Day 57
Ralph Nader, again, has decided to throw in his bid for president! We all remember Nader from back in 2000, when he ran for the Green Party and gained thousands of votes in Florida; votes that, had he not been running, would almost certainly have gone to Al Gore instead. Since even by the official tally (which was highly questionable) G.W. Bush only won by a few hundred votes in the deciding state of Florida, it is often said that Nader ruined it for the democrats by running where he knew he'd never win anyway.
Likewise in 2004, when he gained several million votes nationwide in an election that was decided by a margin of less than 1% nationally, and ultimately by the swing state of Ohio, in which if Nader's votes had all or mostly gone to Kerry at the time, we may well have had a president Kerry.
And here we are. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are highly critical. Hillary more so, as she's been quoted as saying Nader is "responsible for George W. Bush," and: "We're (democrats) going to have to fight for every state, and Ralph Nader is a problem."
And Obama: "He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and, eight years later, I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about."
So perhaps the undoing of the Democrats' 2008 bid has occurred already. Imagine yet another election in November, in which crucial votes go to Nader instead of a Democrat and the republicans gain the white house yet again!
For those of you who don't know about Nader, he's a really liberal guy, whose platform revolves primarily around busting up corporate interests in the Legislative branch and instituting universal health care, more pro-union laws, much lower military spending, and more taxes and regulations upon corporations. Interestingly, Nader's platform also includes a proposal to eliminate legal personhood for corporations. Anyway, the main point for this entry is that Nader supporters overwhelmingly will vote democratic and not republican if Nader is not an option.
The question is, should Nader be running? Is it bad for America that he runs? Can he be blamed (at least in part) for Gore's 2000 loss? Should he simply bow out and allow as many votes to go to the democrats as possible?
Of course he should be allowed to run. And frankly, people who think he'd make the best president should vote for the guy.
"Negative voting" is very common in the USA and Canada. Even I do it. My voting plan for federal elections is this: If it looks like the Liberals or NDP will win my riding, I vote Green. If it looks like the Conservatives have a chance in my riding, I vote for whoever has the best shot at beating them. Truth be told, this probably isn't the best way to vote, because when people vote 'negatively' (ie. undermining a candidate by voting for his/her strongest opposition, even though a third candidate would be most preferable) it tends to artificialize the system and make the main stream narrower and narrower. Nader has become such a notorious figure that the only story printed about the guy is a story covering whether he somehow has an obligation not to run! This, is as opposed to stories about, say, what his plaform is, or why he's never elected to vie for an official party nomination.
The stigma surround Nader is what I like to call a logical consequence of a system. The political world in the USA is designed such that the citizenry only sees two real options on the ballot: the red or the blue. No independent candidate or "third party" can win, simply in virtue of the fact that they're not either officially Democratic or officially Republican. As such, it is a convention that any vote toward a third-party candidate is a vote 'taken away' from the main parties, as though each vote is owed by default to the reds or the blues.
From this, Nader's argument shines brightly: votes are earned, period. Third-party voters are making individual choices, and they are presumably fully aware of Nader's nearly impossible winning chances, as well as the potential consequences of not voting for a democrat instead. They've chosen to vote for him because he offers something (or things) that the Democratic Party simply does not offer, and it is therefore worthwhile not to validate the Democratic platform with one's vote even if that platform is better than that of the Republicans.
In short, dissent ought not to come with stigma.
The unspoken truth is that when Hillary blames Nader, she is blaming his voters. This is unspoken because voters must never be blamed for anything; this is a cardinal law of political candidacy. And when Nader responds by noting that if the Democratic party became more honest and less attached to corporate interests, his candidacy /would/ be moot, he's absolutely right. He's not trying to become president, he's trying to push the Democrats towards a platform that more closely mirrors his own.
Likewise in 2004, when he gained several million votes nationwide in an election that was decided by a margin of less than 1% nationally, and ultimately by the swing state of Ohio, in which if Nader's votes had all or mostly gone to Kerry at the time, we may well have had a president Kerry.
And here we are. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are highly critical. Hillary more so, as she's been quoted as saying Nader is "responsible for George W. Bush," and: "We're (democrats) going to have to fight for every state, and Ralph Nader is a problem."
