If the system instated instant run-off voting this wouldn't be an issue. You could vote for Nader AND the Dems at the same time in the more-than-likely case that Nader doesn't get majority.
Read this website to understand what instant run off voting is. It's too good to be true and the fact that it hasn't been brought into action says that the gov't thinks the average voter is either too dumb to understand how it works or that they want you to keep voting democrat because they're really the same as the republicans.

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

I think Nader is running this year solely because he's an arrogant moron. But I do think much is different between now and 2000 & that Nader's supporters will be primarily the truly disenchanted who wouldn't vote for any mainstream candidate... and of course Howard Dean is going to be spending his time courting those folks.

Of course, when the issue comes down to fifty votes or so, it don't take much to fuck things up. Nader should certainly have stayed out. Then again, if Nader's running inspires tmidgett and a few others to get active, maybe it's a good thing.

The days where Ralph Nader can cause any political mischief are gone.

I am more concerned about Republican party hacks doing what they did in 2000 (e.g., using intimidation to deny black voters physical access to the polls in Florida; destroying ballots from black precincts).

I am concerned that the Republicans will be emboldened to act in an even more jackbooted manner because nobody stood up to these guys. Nobody held them accountable for their thuggery.

Obviously, access to the polls is a fundamental American right, and freedom from fear of physical harm is a basic human right, so here's my idea: Send the Nation of Islam to "monitor" polling stations in black precincts in Florida and other black precincts in key states. We'll see if any Republicans show up and try to close the polls early or say that the precinct has "run out" of ballots.

I've voted third party (or not for a Dem. or a Rep.) since I've been able to vote. The issue is one that was a founding tenet of Nader's campaign - the two current parties are merely as different as automatic and manual transmission vehicles. Both appeal to different consumers, both are petroleum-based vehicles.

Nader wants to be a hydrogen car, or more realistically, a hybrid. He has very solid reasonings for this, that make sense if you have the luxury of thinking outside of the current structure. Bring a third viable option to the forefront, with equal footing and status (given the fullness of time).

Unfortunately, this year we have no such luxury. Stakes are different, and high. The issues boil down to this for me - it's not about the type of fuel if the vehicle is going in the wrong direction. Or driving drunk, on the wrong side of the road with night-blindness.

So my perspective for the upcoming election is to vote to get the car back pointed straight. Because times feel critical, moreso than ever.

Plus, as nicely pointed out earlier in this thread, Nader is now running on pure hubris. If his platform was still entrenched with the Green Party (of which I am not a member and don't plan on becoming), I might have a case for more self-argument about not voting in that direction.

But not much more.

Nader has argued that the current two-party system is like a cancer on this country. Which is an appropriate analogy. But, as this writer points out:

The problem in the year 2004 is that the body politic is also suffering from multiple wounds and blunt force trauma, we're in the emergency room and it's a damn mess and there's blood everywhere and the doctors are working furiously but it's anybody's guess how things are gonna turn out. We are in triage, and we have to deal with the immediate problems, or the long-term ones won't matter anyway.

[note - I don't agree with every post I read on-line, nor every opinion presented in traditional media, but I did think that this was a succinct categorization.]

I was pissed off when I first heard of Nader running.

After giving it some thought, I believe it's a good thing and here's why:

Nader will be insignificant as an actual candidate in the election, but as a potential 'spoiler' the media won't be able to ignore him completely.

Nader's impetus is to ask the questions and raise the issues via the media that the media itself and other candidates will not raise. Let's face it - the 'big picture' issues and real concerns that should be on the minds of all voters will be ignored by the candidates and media, unless a highly visible figure or pundit can raise the issues.

Nader's role as a candidate is to raise these questions within the media and hopefully force the media and candidates to deal with these questions and issues. As Nader goes ignored by the media as a commentator or pundit - the only way he can achieve exposure is to run as the 'crazy-ass' or 'spoiler' candidate.

I don't think he actually believes anyone would vote for him this time around, but he is not going to allow this election to stagnate around bullshit non-issues like 'electability' and 'charisma/appearance'.

there's a very odd agreement he made w/the dems

he's not going to criticize the democratic nominee....

he has acknowledged this pact

weird

i don't know, it's confusing. maybe he has some kind of crazy master plan none of us could possibly understand.

tmidgett wrote:there's a very odd agreement he made w/the dems

he's not going to criticize the democratic nominee....

he has acknowledged this pact

weird

i don't know, it's confusing. maybe he has some kind of crazy master plan none of us could possibly understand.

The thought has crossed my mind that Nader might be going public so he can keep hammering on (all of) the Bush/Administration/Republican's Achilles Heels.

The aforementioned "agreement" makes that thought seem even more plausible, ie: pull another Howard Dean, but this time without significant paper trail to the Dems.

Interesting.

that whole "agreement" thing sounds good. it must be speicifically that he won't shit-talk the actual candidate, because he was sure shit-talking the democratic party on the news this morning. NBC4 had a live interview with him on the 7:00 news here. a couple interesting 'facts' based on what he said this morning.

1) he believes he is going to win the election
2) he believes he will take more votes away from the republican party than the democratic

i really do hope he's in there with a secret agenda to look like a nut but then take votes away from bush. that would be great. and his rhetoric about how the democratic and republican parties are the same party because they're all corpora-ma-tized and how washington has been bought and sold, all that stuff is very appealing. he should be able to get a lot of votes from the disenfranchised. the folks who, in this election anyways, should be voting for kerry or edwards, to get rid of bush. but i'll stop talking about it. according to nader, i'm wasting my time even thinking about this stuff, since he's gonna win the election.

the thing i always wanted to know, and still want to know, about nader is:

why the hell should HE be president?

you know? what are his qualifications? why should i think he has the slightest clue about how to handle congress? or national crisis? or international crisis? or that he has detailed ideas about how to implement any of his superficially appealing proposals?

i have tried to answer this question, and all i can find is a bunch of b.s. telling me things i already know about corporate america etc. etc.

a common knock on someone like kerry is that he has been grooming himself for the presidency for his entire life. is this...necessarily a bad thing? it's a big job! the biggest job! gwb went into politics as an afterthought--should i be comforted by that?

tmidgett wrote:what are his qualifications? why should i think he has the slightest clue about how to handle congress? or national crisis? or international crisis? or that he has detailed ideas about how to implement any of his superficially appealing proposals?

I saw Nader speak in Seattle for the 2000 campaign. I was pretty excited about his candidacy until I saw him speak: he was dull, ineloquent and uninspiring. Any excitement I had was drained by my realization that he would make a lousy president.

Regarding his possibly ulterior motives for running: someone else mentioned Nader's "corporate pornography" thing... I still have no idea what he's talking about, does anyone else? And why mention pornography at all if not to turn some reactionary heads on the right?