By Rob Kall
Published February 23rd 2004 in OpEdNews.com
My first response to Nader's announcement that he's running agains was that he's an idiotic fool, that he would even consider helping George Bush. Then I thought about it and considered that maybe he's an egomaniac and just wants to stay in the headlines. But I doubt this. I imagine for most people, Nader's decision will actually hurt his organization and his reputation.
Or, could he be doing this because he is getting money from some slimy Texas right winger, or one of the same billionaires who channel hundreds of millions into the right wing neocon think tanks?
It hurts to think these possibilities because Nader was such a good guy, perhaps even a heroic figure, for decades. But he threw that away with his 2000 campaign, which undoubtedly insured the election of George Bush. IN FLorida alone, he took over 90,000 votes. And Gore lost by under 600.
Still, there is truth to his argument that the differences between the republicans and the Democratic party are not great. As the progressive candidates have been eliminated from the primary race, (with Kucinich barely eking out one, two or three percentage showings in most states) we are faced with fairly equivalent choices between two centrist candidates. While the bush propaganda team tries to characterize Kerry as a liberal, he looks awfully "inside-the-beltway" to me.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an ABB (anyone but Bush) person, but I really would prefer to see a president who I am enthusiastic about electing rather than one who I am settling for as a replacement for the worst evil of Bush.
There's one other consideration that Nader is suggesting-- that he'll hurt Bush more than he will the democrats. At first hearing, I ignored this argument. But upon reflection, he may be right. I can't imagine a self-respecting green party member who has seen the catastrophic devastation Rove, Bush and their sycophants have perpetrated upon our nation and this planet supporting Ralph Nader, at the risk of re-electing George Bush. I can't imagine any democrat supporting Nader.
But there may be a good number of Republicans who are disgusted enough not to vote for Bush to cast a protest vote, who don't want to vote for the Democrat candidate. That's where Nader might come in as the spoiler for Republicans. Of course, if he doesn't run, then those disgruntled Republicans-- and I keep hearing from more and more of them-- will have to cast their vote for the democratic candidate to express their dis-satisfaction. A recent poll showed that 30% of Republicans are either angry or dis-satisfied with Bush, so we could be talking about significant numbers. If he takes that route, then his positions will have to be defined so he lures Republicans rather than progressives. We'll have to wait to see how that pans out.
The sad thing is, there is a lot of truth in what Nader says about the lack of differences between the two parties. And we really do need a viable way to allow third party candidates to enter elections. But before it can really be a safe, healthy thing for this nation, we need to institute, preferably at a national level, a change in the election process so we have instant run-off elections. That way, when you vote, you list your first, second and third choice candidates. If no single candidate gets 50% of the vote plus one, the candidate with the least number of votes, or the candidates with less than a certain percentage of votes is/are removed from the ballot count. If that candidate was your first choice, then your ballot is re-entered for your second choice candidate.
The beauty of instant run-off elections is it allows a healthy diversity in elections. You get to vote for your real first choice, from your heart, not the miserable compromise you settle for.
In the last presidential election, my guess is that both Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader would have had much stronger percentages of the vote on the first round. Then, in the instant run-offs, they'd have been pulled out of the count, and Gore would have creamed Bush. Meanwhile, the extent of voter dis-satisfaction would have been registered and the third parties would have built a track record of robust minority support.
Nader should be putting all his efforts into pushing for instant run-off elections, maybe even negotiating with the other two parties to get out of the race if they agree to support them. Meanwhile, his theory that his candidacy will attract more Republicans than Democrats and Greens is too risky for me.
Ralph, don't run.
Or, could he be doing this because he is getting money from some slimy Texas right winger, or one of the same billionaires who channel hundreds of millions into the right wing neocon think tanks?
It hurts to think these possibilities because Nader was such a good guy, perhaps even a heroic figure, for decades. But he threw that away with his 2000 campaign, which undoubtedly insured the election of George Bush. IN FLorida alone, he took over 90,000 votes. And Gore lost by under 600.
Still, there is truth to his argument that the differences between the republicans and the Democratic party are not great. As the progressive candidates have been eliminated from the primary race, (with Kucinich barely eking out one, two or three percentage showings in most states) we are faced with fairly equivalent choices between two centrist candidates. While the bush propaganda team tries to characterize Kerry as a liberal, he looks awfully "inside-the-beltway" to me.
Don't get me wrong. I'm an ABB (anyone but Bush) person, but I really would prefer to see a president who I am enthusiastic about electing rather than one who I am settling for as a replacement for the worst evil of Bush.
There's one other consideration that Nader is suggesting-- that he'll hurt Bush more than he will the democrats. At first hearing, I ignored this argument. But upon reflection, he may be right. I can't imagine a self-respecting green party member who has seen the catastrophic devastation Rove, Bush and their sycophants have perpetrated upon our nation and this planet supporting Ralph Nader, at the risk of re-electing George Bush. I can't imagine any democrat supporting Nader.
But there may be a good number of Republicans who are disgusted enough not to vote for Bush to cast a protest vote, who don't want to vote for the Democrat candidate. That's where Nader might come in as the spoiler for Republicans. Of course, if he doesn't run, then those disgruntled Republicans-- and I keep hearing from more and more of them-- will have to cast their vote for the democratic candidate to express their dis-satisfaction. A recent poll showed that 30% of Republicans are either angry or dis-satisfied with Bush, so we could be talking about significant numbers. If he takes that route, then his positions will have to be defined so he lures Republicans rather than progressives. We'll have to wait to see how that pans out.
The sad thing is, there is a lot of truth in what Nader says about the lack of differences between the two parties. And we really do need a viable way to allow third party candidates to enter elections. But before it can really be a safe, healthy thing for this nation, we need to institute, preferably at a national level, a change in the election process so we have instant run-off elections. That way, when you vote, you list your first, second and third choice candidates. If no single candidate gets 50% of the vote plus one, the candidate with the least number of votes, or the candidates with less than a certain percentage of votes is/are removed from the ballot count. If that candidate was your first choice, then your ballot is re-entered for your second choice candidate.
The beauty of instant run-off elections is it allows a healthy diversity in elections. You get to vote for your real first choice, from your heart, not the miserable compromise you settle for.
In the last presidential election, my guess is that both Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader would have had much stronger percentages of the vote on the first round. Then, in the instant run-offs, they'd have been pulled out of the count, and Gore would have creamed Bush. Meanwhile, the extent of voter dis-satisfaction would have been registered and the third parties would have built a track record of robust minority support.
Nader should be putting all his efforts into pushing for instant run-off elections, maybe even negotiating with the other two parties to get out of the race if they agree to support them. Meanwhile, his theory that his candidacy will attract more Republicans than Democrats and Greens is too risky for me.
Ralph, don't run.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.