And Obama: "He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and, eight years later, I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about."
So perhaps the undoing of the Democrats' 2008 bid has occurred already. Imagine yet another election in November, in which crucial votes go to Nader instead of a Democrat and the republicans gain the white house yet again!
For those of you who don't know about Nader, he's a really liberal guy, whose platform revolves primarily around busting up corporate interests in the Legislative branch and instituting universal health care, more pro-union laws, much lower military spending, and more taxes and regulations upon corporations. Interestingly, Nader's platform also includes a proposal to eliminate legal personhood for corporations. Anyway, the main point for this entry is that Nader supporters overwhelmingly will vote democratic and not republican if Nader is not an option.
The question is, should Nader be running? Is it bad for America that he runs? Can he be blamed (at least in part) for Gore's 2000 loss? Should he simply bow out and allow as many votes to go to the democrats as possible?
Of course he should be allowed to run. And frankly, people who think he'd make the best president should vote for the guy.
"Negative voting" is very common in the USA and Canada. Even I do it. My voting plan for federal elections is this: If it looks like the Liberals or NDP will win my riding, I vote Green. If it looks like the Conservatives have a chance in my riding, I vote for whoever has the best shot at beating them. Truth be told, this probably isn't the best way to vote, because when people vote 'negatively' (ie. undermining a candidate by voting for his/her strongest opposition, even though a third candidate would be most preferable) it tends to artificialize the system and make the main stream narrower and narrower. Nader has become such a notorious figure that the only story printed about the guy is a story covering whether he somehow has an obligation not to run! This, is as opposed to stories about, say, what his plaform is, or why he's never elected to vie for an official party nomination.
The stigma surround Nader is what I like to call a logical consequence of a system. The political world in the USA is designed such that the citizenry only sees two real options on the ballot: the red or the blue. No independent candidate or "third party" can win, simply in virtue of the fact that they're not either officially Democratic or officially Republican. As such, it is a convention that any vote toward a third-party candidate is a vote 'taken away' from the main parties, as though each vote is owed by default to the reds or the blues.
From this, Nader's argument shines brightly: votes are earned, period. Third-party voters are making individual choices, and they are presumably fully aware of Nader's nearly impossible winning chances, as well as the potential consequences of not voting for a democrat instead. They've chosen to vote for him because he offers something (or things) that the Democratic Party simply does not offer, and it is therefore worthwhile not to validate the Democratic platform with one's vote even if that platform is better than that of the Republicans.
In short, dissent ought not to come with stigma.
The unspoken truth is that when Hillary blames Nader, she is blaming his voters. This is unspoken because voters must never be blamed for anything; this is a cardinal law of political candidacy. And when Nader responds by noting that if the Democratic party became more honest and less attached to corporate interests, his candidacy /would/ be moot, he's absolutely right. He's not trying to become president, he's trying to push the Democrats towards a platform that more closely mirrors his own.
Comments
Of course, none of this can apply as easily to the US system. Given the restrains there, I really think that each voter should vote in a way that he feels he is exercising his democratic right in the best way possible - for that person, it may be that negative voting does the trick.
The only immediate and viable change to the US election process I can think of is a re-sizing of the states' respective point values within the electorate system. They're designed to reflect each population, but the numbers are quite off and require serious revision. Doing that would at least lower the likelyhood of a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election, as Gore did in 2000.
STV was a good idea for BC, albeit quite complicated. I was disappointed when it did not get the required 60% of the popular vote to be instituted. The idea of STV was to enlarge each riding to elect several candidates. Voters would be asked to rank their options in order or preference 1,2,3, etc. A voter could rank anywhere from one to all the candidates. After all the first preferences are counted, the first winner by plurality is declared, and all the 'excess' first preference votes for that candidate (ie. votes above and beyond the plurality required) would be 'transferred' on a proportional basis, and their respective second choices would then count as votes toward /those/ candidates. And so on until the number of candidates in that riding have been named.
The only problem with STV is its complexity. I figure it would end up being underutilized, as many voters (particularly the elderly) would simply want to just vote for one candidate. This is allowed, but the system certainly favours those who understand it better.
But hell, voters /should/ be informed! Knowledge is power...