plenty of elected reps.”
Well, I guess I am just saying that I don’t really believe that choice of individuals is significant - especially in Canada. It seems that you are arguing that they should be, which is fine. But I don’t think that I’m confusing anything, just emphasizing different things. It is true that individuals have more say in the US, but if they are under the broad rubric of parties they usually are constrained as to the positions they can take. In the US there are only two parties, which I see as very similar (ie the debate is usually over things like how much to cut taxes) - and I think that that this stifles choice in individuals in a significant way (it is extremely difficult for independents to get attention from media and successfully get elected).
Parties offer ideological paradigms and if there are more, I think it is easier to find the people that most closely aligns with your views. It might really just come down to some aestetic difference - I find that parties are easier to identify on a systemic level and they are not as fickle on policy as the many individuals who may enter and exit the political system at any given time. But, of course you are right - it is also important to have an individual member of the legislature to represent your views.
Historically, the main effect of third parties in America has been mainly to inject one of the main parties with their pet issues. I don’t know who said it, but it’s been said that third parties are like bees–once they sting, they die.
So that’s exactly how I intend on using my vote in this election. John Kerry sucks, OK? Everyone knows this, but because they view voting as a game of probabilities–which Thoreau once rightly condemned as unpatriotic–they’re afraid to vote for what they really want. Hence, we get a half-ass nominee like Kerry.
So basically, I’m voting Nader this time around so that the Democrats will wake up and stop sending us shitty candidates (plus the fact that I cannot conscionably vote for Kerry). If we have to endure four more years under Bush, so be it. A characteristic of American history is that it goes through cycles of progressivism and reaction; hopefully everyone will wake up by the end of Bush’s next term and the new era of progressivism will begin. In order to survive, the Democrats are going to have to start listening to the element that Nader represents instead of half-assing it.
That’s exactly what happens! If I see only a Republican and a Democrat running for an office, I say fuck this. At times I’ve been lazy (or realistic) and not bothered to go vote, and at other times I went and “threw my votes away” (according to most people) voting for third party candidates (that I liked) and ignoring the offices that didn’t have a third party. Old Dutch proverb, “When forced to choose between two evils, choose neither.”
Just as Smithigan stated, third parties have been either absorbed or supplanted into the two established parties, or their platforms have been adopted by them because of necessity or public outcry. Although the existing two party system isn’t perfect, it’s an effective way of making issues known and dealt with.
I think Nader’s point, which may have been hit upon in the thread already, is that the two main parties are identical in that they are both built, supported, and encouraged by big money interests, and in the process the voice of the average american is drowned out.
personally i am extremely happy that nader is running. I am a hardcore conservative and i believe that kerry will get a lot less votes because democrats are more likely to vote for nader then vote for bush. thumbs up to ralphy for giving us even better chances (not like we need them) in 2004!
i think that the concern for a lack of representation is valid. but, this hardly translates in simply the creatation of more parties. rather, it needs to have more candidates who are representative of the public’s interest. and i think anyone who sees nader as being this is a little dillusional.
A cute peice from TRN gives a nice look at classic nader:
So, I guess protecting the environment, eschewing corporate interest in favour of all humanity, and ridding Washington of its corrupt leaders is not in the public interest? I mean, have you ever listened to him speak or read anything he has written? The man is highly intelligent and passionate about what he believes. I would like to know: who do you think is more interested in the ‘public interest’ than Nader. Bush or Kerry? That’s dillusional.